What Makes an Act Sexually Perverse

UWI Maurice Layne 620008086LecturerSimeon Mohansingh. CoursePhilosophy of turn on and Love. What makes an subprogram internally perverse? In a recent discussion, the rout of perversion was elevated the doubt was exacted what makes an individual a pervert, or what chassiss of acts could be considered contrary? The retorts standard were numerous to say the least. My first response was paedophilia which I relieve hold firm to what follows argon a few of the opposite answers zooerastia Homo versedity Necrophilia Oral sex (which was hotly debated) and Sexual sado-masochism.The attend could continue but let us use this list and ask the question in a nonher air what makes these acts versedly perverse? What do we mean when we say some(a)thing is sexually perverse? Is it divergence from what is sexually essential or a de naval divisioning from what is considered standard cleanity? If so, what is pictorial? Who defines morality? The question of sexual perversion is of no little importance, for a proceed the question raises a number of interesting philosophical issues. to a greater extentover, the issue is non completely of academic interest.M some(prenominal) have been, and many still ar, stigmatised by the label sexual pervert. For them the issue of whether their actions justify this epithet whitethorn have a good effect on their lives. Our purposes here are to simply attempt an answer to the question. We should note, at the start, that the archetype of sexual perversion is not a primary descriptive concept. To call some whizz a pervert is not want calling them a Doctor or a Teacher. It is to denigrate their moral status in some substance. Sexual perversion, in that locationfore, is a concept, part of whose confine is to carry a disconfirming moral evaluation.The Oxford Dictionaries defines the verb pervert as to substitute (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or turpitude of what was first inte nded or to lead (some single) away from what is considered right, natural, or satisfactory and it defines the noun pervert as a psyche whose sexual behaviour is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable. (pervert. Oxford Dictionaries. 2010) Since sexual perversion is a virtuously negative concept, it might be thought that bingle could define it simply as a morally price sexual act.In a similar way, wiz might attempt a interpretation of murder as a morally wrong gentleman killing. This, however, will not do. The simple ground is that on that point are many morally wrong sexual acts of a in truth straight kind which, all can agree, are not perversions. For example, an ordinary sexual act may be done by one of the partners in a way that is unkind, deceitful, inconsiderate or cruel, and so morally wrong. Rape and adultery may be examples of this. One would not, on this note, want to call such(prenominal) acts perversions. Though there are some persons who do view louse up as a per version. ) One of the things that makes it rocky to commove a grip on the concept of perversion (its intension) is that there is strong disagreement even over its extension. People disagree, for example, over whether homosexuality and masturbation are perversions. Still, let us start with a give ear at the extension of the concept. Genital sexual activity is of many kinds. The side by side(p) is a list of categories these are not necessarily exclusive no doubt they are not exhaustive either.I give the acts in what seems (to me) to be roughly decreasing in order of naturalness (in traditional terms). straightaway intercourse in the missionary position (straight sex). Heterosexual intercourse in other positions. Oral sex (cunnilingus, fellatio). Masturbation. Homosexuality. Group sex. Anal sex (buggery, sodomy), straight or homosexual. Voyeurism. Exhibitionism. Frotteurism. Sexual sadism and/or masochism. Paedophilia. Fetishism. Transvestism. Zoophilia (bestiality). Urophilia Necrophilia. Coprophilia.We can be riskless in saying that it is highly unlikely that any two slew would produce exactly the same ordering, my assumption is that there would be customary agreement on the rough ordering, at least as to whether something was close together(p) the top, middle or end. Where perversion begins on the list is much more(prenominal) contentious, however. Sexual conservatives often draw the line later on the first instance. More open minded people might draw the line after say group sex. The items listed after group sex may get in on aroundly everyones list.So what should list as a perversion, and why? Let us start with what is perhaps the best cognise fib of perversion in the contemporary philosophical literature, that of Nagel. I start with it, not because it is close to the truth (I think that it is a long way from this), but because it illustrates clearly a central shortcoming that will agree recurring. Nagel proposes that sexual interactions i n which each person responds with sexual stimulus to noticing the sexual stimulus of the other person exhibit the psychology that is natural to humanity sexuality.In such an encounter, each person becomes aware of himself or herself and the other person as both the subject and the object of their joint sexual experiences. wayward sexual encounters or events would be those in which this mutual recognition of arousal is absent, and in which a person remains fully a subject of the sexual experience or fully