Is perversion bad?
If so, why?
If not, why?
What would you consider perversions?
What is acceptable in terms of sex?
depends on the time and the place.
Perversion is subjective.
>durrr doesn't this JPEG make you feel uncomfortable?
That's my point. Feels. Feeling. Ally McFeel. "Perversion" is a personal expression of disgust upon exposure to a stimulus in a sexual context.
>>455981
Bad for what or whom?
For God? For me? For you? For an organisation? For some group?
>>455981
Yes because perversion is, by definition, a BAD sexual desire. Not all sexual desire is bad. Some (and by some I mean most) people consider sexual desire the same as perversion so they'd tell you that perversion is not bad. So it's a matter of definition, really. My point could be further developed into >>457470
Also:
>"What is acceptable in terms of sex?"
Fucking consently. That's all.
>>459123
I did not define by my own belief what would be a bad sexual desire so I'll already post it here.
I think when you feel like you want to rape someone, think of ways how you could cuck a friend, think of how you'd betray your wife, and so on. I don't think there's any wrong in feeling desire for having sex with a hot girl if you're married, that's natural, the problem is when you don't repress that feeling and start thinking of HOW you'd do it without letting your wife know.
>>455981
Sex acts should be acceptable if every participant has consent and is in a sound state of mind, and no other living being is hurt.
/thread
>>459131
So BDSM or people that get off on getting hurt, their sex acts are bad?
>>459145
I said 'no OTHER living being is hurt'. It is ok if the participants are cool with hurting each other.
>>459145
>and no other living being is hurt.
>no OTHER
read before replying
>>459131
but what if both are consenting but high? is it ok then?
>>459190
you consent, then get high
>asking your gf if its ever okay to put it in her when she's drunk off her ass
>>455981
Its not too bad but this anime thing has to stop. Deport all anime. Anime is basically porn. I will build a firewall to keep out all anime, and will make japan pay for it.
>>457418
>thinking child rape is wrong, is just like, your opinion man
some sexual desire is filthy, that's the end of it. go to /d/ and tell me you'd want anything to do with people who jerk off to shit like handbags made out of anime girl skins or whatever. jesus christ
there's guys who are into feet, maybe some anal play, but there are very big and very thick DO NOT CROSS lines between "harmless kink" and "horrid depravity"
Which kink is /his/ approved?
Futa master race
>>459368
>thinking child rape is wrong, is just like, your opinion man
This is just appeal to ridicule. Having a very strong subjective reaction doesn't make your opinions objective.
>some sexual desire is filthy, that's the end of it.
This is just the fallacy of proof by assertion. I can say "perversion isn't real, and that's that" too, you dumb faggot.
>go to /d/ and tell me you'd want anything to do with people who jerk off to shit like handbags made out of anime girl skins or whatever. jesus christ
"A woman showing her ankles is such degeneracy, I mean Jesus Christ."
Your arguments are the conservatard equivalent of ARE YOU EVEN AWARE OF THE CURRENT YEAR?
>there's guys who are into feet, maybe some anal play, but there are very big and very thick DO NOT CROSS lines between "harmless kink" and "horrid depravity"
Expressions like "horrid depravity" are just more emotive language. This is pretty typical of moral realists who attempt to prove the objectivity of their notions by screaming about their feelings louder and louder.
You know what, faggot? I'm not saying I don't personally disagree with and resent sexual behavior like rape, but I acknowledge that's a reaction which comes from my empathy - my subjective experience. Even if everyone in the world agreed on these issues, it would make for intersubjectivity at best, because the unconscious universe doesn't give a fuck about "depravity".
>>459879
>appeal to ridicule
yeah no shit asteroids floating out in space don't give a fuck about depravity, who argued that fuckwit
Kill yourself you fucking faggot.
>>459892
>just ignore every other point I made and connect two unrelated parts of my post
>call me a faggot
Nice one.
Are you too thick to comprehend that I'm saying morality depends on subjectivity, because we don't apply moral standards to non-subjects? That specific example wasn't meant to be a refutation of any particular opposing view, but an argument for my own. Also, even if your accusation is true, I would have been making a strawman, not an appeal to ridicule.
>>459911
dude i honestly dont give a shit about your cat lady subjective morality faggot shit. when child rape is enough of an abstraction to you you're whipping out fucking logical fallacies when someone posts something as controversial as "child rape is depraved" kill yourself
>>459911
Also, saying
>Kill yourself you fucking faggot.
