Subj : Joseph Voigt: Pervert
To   : CONSTANCE RAWLEY
From : Curtis Johnson
Date : Thu Nov 02 2000 10:32 pm

 -=> Quoting CONSTANCE RAWLEY to JOSEPH VOIGT <=-

 CR> Joseph Voigt is a pervert.
  
 CR>  Deviant means turned away from an accepted norm. Perverse means
 CR>  turned away from what is right or good.
 
 JV> And you were applying -pervert- in a sexual context...
 CR> 
 CR> That's correct, Joseph. To pervert something is to divert it to a
 CR> wrong end or purpose. Shoving a fist or your penis up someone's
 CR> rear end is a perversion.

	It directly follows then, that you consider that the giving of 
mutual pleasure, bonding through intimacy, etc. is not a purpose of sex.
Constance, I feel sorry for you.
	Meanwhile, do please inform us as to what you think the "end
or purpose" of sex.  Without this important knowledge which only you
can impart, we would be forever condemned to know whether or not
we are perverts according to the standard of Constance Rawley. 

 JV> It is well within the norm.
 CR> 
 CR> Where do you get your statistics? Prove that such is the norm.
 CR> Until you do, I assert that such behavior is deviant and you are
 CR> telling tales.

	While I don't know offhand about fisting, digital penetration 
(aka `fingerbanging') has probably been practiced by the majority of
the sexually active population.  "Fisting" would differ only in degree,
not in kind.

	You called Joseph a pervert for saying much the same thing.
Come on, Constance, call me a pervert.  Please.  It turns me on!
 
 JV> Because you cannot accept such behavior doesn't make one a pervert.
 CR> 
 CR> A pervert is one who has been corrupted, turned away from what's good
 CR> or true or morally right. IMO, "pervert" is justly applied to someone
 CR> who teaches children that sodomy and fisting is acceptable behavior.
 
 JV>> A pervert is one who ENGAGES in deviant sexual behavior.
 CR> 
 CR> That too.

	Constance, you have applied two quite distinct standards about
what is a "pervert" and this can only lead to utter confusion in your
mind and your correspondents (if indeed such confusion hasn't happened
already).
	Is a "pervert" 
		1) Someone "turned away from what is right or good,"
"been corrupted, turned away from what's good or true or morally right?
Well, read a Socratic dialogue or two and you'll find out how difficult
it is to define `what's good or true or morally right"!  Leaving that
aside, this definition has too wide an application.  Presumably civility 
in a philosophical echo would be something "right or good."  If you abide 
by this definition, then I'm quite afraid that you may be vulnerable to 
the charge that you may yourself be a pervert.  Indeed, since it's likely 
that just about everyone has at sometime or another has "turned away from 
what is right or good," a definition which would label the entire human 
race as perverts would seem to have something wrong with it.
		2) Someone "who ENGAGES in deviant sexual behavior,"
"deviant" being defined by you as "turned away from an accepted norm."
Now, an "accepted norm" may not be the same as "right or good."  I'm
sure you can supply your own examples, and then see for yourself how
your two definitions potentially conflict.  One interesting example
I'd like to supply is that of people who are celibate for religious
reasons.  This is certainly outside the statistical norm, and if my
guess is right that you are Protestant, then it isn't accepted by
you either.   But I rather suspect that RCC folks would vehemently
reject your labeling of priests and nuns as perverts.

	AAMOF, I have two anthologies of essays by professional
philosophers (_The Philosophy of Sex_ and _Philosophy and Sex_), and
there are three or five essays on whether perversity is a meaningful
concept at all in relation to sex, and if so, just what that concept
might be.
	If you don't want to explore this further, I'll have to assume
that you not really at all interested in talking philosophy, but wish
to engaged in name-calling. 	
 
 JV> Now, are you going to call me a PERVERT again?
 CR> 
 CR> Why? Is there something _bad_ about calling you a pervert?

	_Slang and Euphemism_, Richard A. Spears, notes that "pervert"
is "Usually considered a rude epithet."  Now, I don't know whether 
you'd consider calling people rude epithets to be "hate-mongering" if 
*you* do it, but it certainly lops the legs off any complaints you may 
make about civility.




--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]
 * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000)

.