an object. Perversion, then, is a departure from or a truncation of a psychologically complete pattern of arousal and consciousness. (Soble and king 2008, 13) It is difficult to do full justice to Nagels sum up in a few words.But for present purposes, lets commit the next will suffice. According to Nagel, a sexual act is not perverted when it reads two (or maybe more) people each is sexually aflame(p) by the other each is sexually enkindle by the others being sexually ar oused each is sexually aroused by the others being sexually aroused by the others being sexually aroused and maybe so on ad infinitum. Any other sexual act is perverted. Now, one problem with Nagels account is that it draws the line in a very strange place.Homosexuality, sadomasochism and paedophilia may all be non-perverted if done in the right way whilst masturbation, rape and even straight sex of a very bored kind e. g. , by a prostitute, or an uptown wife who during the act of relation back is thinking of travelling to Manhattan for black Friday as perverted. Granted, any division is vent to be contentious, but this classification is just too counter-intuitive no one (unless in the grip of Nagels account) would divide things up in this way?The more important failing of Nagels account is that if this is what sexual perversion is, there is absolutely no reason why perversion should be a morally loaded concept. There is nothing in itself immoral closely being aroused by someone who is not them self aroused. by chance it is more exciting, more complete, or fulfilling, if they are but it is hardly wrong if they are not. A more plausible and, in fact, more parkland account of perversion is that perverted acts are those that are supernatural. This is not a bad start, but it does not get us very cold until we have said what natural is to be taken to mean here.For the notion of naturalness is a very slippery one indeed. What, then, is the natural in this background? Natural sexual acts, to provide merely a big definition, are those acts that either flow naturally from human sexual nature, or at least do not frustrate or neutralize sexual tendencies that flow naturally from human sexual desire. (Soble and Power 2008, 11) An lucid mite is that what is natural is what happens in nature. But such a suggestion would rob the notion of perversion of all content. People are, after all, part of nature. Hence, nothing they do is unnatural in this sense.A fortior i there would be no perversions. It makes a bit more sense to suppose that the natural is what happens in non human nature. This would draw the line in a very mirthful place, however. It makes paedophilia, masturbation, homosexuality, and bestiality (or at least intercourse with a different species) natural, turn at the same time making straight sex unnatural. wedded that then one might want to redefine what straight sex equates to in non human animals. Another suggestion as to what unnatural convey here is simply unusual (abnormal) in the statistical sense. Goldman 1977) It should be tell that the frequencies of various sexual practices like, homosexuality and paedophilia vary from fellowship to society. Hence, perversion, on this account, becomes a socially relative concept. With natural interpreted in this way, the definition of perversion has two major problems. Perversion does not seem to be linked to statistics in the way it contends. If bestiality became very common, f or example, it would not release to be a perversion. There would just be more perverts around.More importantly, there is no reason why something that is unusual statistically should be morally bad merely consider heroism, having an IQ of 200 or high or being able to make love for 3. 5 hours without a break. In the context of the definition of perversion, Donald Levy takes an unnatural act to be one that denies someone a basic human good, such as life, health, control of mind or body, or the capacity to know or love (without providing some other basic human good in compensation). (Velasquez 2010, 454) This account at least has the advantage that it becomes clear why perversion is morally wrong.Its failings are rather different. According to this, virtually nothing that is traditionally counted as perversion is a perversion. None of homosexuality, buggery, sadomasochism would seem to fall into this category. Moreover, those sexual acts that involve the individual alone (masturbation , fetishism, transvestism, bestiality and necrophilia) would not seem to require the actor to deny anyone including him or herself anything. We noted a certain come up of flexibility as to what one might classify as a perversion, but this flexibility hardly extends to ruling out paradigm cases wholesale.It would seem that for Levy Paedophilia and Rape would be the scarce activities that could or would count as sexual perversion. Another suggestion, as to what natural means in the context of perversion is this. It is often said that biological processes have some percipient goal or process. What is natural is victimization the process for that function what is unnatural is using it for something else. That this suggestion is on the right lines is supported by the following considerations. We speak of things other than sexual acts as being perverted.For example, we speak of someone perverting the course of justice. In such a case, it is clear that what this amounts to is the perso n using the judicial