TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Sexual deviants
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Sexual deviants

At what point does a sexual inclination turn into a mental disorder? Does it ever?

As recently as the early twentieth century, homosexuality was considered a mental illness by psychologists, but this judgment was reversed in the 1960s -- rightly, I think. Gays ought to be accepted like anyone else, and gradually they are being accepted.

But then there are some sexual inclinations that I can't help but see as disordered, like zoophilia -- "zoosexuality" is what its practitioners call it -- and ephebophilia and pedophilia as championed by NAMBLA. Why do I draw this line? I like to think that it's about consent: consent is what makes the two forms of sexuality I approve (adult straight and gay) different from the two that disgust me (zoophilia and pedophilia). This is the prevailing theory among social libertarians like me: consent is all that matters, and neither sub-18-year humans nor animals can "consent" in the proper sense of the term.

But it's also pretty hard to define "consent" in such a way that it excludes anyone who is not an adult human being, especially since it seems very clear that both children and animals can consent to all sorts of other things. Kids consent to doing chores. Dogs consent to being petted. And so on.

Maybe the issue is "informed" consent, then. But that seems shaky as well. How much information is enough? Each day probably thousands of people consent to sex acts whose ramifications they don't know, either because they don't want to know or they simply can't know because of life's unpredictability. And if all both parties want is the pleasure of the moment, how important is the "informed" part of the consent as long as nobody gets harmed in the end?

Then we might try saying that sex acts between kids and adults result infallibly in harm to the kids. This would certainly serve as a good premise in an argument against pedophilia-promoters, but the empiricist in me cautions against making such absolute generalizations, even if my feelings say very strongly that something wrong has been done.

I find that if I really think about these terms, they end up so muddy that I'm left condemning certain things based on little more than a "disgust reaction." I'm fine with two men or two women fucking each other, but I just really don't like the idea of adults going around fucking animals or kids, even if the animals or kids "appear" to consent to it, enjoy it, and not to be harmed by it. And I think that such things should be illegal, and the people who do them shunned by everybody else. Ostensibly I have a notion -- that animals and kids can't really consent -- to justify this. But I wonder how well-formed my justification really is. How much of our theories about sexual morality and deviance are founded on nothing more than what we happen to find disgusting?

consentual heterosexual vaginal intercourse in the missionary position.

GOD I'M SICK AND TWISTED

8 year olds dude.

Re: Sexual deviants

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles How much of our theories about sexual morality and deviance are founded on nothing more than what we happen to find disgusting?

I don't really think that anything so complex as human sexuality is founded upon nothing but arbitrary feelings towards the matter. There is an extensive history of our consideration for what, exactly, is taboo and it has changed throughout time as often as it changes throughout place.

I believe the crux of it lies in the fact that human beings would be nowhere near as prolific as species if the act of reproduction were not a supremely pleasurable one to us - and within that dynamic lies a multitude of psychological complexes associated with our natural functions as well as those which society has developed as a whole or within an individual.

Further, I think that an important question that should always be asked in this discussion is - what is natural?

If "natural" means scarce more than whatever might come natural to us then I think that we're along the correct road toward understanding the very nature[!!!] of our sexuality.

freakin hormones man...

Re: Sexual deviants

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles At what point does a sexual inclination turn into a mental disorder? Does it ever? As recently as the early twentieth century, homosexuality was considered a mental illness by psychologists, but this judgment was reversed in the 1960s -- rightly, I think. Gays ought to be accepted like anyone else, and gradually they are being accepted. But then there are some sexual inclinations that I can't help but see as disordered, like zoophilia -- "zoosexuality" is what its practitioners call it -- and ephebophilia and pedophilia as championed by NAMBLA. Why do I draw this line? I like to think that it's about consent: consent is what makes the two forms of sexuality I approve (adult straight and gay) different from the two that disgust me (zoophilia and pedophilia). This is the prevailing theory among social libertarians like me: consent is all that matters, and neither sub-18-year humans nor animals can "consent" in the proper sense of the term. But it's also pretty hard to define "consent" in such a way that it excludes anyone who is not an adult human being, especially since it seems very clear that both children and animals can consent to all sorts of other things. Kids consent to doing chores. Dogs consent to being petted. And so on. Maybe the issue is "informed" consent, then. But that seems shaky as well. How much information is enough? Each day probably thousands of people consent to sex acts whose ramifications they don't know, either because they don't want to know or they simply can't know because of life's unpredictability. And if all both parties want is the pleasure of the moment, how important is the "informed" part of the consent as long as nobody gets harmed in the end? Then we might try saying that sex acts between kids and adults result infallibly in harm to the kids. This would certainly serve as a good premise in an argument against pedophilia-promoters, but the empiricist in me cautions against making such absolute generalizations, even if my feelings say very strongly that something wrong has been done. I find that if I really think about these terms, they end up so muddy that I'm left condemning certain things based on little more than a "disgust reaction." I'm fine with two men or two women fucking each other, but I just really don't like the idea of adults going around fucking animals or kids, even if the animals or kids "appear" to consent to it, enjoy it, and not to be harmed by it. And I think that such things should be illegal, and the people who do them shunned by everybody else. Ostensibly I have a notion -- that animals and kids can't really consent -- to justify this. But I wonder how well-formed my justification really is. How much of our theories about sexual morality and deviance are founded on nothing more than what we happen to find disgusting?

