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

___________________
www.misterfalconmusic.com

8 year olds dude.

___________________

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.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

freakin hormones man...

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

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.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

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.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On hmm.

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