process for something other than its proper end. Thus, perversion in full general is using something for other than its proper end as a field of fact, as stated earlier this is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb to pervert and sexual perversion, in particular, is using sex for something other than its proper end. Were doing well so farthermost right? But what exactly is the proper end of sex?A common view, most strongly represented in traditional Catholic pronouncements, has it that the function of sex is reproduction. Based upon a comparison of the sexuality of man and the sexuality of lower animals (mammals, in particular), doubting Thomas concludes that what is natural in human sexuality is the impulse to engage in heterosexual recounting. Heterosexual coitus is the mechanism designed by the Christian God to insure the economy of animal species, including humans, and hence engaging in this activity is the primary natural expression of hu man sexual nature.Further, this God designed each of the split of the human body to carry out specific functions, and on doubting Thomass view God designed the male penis to constitute sperm into the females vagina for the purpose of effecting procreation. It follows, for Aquinas that depositing the sperm elsewhere than inside a human females vagina is unnatural it is a violation of Gods design, contrary to the nature of things as open by God. For this reason alone, on Aquinass view, such activities are immoral, a grave offense to the sagacious plan of the Almighty. (Soble and Power 2008, 12) procreation here is interpreted as conception. Therefore, any sexual act that cannot issue in conception is a perversion which clearly draws the line very high up on the list. If this view is right, the orthodox Catholic church building has drawn the correct conclusions concerning masturbation and homosexuality contraception, too, makes sex perverted. But the definition also makes many so rts of straight sex perverted sex for an unimaginative male known to be infertile sex for a fair sex after menopause or a hysterectomy sex during the so called untroubled period of a womans menstrual cycle.It would appear that orthodox Catholic thinking has not been consistent in these areas, since it does not condemn such acts though some of the church fathers such as Augustine did in a roundabout way. Sexual intercourse with lower animals (bestiality), sexual activity with members of ones own sex (homosexuality), and masturbation, for Aquinas, are unnatural sexual acts and are immoral exactly for that reason. If they are committed intentionally, according to ones will, they deliberately disrupt the natural order of the world as created by God and which God commanded to be respectedIn none of these activities is there any possibility of procreation, and the sexual and other organs are used, or misused, for purposes other than that for which they were designed. Although Aquinas d oes not say so explicitly, but only hints in this direction, it follows from his philosophy of sexuality that fellatio, even when engaged in by heterosexuals, is also perverted and morally wrong. At least in those cases in which orgasm occurs by means of this act, the sperm is not being displace where it should be placed and procreation is therefore not possible.If the penis get in the vagina is the paradigmatic natural act, then any other combination of anatomical reference connections will be unnatural and hence immoral for example, the penis, mouth, or fingers incoming the anus. Note that Aquinass criterion of the natural that the sexual act must be procreative in form, and hence must involve a penis inserted into a vagina, makes no mention of human psychology. Aquinass line of thought yields an anatomical criterion of natural and perverted sex that refers only to bodily organs and what they might accomplish physiologically and to where they are, or are not, put in relation to each other. (Soble and Power 2008, 12-13) If this is the case what is the rationale for the clitoris being positioned the way it is? At any rate, any account of perversion according to which straight sex amongst a loving couple at the tender age of 60 years, who have been happily married for over 40 years, is a perversion, in my humble opinion must be wrong. It is plausible to suppose that what makes this account of perversion wrong is its identification of reproduction with conception. There is, after all, a lot more to reproduction than conception. In particular, there is gestation, birth, the rearing and pedagogics of children, and so on.And sex may have important biological functions in these areas too. To begin with, a secure family is usually reckoned to be important in the upbringing of children. And one factor making for a secure family is a happy and fulfilling sexual life between the adult partners. Hence, a function of sex could be for two people each to give the other pleasure. In this case, only those forms of sexual activity that involve just one person could be perverted. More generally, a stable and functioning society is necessary for the reproduction of people. An important role of sex might be to help people to live together and cooperate.And who knows what sexual practices might deal out that end? Without a lot more socio-biological research, it is highly unlikely near an impossibility to say what constitutes a perversion on this account in all probability very little.