Doesn't really hurt my argument that you're just getting emotional and asserting your emotions as objective truth. You seem pretty cut, bro.
>>459917
yeah dude whatever go jerk off to some shitting dicknipples or something
whatever dilutes that post-nut shame right faggot
>>459916
>let's just throw all logic out the window, act hysterical, call people faggots and tell them to kill themselves
More objectivity from the King of Really Really Strong Feelings. You really don't get what I'm trying to say.
>>459916
Not the same person but fucking rape isn't what people mean when they talk about deviant sexual behaviour. Americans is the world's largest producer of interracial porn yet I couldn't care less about all the different fucked up tastes they have.
>>459920
If you want to act like a crybaby when it comes to an in-depth discussion of ethics and someone doesn't immediately agree with you, maybe this board isn't for you. I know a site where you can downvote triggering opinions like my own. You might like it.
>>459926
Yeah, saying rape isn't objectively wrong really squares me out as a feminist, huh?
>>459928
like I'm gonna sit here on christmas eve and get into an in-depth discussion of why jerking off to skin handbags isn't totally fucking depraved and disgusting with some faggot probably named "matt" or "ryan" who has no conception of depravity or evil outside of starbucks raising the price of its coffee without tweeting him first
>>459937
>like I'm gonna sit here on christmas eve and get into an in-depth discussion
Oh please, don't go! I'm begging you ;_;
Feel free to leave, faggot. Nobody gives a shit.
>why jerking off to skin handbags isn't totally fucking depraved and disgusting
Now your proof by assertion has become proof by repeated assertion, bravo. At least you have something in common with the SJWs you claim to despite. Muh feels. Feelsy feelsy feelios. Am I objectively correct yet?
>"matt" or "ryan" who has no conception of depravity or evil outside of starbucks raising the price of its coffee without tweeting him first
Wow, u shore rekt me on that 1 bro
>>459937
>getting BTFO'd this hard
>>459948
>le objective unbiased unemotional super logical robot that can see through all of the cognitive biases of lesser beings heh maymay
fuck off
>>459937
I wonder what draws you to philosophy in the first place, since you just seem to assert you opinions and throw a tantrum when people disagree. If this is Praceteom, because your writing style is very similar, you seem to never feel like an in-depth discussion of anything.
>>459955
Arguing for emotional subjectivity as the basis for ethics makes me an unfeeling robotic autist patron of objectivity. Right.
>>459957
i don't give a shit about your faggy everything is relative lmao undergrad shit fuck off already
>>459962
>ur a fag
Okay :^)
>>459962
>being this mad at something that doesn't effect you at all.
Why are you even here if you didn't want to have a legit discussion?
Why didn't you just dump your shit at the door and walk away if the thought of opposition leaves you so seething mad?
What, did you just want to see the le SJW poo poos FAIL!!! while the le /pol/ master race prevailsXXDD
>>459986
>you must be /pol/ if you think sexual deviancy is immoral
fucking kill yourself
>>459989
You clearly identify that way, seeing as your response to opposing views is to call them an SJW and throw a hissyfit.
>>459989
Why is sexual deviancy immoral?
>>460011
/his/, folks.
>>460011
Just ignore him. I've argued with him multiple times before and his response is always to get emotional while screaming about how much he doesn't care. He's completely averse to any form of debate or rhetoric and just expects everyone to accept his assumptions as fact without discussion.
>>460013
Yes okay, that's your meme answer. Can I have your real answer now?
>>460021
>posted by the guy who thinks the sight of ankles and skin handbags are equivalent
stop fronting like you weren't spewing shit out that mouth
Really, I don't have a problem with perversion. But I have a strong personal dislike for sexuality. Is there something wrong with me? I'm not an asexual, but when people put sexuality on media or talk about it in public I kinda am repulsed. I have no strong arguments to back this up, but I think its because everyone cares about it more than me and its just so prevalent.
>>460013
Why wont you give an answer?
Some things are as obvious as you think you prick.
What if he was asking a legit question?
What if he was genuinely curious as to what you had to say?
Stop being so fucking defensive on an anonymous website where no one will remember who you are.
>>460034
It could be a phobia.