DUDE, you gotta be +18 and you gotta be human. if you are +18 and are human, fair game. otherwise, you're fucking nasty

Re: Re: Sexual deviants

quote:

Originally posted by tubularbills DUDE, you gotta be +18 and you gotta be human. if you are +18 and are human, fair game. otherwise, you're fucking nasty

hmm.

Is this a roll call thread?

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Is this a roll call thread?

there was 3 in the cor and the jennypie said roll over, roll over ?

Why 18? I started younger as do most people these days, and 16 is legal here.

i was listening to bubba the love sponge in the summer, and this subject came up (about the animals anyway)

he was trying get a point across that if youa re not corralling or chaining up the (lets just say) dog for instance, and some nasty girl decides to fellate the dog, does that make it animal cruelty?
now he did say, that yes, it is illegal, and it is nasty, however is it wrong? i mean look at it this way, some girl kidnaps you and decides to blow you...would you feel like you are being violated?

on the other side of the spectrum, i have never seen a bestiality video where the girl doing whatever is even remotely half decent looking, i have only seen one mind you, but still she was a pig.

this is not my opinion, just someones else's taken out of context :P

Re: Re: Re: Sexual deviants

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On hmm.

It's in the law so it must be right.

ahhh finally a thought provoking thread. +1

Re: Sexual deviants

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles At what point does a sexual inclination turn into a mental disorder? Does it ever? As recently as the early twentieth century, homosexuality was considered a mental illness by psychologists, but this judgment was reversed in the 1960s -- rightly, I think. Gays ought to be accepted like anyone else, and gradually they are being accepted. But then there are some sexual inclinations that I can't help but see as disordered, like zoophilia -- "zoosexuality" is what its practitioners call it -- and ephebophilia and pedophilia as championed by NAMBLA. Why do I draw this line? I like to think that it's about consent: consent is what makes the two forms of sexuality I approve (adult straight and gay) different from the two that disgust me (zoophilia and pedophilia). This is the prevailing theory among social libertarians like me: consent is all that matters, and neither sub-18-year humans nor animals can "consent" in the proper sense of the term. But it's also pretty hard to define "consent" in such a way that it excludes anyone who is not an adult human being, especially since it seems very clear that both children and animals can consent to all sorts of other things. Kids consent to doing chores. Dogs consent to being petted. And so on. Maybe the issue is "informed" consent, then. But that seems shaky as well. How much information is enough? Each day probably thousands of people consent to sex acts whose ramifications they don't know, either because they don't want to know or they simply can't know because of life's unpredictability. And if all both parties want is the pleasure of the moment, how important is the "informed" part of the consent as long as nobody gets harmed in the end? Then we might try saying that sex acts between kids and adults result infallibly in harm to the kids. This would certainly serve as a good premise in an argument against pedophilia-promoters, but the empiricist in me cautions against making such absolute generalizations, even if my feelings say very strongly that something wrong has been done. I find that if I really think about these terms, they end up so muddy that I'm left condemning certain things based on little more than a "disgust reaction." I'm fine with two men or two women fucking each other, but I just really don't like the idea of adults going around fucking animals or kids, even if the animals or kids "appear" to consent to it, enjoy it, and not to be harmed by it. And I think that such things should be illegal, and the people who do them shunned by everybody else. Ostensibly I have a notion -- that animals and kids can't really consent -- to justify this. But I wonder how well-formed my justification really is. How much of our theories about sexual morality and deviance are founded on nothing more than what we happen to find disgusting?

I think you have a few points, I particularly agree with the part relating to consent, and furthermore I think that anyone who doesn't agree with this qualifies as some form of deviant.

