Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign"

Brett Robertson (BrettMan35@webtv.net)
Mon, 24 May 1999 15:44:07 -0500 (EST)

What?! Since when are disabled folks unable to have a mate? You think everyone is so heartlessly shallow that they can't see past an exterior pair of crutches or a wheel chair? They are handicapped, not dead! And even if they were a corpse, the possibility of carnal relations has not ended. (ie. the cow scenario) Yeesh.

ME:The example which involved a disabled child was NOT an example about disability... it was an example about MOTHERS-- who (by account) can imagine situations in which sex is something they can accept for their child (either directly or indirectly). The same could be said for
"daughters" (are there situations in which fathers might NOT want their
daughters involved in certain sexual relationships [of course there are]: And conversely, there are situations in which they could rationalize such relationships).

yadda yadda... If a certain act or thought brings mutual or individual satisfaction/pleasure without bringing harm to anyone, how can it be judged as having the quality of 'bad', 'immoral', or 'perverse'?

ME: By your definition, what DOES bring "harm" might be considered perverse...?

If a so-called perversion hurts someone else (pedophila, for instance), then it is *not* a perversion, but a crime.

ME: ...except that you define it as a *crime*. So I must ask: How do you define what "hurts" someone? If it is defined by the term
"criminal"?: Then how do you define "criminal" (an act which hurts
someone)? Is there NOT a standard (perversion/ harm) upon which codes of criminal behavior are based? Are they then arbitrary (If so, why would we abide by them)?

Anything else is just a choice of behavior, or a preference. Furthermore, anyone who says otherwise is just presuming they are allowed to dictate what good taste or morality is. And frankly, all morality is horse shit.

ME: *Morality* is right action. Eating hot coals may be "morally" wrong because the standards for what is "right" includes "not hurting oneself" (but this is based on obvious results, at least in this example, by which what is moral is also OBVIOUSLY superior to causing oneself pain and death [and causing oneself pain and death would not a be a good survival strategy, such that a "standard" which suggests such action would not be much of a moral *standard*]).

It is a good definition.
No, it's not. Any definition of "sexual perversion" is a bad one.

ME: If you have decided that you will accept no definition, then...

Oh, and btw: Is anything *imagined*, by your definition, perverted? Or does it have to be an actual *act* that condemns you?

ME: I make no distinction between what is imagined and what is actual... that is, the same logic applies to what is imaginable that applies to what is actual (thus what is "imagined" is that which COULD be actual). On the other hand, what is *fantasized* is, by nature, not possible (and is founded upon a contradiction-- ie. "pink unicorns" as a fantasized element, and so one which is KNOWN to be non-actual-- or perhaps a "perversion" of the idea of "horse"). What is *fantasized* IS by definition *perverse* (and if made actual would, by this definition, seek to cause harm to what is actual [in this case, "horse"] so as to institute an un-natural element into reality whose sole purpose is the satisfaction of the person who has fantasized it such).

~kjs

Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay ...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to view great deals!:
http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876