It could be a disorder.
It could also just be personal distaste.
I dont know, ask a professional, unless you dont find it enough of a problem to find professional answers about.
>>460037
>why aren't you typing up a bunch of rigorous formal arguments that prove sexual deviancy is immoral
if you need to be convinced, you got bigger problems friend. if you can go through /d/ and just be like "lmao what's the big deal", not to mention the actual snuff and cp out there and jsut be like "welp, you thinking that's evil is just in your head bro lmao" you're too far gone
>>460013
You're just a conservative who can't give a better explanation than your tummy feels weird. Why not throw out how it's degenerate and a secret agenda by the cultural marxist jews while at it, bitch nigga.
>>460037
>are as
Aren't as
>>455981
>What is acceptable in terms of sex?
Loving sex between a married man and woman in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation.
>What would you consider perversions?
Everything else.
>>460034
You're probably just sorta prude, I am the same.
>>460030
I wasn't, I gave actual arguments. All you have is name-calling.
Secondly, the example of ankles was to show how sexual views that seem obviously objective to certain people are largely shaped by historical and geographical context.
>>460030
You know, I agree with your sentiments entirely thus far, but the way you're expressing yourself really doesn't lend credence to your views. Honestly it just makes you look foolish and hot headed.
If you didn't want to get involved in this discussion, you could've just hid the thread or not posted at all. Merry Christmas, anon.
>>460034
Maybe you just have a low sex drive and embarrassment towards these sorta things. Nothing wrong with that, it must be hard to avoid though.
>>460055
I don't need a rigorously detail answer, I just need a fucking answer in the first place.
If you say all spiders are scary and hate them, and someone say that they aren't, and in fact say that they can be cute sometimes, unless you can prove why they are scary you are just basing your argument on personal emotions, which isn't a good argument at all.
It especially doesn't help for when someone asks "why are they scary" to respond, "HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW, JUST LOOK AT IT AND ITS LEGS, IT HAS TOO MANY. CANT YOU SEE? WHAT ARE YOU, SOME SORT OF FREAK?"
>>460058
EWWWWW
WHATS NEXT?
HOLDING (oh god i'm going to vomit) [spoiler]HANDS?[/spoiler]
>>460056
And you're just a faggot who can't give a better explanation other than your tummy doesn't feel weird. Stop posting faggot and drink your machiatto it's getting cold
>>460066
>Secondly, the example of ankles was to show how sexual views that seem obviously objective to certain people are largely shaped by historical and geographical context.
No shit you fucking dipshit, that's why it's such a retarded argument.
>jerking your dick until you cum to images of skin handbags is morally repugnant only, cause, like, you know, like, society, like, doesn't know better at this point in time maaaaaaan
>>460077
>spiders are the same as the worst of sexual deviancy
this is why you faggots are a joke to argue with. it's all abstractions in your head. go look up some snuff cp and get back to me faggot
>>460080
>failed spoiler
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I bet you feel like such a massive FAGGOT right now
>>460083
>>jerking your dick until you cum to images of skin handbags is morally repugnant only, cause, like, you know, like, society, like, doesn't know better at this point in time maaaaaaan
I wouldn't say "know better", but yeah, it's shaped by society, hence the intersubjectivity I mentioned earlier. Just more ridicule and strawmen without any actual substance.
>>460077
/r/ing the gif of the little spider playing the bongos
>>455981
I guess its fine as long as its prevalence wouldn't be contributing to a decay of society in any meaningful way (ie. not rape) or directly harming an individual. I guess I have a romantic view that sex should be mutually beneficial. Shades of grey on both criteria that can be debated endlessly.
Anything that is one sided such as masturbation is acceptable unless it breeds an insatiable desire to commit vile acts to another unwilling or unable-to-consent individual.
>>460051
not a really big deal imo.
>>460060
>>460071
I think my sex drive is a bit low, I don't have a girlfriend currently, but I didn't have a problem when I was with her. Definitely not rabbitlike or anything, but still.
I'm definitely a prude though. I think it might be embarassment of my (pretty vanilla) tastes in public, and I was raised in an extremely prudish environment (by USA standards) and might repress feelings based on that. Just guesses.
>>460089
Snuff would provoke a very strong subjective reaction, but it'd be subjective nonetheless.
>guys, if you FEEL hard enough, it makes it real!