What I do not agree with, however, is that anyone sub 18 cannot consent. In the UK the law states that the age of consent is 16. In some European countries the age is less, as long as the partner is within a certain number of years. For example: a girl of 14 can consent to sex with a boy of up to 16, or something along those lines.

I think there has to be an age of consent, but merely as a guide. If in some states (or all - I don't know how it works) the age of consent is 18, does this mean a boy or girl of 17 years and 364 days magically become capable of making an informed decision at the stroke of midnight? Of course not. Therefore the age of consent will always, and should have always been used and enforced where it was not considered appropriately enough in the first place.

Common sense should prevail here, and it's up to responsible senior members of a community to step in only if necessary.

read the bible, it is all covered in there.

Re: Re: Sexual deviants

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister I think you have a few points, I particularly agree with the part relating to consent, and furthermore I think that anyone who doesn't agree with this qualifies as some form of deviant.

Maybe you should second-guess exactly what it means to be a "deviant".

If a deviant is anyone who deviates from the "normal" or expected course when it comes to what attracts them or what gives them pleasure, then I think most everyone is a deviant in some way and those who express no deviation whatsoever are in fact the most deviant.

quote:

What I do not agree with, however, is that anyone sub 18 cannot consent. In the UK the law states that the age of consent is 16. In some European countries the age is less, as long as the partner is within a certain number of years. For example: a girl of 14 can consent to sex with a boy of up to 16, or something along those lines. I think there has to be an age of consent, but merely as a guide. If in some states (or all - I don't know how it works) the age of consent is 18, does this mean a boy or girl of 17 years and 364 days magically become capable of making an informed decision at the stroke of midnight? Of course not. Therefore the age of consent will always, and should have always been used and enforced where it was not considered appropriately enough in the first place.

By that logic, anyone ready at the age of...hmm, 12? Could justifiably be ready, no? Some people mature much faster than others just as, as far as I am concerned, some never fully mature sexually at all - if it's more a question of mental preparation than mere glandular, then is not the extreme subjection crystal clear?

quote:

Common sense should prevail here, and it's up to responsible senior members of a community to step in only if necessary.

What you take in the name of "common sense" is rarely sensible by any universal standards.

I am not saying that every violent and bizarre sexual fetish out there should be accepted just because hey, everyone's different - I am saying that there is far more to understand than what is "normal"/consentual/legal. And that people only "consent" to things that are supported socially - often regardless of their otherwise very personal feelings, pressure constitutes a very large number of decisions as per standards established by "common" thought, MTV, magazines, etc. Is this right?

Things like self-control, responsibility and individuality are, more often than not, mere illusions. With this in mind, respect for consent seems an impossibility as well.

This is all very interesting, but the real question is this:

Is it wrong to have sex with a brother or sister if you use a condom and don't plan on pro-creating?

Discuss.

Wrong? What is this 'wrong' you speak of?

I say have as many children with your cousins/siblings/parents as possible. Then interbreed the children together. Eventually their teeth will become so small throughout the generations, they won't be able to eat food effectively, thereby resolving the problem all on its own. See, all is well in the Universe.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Wrong? What is this 'wrong' you speak of? I say have as many children with your cousins/siblings/parents as possible. Then interbreed the children together. Eventually their teeth will become so small throughout the generations, they won't be able to eat food effectively, thereby resolving the problem all on its own. See, all is well in the Universe.

I'm not interested in having kids.

oh shit i said too much

You's a sick, sick man. You thinkin' you can waltz on into MY barn, roll around in MY hay, and put YOUR seed in MY daughter's belly! Well you got another thing comin', varmint!

HEY GUYS WHATS UP!

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Well you got another thing comin',

Fine by me.

When it comes to bestiality, assuming that because the animal is erect doesnt necessarily mean that hes enjoying it. I know that with just a little friction i can produce an erection, but it doesnt mean i want it. So believing that an animal is enjoying the sex, is anthropomorphizing. I just think we cant really assume that animals have the same human emotions as us, even when it comes to sex.

quote:

Originally posted by nutmegger When it comes to bestiality, assuming that because the animal is erect doesnt necessarily mean that hes enjoying it. I know that with just a little friction i can produce an erection, but it doesnt mean i want it. So believing that an animal is enjoying the sex, is anthropomorphizing. I just think we cant really assume that animals have the same human emotions as us, even when it comes to sex.

verrrrrry true

though i like to act like an animal when i have sex

is that beastiality?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.