>>460095
>society told me jerking off to skin handbags is wrong
>I can't think for myself, the media tells me what's wrong and what isn't
fucking lmao. are you fucking dense or what
>>460099
>I was raised in an extremely prudish environment (by USA standards)
That's like, the prude of prudes.
>>460100
wow... so you mean... to say... people experience the world... subjectively?
DUDE. MIND. BLOWN.
fucking idiot, fuck off with this undergrad shit.
Perversion is by definition bad.
For me, things that cause long lasting damage on the participants that might prevent normal functioning in society should be considered a perversion. The worse the damage, the worse the perversion.
>>460102
Ask any parent if their kid's behavior is inherently moral or if it has to be taught. I think almost all of them would argue for the latter.
>>460089
The fact that you are still going without giving me a defied answer as to why perversion is bad makes me think you are seriously baiting right now.
I'm not copping out, but the thought is there.
Here, let me show you what I'm talking about.
Child pornography is bad because it scars the child's psyche and, as such can majorly effect the development of said child as an adult, leading to depression, skewed thoughts on sexuality and a whole lot of other things. This is bad because, as social creatures, we rely on each other for almost everything, so when one of our own is damaged, it damages the whole.
If you were to articulate, then we would happily enjoy a conversation, but no, you have to act like a retard.
>>460106
If I was an undergrad, you'd be a middle schooler.
>>460083
I haven't even stated my personal opinion on it, but sure, throw a tantrum on a Taiwanese paper conference instead of actually discussing it like adults.
>>460112
every time I go into detail I get every creepy fucking faggot and his mom shitposting DEFINE SUFFERING, DEFINE TOO YOUNG, DEFINE DEPRESSION, WHAT'S "NORMAL" DEVELOPMENT ANYWAYS, DEFINE NORMAL, DEFINE SKEWED THOUGHTS ABOUT SEXUALITY AREN'T ALL OF OUR THOUGHTS ABOUT SEXUALITY ALREADY SKEWED BY THE MEDIA ANYWAYS HEH yadda yadda yadda, been there, done fucking that, bought the t-shirt, ate the burger, started the company. No fucking thanks.
>>460120
If people ask you to define something it means your post was of shit quality. It isn't shitposting, it's you who have a shitty grasp on language.
>>460131
Or it just means they're autistic, people have normal discussions about these topics without having to define every other word, so I'm gonna go with door #2.
>>460132
>rational argument
>pedophiles defending their paraphilias
Lmao okay faggot
>>460120
Maybe if you were to post your full argument instead of small, poorly made chunks left open to be picked apart we would have a different air of discussion than we do now.
I'm not sure what the 4chan character limit is, but its big enough that you don't have to keep throwing out small shitty arguments, packed with ad hominems.
>>460140
Nigga I don't give a fuck about convincing Matt the barista that sticking your erect member in a child's asshole is objectively fucking wrong. Fuck outta here, if you need convincing, that's you're fucking problem you sick fuck
Just ignore the autistic little goblin, please. He ruins every thread he's in.
>>460143
Well you were here for this long, I assumed that you took interest in the discussion at hand enough to post several times.
I would like to note the way you post is amusing to us, so while it may not reflect on the posters ideology its entertaining to watch you fail hopelessly on the internet.
>>460156
Oh, I can't. Its only this thread I can recognize you, and thats because you give out signal responses in a certain style, While multiple people with the same opinion would give multiple replys to the same post with different writing styles.
>>460156
I've argued with you about free will and ethics and God before. You know who I am.
>>460166
well met my nemesis
>>460096
>>460170
You might have ditched your tripcode and kyoko avatarfagging but I could spot your ranting style in a crowd. Doesn't this get a little tiring? You don't seem to like arguments.
>>460175
I dunno what you're talking about, I've never had a tripcode.
I like arguing, I don't like having to define and prove every one of my statements while my opponents kick back with a martini and make blanket statements about God, ethics, subjectivity, etc. until the fucking cows come home.
>>460182
Okay, bro, if that seems like a victory to you.
>Is perversion bad?
Yes
>If so, why?
It is unnatural.
>inb4 appeal to nature
Appeal to nature is not a fallacy, because acting in ways contrary to human nature typically result in suffering for those involved.
>What would you consider perversions?
Perversion is the attraction to things that do not naturally sexually stimulate human beings
>What is acceptable in terms of sex?
Penis in vagina, mouth, or ass
>>460182
>I don't like having to define and prove every one of my statements
All we'd like is you to define or prove ONE of your statements, so we have something to go by
Otherwise we'll think your just trolling, and will respond as such.
>>460188
Define Unnatural
>>460171
Thank you anon, that's the one
>>460192
>define x
Most obnoxious argumentative tactic ever.
Anyways, it you'd read the next sentence I wrote, you'd see I already did so.
>>460189
It's wrong to use a living being that does not consent solely as an object for your sexual gratification. Especially if it is a child or animal
Now watch the sperg brigade flip the fuck out about how I should define being, and wrong, and object, and sexual gratification, and child blah blab fucking blah
>>460195
Would you argue attraction to breasts to be unnatural then?
How about Titjobs?
How About Handjobs?
How about feet?
Would you argue illustrations of pornographic acts to be unnatural and therefore bad?
Lots of things can "naturally" stimulate human beings at random.
>>460195
Unnaturalness is suffering? Weak.
>>460207
The fuck you know about suffering faggot
>>460206
>Would you argue attraction to breasts to be unnatural then?
>How about Titjobs?
>How About Handjobs?
>How about feet?
>Would you argue illustrations of pornographic acts to be unnatural and therefore bad?
None of those acts are perverse.
>Lots of things can "naturally" stimulate human beings at random.
Human beings with unnatural perversions caused by their environment, sure.
>>460207
You're purposefully misunderstanding.
>>460195
This seems like something said by intellectually lazy people who like to spout opinions and fear deep examination of meaning would prove them unsound or contradictory.
>>460188
>Appeal to nature is not a fallacy, because acting in ways contrary to human nature typically result in suffering for those involved.
Seems like "nature" results in more suffering to me. Animals kill and rape each other constantly, for example.
>Perversion is the attraction to things that do not naturally sexually stimulate human beings
How can a "perversion" be unnatural if, by definition, it gives the pervert pleasure?
>>460219
Because you're purposely ignoring and even dominating the child's agency just to get yourself off. You are reducing it to a flashlight that can cry, just for the sensation of a pleasureble orgasm. That's absolutely repugnant. It's bestial, it is a regression of the human back into the animal. It's a fuck you to the powers that be that gave you the body and mind of a human being and even bigger fuck you to the child's parents, who must live with the knowledge you used and abused their child to satisfy some sick deviant fantasy for the rest of their lives. Not to mention the child itself
>>460225
>So what would you say wouldn't naturally stimulate someone?
Inanimate objects, body parts besides the sex organs, animals
>>460230
>Seems like "nature" results in more suffering to me. Animals kill and rape each other constantly, for example.
Trying to counteract these natural processes results in mental suffering. Do you think caged zoo animals are more happy than wild animals?
>How can a "perversion" be unnatural if, by definition, it gives the pervert pleasure?
Because the pervert's mind has been warped by its' environment.
>>460249
But feet are not sex organs at all, and neither are hands.
also, as we can see with Mr.Tiles, random fetishes can just pop up for no reason.
Where is the harm in having an odd fetish anyways?
>>460249
>Trying to counteract these natural processes results in mental suffering. Do you think caged zoo animals are more happy than wild animals?
So... you claim rape and murder are natural, not perversions? Just clarifying.
>Because the pervert's mind has been warped by its' environment.
Molded by it.
But seriously, can't this be said of anything, ever? The entire brain's existence is due to environmental "warping" that resulted in a cumulative process called evolution.
>>460249
>Because the pervert's mind has been warped by its' environment.
This seems to be circular, with the word "warp" connotation of being unnatural. You said, at first, that being unnatural was based on suffering. It just seems contradictory.
>>460230
>Animals […] rape each other
Because animals are capable of liberal consent.
>>460257
>But feet are not sex organs at all, and neither are hands.
It's normal to be attracted to footjobs & handjobs, but being attracted to hands & feet themselves is strange.
>also, as we can see with Mr.Tiles, random fetishes can just pop up for no reason.
There must have been some environmental cause he just forgot or didn't notice. It's not like he chose it, or there's a tiles gene.
They cause mental suffering.
>>460265
>So... you claim rape and murder are natural, not perversions? Just clarifying.
They're not natural in humans, no. But in many animal species, rape is the only way they reproduce. And if you caged up those animals, harvested their sperm, and impregnated their women, they would not be happy, because they would be living unnaturally.
>>460267
>You said, at first, that being unnatural was based on suffering. It just seems contradictory.
No, that's not at all what I said. I said that unnatural behavior causes suffering. Are you a non-native English-speaker?
>>460195
>Most obnoxious argumentative tactic ever.
It's not a fucking tactic, he's trying to be intellectual honest so he isn't talking past you.
He's giving you the benefit of the doubt you're not a fucking retard since everything humans do are natural since humans are animals and part of nature you have to have some other definition than the one everyone else in their right fucking mind would use.
Jesus Christ soon you'll be going about how logical reasoning is an "argumentative tactics".
>>460277
>but being attracted to hands & feet themselves is strange.
That is what most people are attracted to when they say they are attracted by feet. The foot job aspect is just a bonus some people can do to help further realize it.
>They cause mental suffering.
The only mental suffering he seems to gain from it is being picked on by having it and the feeling of isolation
And I swear to god if that is the justification for saying it causes mental suffering I will lose my shit.
>>460292
you did so somewhat poorly, so I wanted you too define it further.
>>460296
>That is what most people are attracted to when they say they are attracted by feet. The foot job aspect is just a bonus some people can do to help further realize it.
Okay.
>The only mental suffering he seems to gain from it is being picked on by having it and the feeling of isolation
Many perverts lack the ability to climax (and therefore breed) with women due to their perversion.
>>460298
>you did so somewhat poorly, so I wanted you too define it further.
Unnatural behavior is behavior that runs contrary to the evolutionary drives present in all normal human brains.
>>460302
>Many perverts lack the ability to climax (and therefore breed) with women due to their perversion.
>>460302
>the evolutionary drives present in all normal human brains.
explain
>>460302
>Unnatural behavior is behavior that runs contrary to the evolutionary drives present in all normal human brains.
And how are you going to define "normal human brain" without including perverted brains, resulting in circle reasoning?
>>460307
>citation needed
When tiles are the only thing that arouse you, you can't get aroused by a vagina.
>>460313
>explain
Humans are animals and, like all species, have certain impulses inherent to our brains.
>>460317
>And how are you going to define "normal human brain" without including perverted brains, resulting in circle reasoning?
Perversions are caused by our environment, rather than genetics.
>>460324
>Perversions are caused by our environment, rather than genetics.
It's not, assuming (since you're fucking shitty at English) you mean it isn't entirely caused by environmental factors but rather entirely by genetic factors.
Here's even an 1 hour long presentations about how you're wrong.
https://vimeo.com/33793616
>>460324
>Humans are animals and, like all species, have certain impulses inherent to our brains.
>When tiles are the only thing that arouse you, you can't get aroused by a vagina.
Who said that has to be the only thing that arouses you? What if you were aroused by bother tiles AND vaginas? Are you anti-gay by the way?
>>460241
> A fuck you o the powers that be that gave you the body and mind of a human being
Nobody gave me anything, what the fuck are you on about?
>>460338
>It's not, assuming (since you're fucking shitty at English) you mean it isn't entirely caused by environmental factors but rather entirely by genetic factors.
Lol maybe I am shitty at English, because I meant the opposite of that.
>>460339
>Who said that has to be the only thing that arouses you? What if you were aroused by bother tiles AND vaginas?
Nobody said it has to be. But it's typical of fetishists. They become so obsessed with their perversion they can't be aroused by normal things.
>Are you anti-gay by the way?
Homosexuality is caused by natal hormones, so it's not a perversion but a disorder. No, I'm not anti-gay, in fact I'm bi.
>>460351
Idk man, I have a lot of weird fetishes but a good looking woman still gets me going just fine.
>>460351
>They become so obsessed with their perversion they can't be aroused by normal things.
[citation needed]
>>460357
Lucky for you. Hopefully it stays that way.
>>460357
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Abnormal_Sexual_Psychology/Definition#Paraphilia_as_disorder
>A person can like looking at naked members of the opposite sex, and get aroused by this. This is natural behavior. But such a person could also get aroused by risqué talk, or while the person touches them in an erotic manner, or in anticipation of sexual contact in absence of any other arousing factors.
>A person with a paraphilia, on the other hand, has varying levels of difficulty in becoming aroused when their specific trigger is not present. A "standard" pedophile might be able to become aroused by adults of the gender(s) they are attracted to. An "exclusive" pedophile is unable to become aroused at all except by a pre-adolescent child.[2]
>>460368
well there you go, it even says so right there.
You can be of the standard perversion, in which case the argument that you lose the ability to be attracted to other things has no merit.
Besides, while the fact that they are exclusive to one thing means they aren't attracted to what you consider 'normal', that doesn't mmean that they would still have been attracted to 'normal' if they had never been exposed to the perversion. Maybe they just don't like 'normal', in which case, what do you care?
>>460368
This is less a discription of a fetish and more borderline insanity.
If that is what you intended to be your answer for perversion, i'd recommend you mention that next time.
You do realize most people with fetishes do not act like this right?
>>460382
>You can be of the standard perversion, in which case the argument that you lose the ability to be attracted to other things has no merit.
It still has plenty of merit. As it says, perversions can cause inability to be aroused by normal things. Additionally, they can cause the fetishist irreparable physical harm (things like masochism)
>Besides, while the fact that they are exclusive to one thing means they aren't attracted to what you consider 'normal', that doesn't mmean that they would still have been attracted to 'normal' if they had never been exposed to the perversion. Maybe they just don't like 'normal', in which case, what do you care?
Humans in their natural state are attracted to normal things. There is no foot fetishism gene, or pedophile gene.
>>460390
>As it says, perversions can cause inability to be aroused by normal things
No it doesnt, and if it does it only means if the person exclusivly entertains and stimulates THAT fetish like a crazy person.
If you have light a masochism fetish, you wont be unable to get off to normal sex, and its doesn't say that here either.
>>455981
In general:
If you harm or threaten to harm others, others may act to protect themselves from you.
What counts as harming the self is by definition not directly determined by harm caused to others.
In other words, it's all hot opinions. Anyone who claims otherwise lacks brainpower.
>>460390
Disorders diagnosed
To be diagnosed with a disorder that falls under Axis II, a psychologist has to find the following:
Symptoms have been for a long period of time, don't vary, and aren't a symptom of some other disorder.
The history of symptoms can be traced back to adolescence or at least early adulthood.
The symptoms have caused and continue to cause significant distress or negative consequences in different aspects of the person's life.
Symptoms are seen in at least two of the following areas: Thoughts, Emotions, Control, Interpersonal Relationships
It is only a diagnosis if these things apply. You are taking what applies to a small number of perverts and assuming that it applies to all of them.
> humans in their natural state are attracted to normal things
[citation needed]
Dolphins fucking dead fish. Chimpanzees raping humans. Tribal people fucking love trees in the forest. Ancient Greeks fantasizing about Zeus turning into an animal and fucking their women.
Perversion is natural.
>>459957
He's probably drunk, like me, only differences he's an idiot.
>>460409
Also if you go "durr hurr we can think" Then those perversions also apply to branching away from "natural" and can only be excluded by the fact that you don't like them.
>>460346
Did you will yourself into existence? Okay then
>le being grateful for what you are and what you have is for hippies and faggots maymay
>>455981
Perversion is going against the standard rules of engagement.
If the standard of sexual conduct includes anal sex then the vaginal could be seen as a perversion. (Ancient Greeks)
If the standard of sexual conduct includes sexual repression in media, then serialization in games could be seen as a perversion. (American media vs Japanese media)
Its extremely relative to whatever host culture you live in. Sexual practices differs from culture to culture.
>>461537
>>461541
>>461542
>>461543
>>461547
>>461550
>>461552
>>461553
>>461554
Get this /pol/ shit out of here.
>>461634
>I'm going to break out the JEW folder FOR THIS!!!!
Yeah, but no, get the fuck out of here.
Enjoy the five minutes it will take to reset your modem.
>>461631
thanks based mods
Happy Holidays
>>461631
>>461645
>>463697
>these facts hurt my feeling, so I'll just censor them instead of challenging them
>>461631
pic related
>>461645
The problem with ignoring /pol/ is once you do that, they settle down, then start implying the board agrees with /pol/ viewpoints because no one fights them about it, all the while they fight viewpoints they don't like.
