18 replies to this topic

[Leen]

Worst 100 Sexual Perversions

Now I know this comes from an unreliable site but reading through them, it got me thinking.... should these sexual perversions be .. accepted into society? I mean they don't really harm anyone (except a couple which I'm sure are against the law such as bestiality and pedophilia), but sexual perversions that involve objects, should they be well accepted into society or should we try to suppress in fear that this misconduct would spread since nowadays sex is widely accepted and sooner or later people would need more "interesting" ways to have sex...

[Vvi]

61. Hydrophilia:- The desire to make out with a glass of water.

Seems quite tame compared to the others.

40. Nucleophilia:- The desire to have sex with an atomic bomb.

Wonder if nuclear proliferation would be allowed then.

I think this would make a good topic for a TOK presentation Me and Leen have to choose one by tomorrow, and this looks mighty interesting...

[Aboo]

While the idea of sexual gratification via an object is strange, there is no reason to prevent members of the public to satisfy their sexual needs from their weird concoctions.

The question is, where does one stop the line? Do you want to drive at fast speeds while someone is masturbating next to you? Or do you want to see someone getting off to dying people in a hospital?

[Irene]

Aboo, on Jan 25 2009, 05:45 AM, said:

While the idea of sexual gratification via an object is strange, there is no reason to prevent members of the public to satisfy their sexual needs from their weird concoctions.

The question is, where does one stop the line? Do you want to drive at fast speeds while someone is masturbating next to you? Or do you want to see someone getting off to dying people in a hospital?

Actually, I don't want to see any of it, just like I don't want to see two people moaning behind a counter when I'm out shopping or something. There's nothing wrong with sexual perversions, but some of them are quite dangerous to act out or detrimental to say, the mental capacity of a child (or even an adult!) so if they are acted on, it should not be in public. So no getting it on with your lawn, please.

[Mr. Shiver]

On a lighter note, uncyclopedia is awesome.

[Vvi]

Irene, on Jan 25 2009, 06:12 PM, said:

Actually, I don't want to see any of it, just like I don't want to see two people moaning behind a counter when I'm out shopping or something. There's nothing wrong with sexual perversions, but some of them are quite dangerous to act out or detrimental to say, the mental capacity of a child (or even an adult!) so if they are acted on, it should not be in public. So no getting it on with your lawn, please.

I agree. No one knows where to look, and kids having vivid memories for the rest of their lives probably won't aid development.

I really don't get the urge people have to make out, much less have sex, in a public place like a party or park. Exciting maybe, but being caught pantsless won't get you remembered for the right things.

[bolan14]

Aboo, on Jan 25 2009, 05:45 AM, said:

While the idea of sexual gratification via an object is strange, there is no reason to prevent members of the public to satisfy their sexual needs from their weird concoctions.

The question is, where does one stop the line? Do you want to drive at fast speeds while someone is masturbating next to you? Or do you want to see someone getting off to dying people in a hospital?

I believe the term is "road head," as far as everything else goes....moderation is key. A line should be drawn, when something goes beyond the threshold of someones tolerance thats trespassing dangerous grounds. Its important to be open to your partner or others' fantasys as long as they stay within the realm of posibility and do not transverse past the frontier someone is willing to go. So to a certain extent, yes sexual perversion should be assimilated into society but with more discretion and for older individuals, there is no reason for a 13 year old to be well versed in sexual perversions. Nonetheless i do believe that being knowledgeable is better than being confronted and being in the dark, that is, it is better to know than not know at all. Again the previoius statement is told in moderation, there is no need to teach a 5 year old the wonderful art of anal sex etc. Well that is unless you are Freud. I wonder if sexual perversions are derived from fixations in sexual phases...?

[Haney]

the quesiton is are they 'wrong'. short and sweet- yes. therefore yes it should be limited as much as possible. I mean there's an obvious reason it's called perversion...

[Irene]

Haney, on Apr 26 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

the quesiton is are they 'wrong'. short and sweet- yes. therefore yes it should be limited as much as possible. I mean there's an obvious reason it's called perversion...

Really? And who is to decide if a sexual 'perversion' is wrong or not? Homosexuality could be deemed to be a 'perversion' (not in this day and time, I hope) but simply attributing the name 'perversion' to something does not make it justly so.

Bottom line, if it's not harmful to anyone, I see no reason to limit it. Unfortunately, most of the above named practices are, so yes, they should be limited.

e.g.
68. Slothophilia: The desire to make slow movements (such as the robot) during intercourse

Nothing wrong with that but it might be a bit creepy for the partner.

55. Frottage: Rubbing up against others on public transport

That is vile and pretty much sexual harassment.

[Darko]

Half of the paraphilia or "fetishes" are not real or if they were they are certainly extremely rare. I know of foot fetishes and SM and my opinion on these is liberal. They can enjoy it in the privacy of their own home but I don't want them to manifest on the streets about their sexual desires. The frottage is ****ed up and is like irene said a mild form of 'sexual harassment". Free world right?

[Angelos13]

As long as these so called "sexual perversions" are done privately and aren't violent, I don't care. Just because i tolerate it though doesn't mean that I will willingly participate in a conversation about it; some of the real sexual perversions which of course aren't on the list are very disgusting and I cannot understand why a mentally stable person would do them.

[SharkSpider]

Guess I'll state my usual reply for things like these.

Nothing really gives anyone else the right to tell other people what to do or what not to do in their spare time, provided doing so does not have an overall adverse effect on the society they live in. So if someone were to get wellfare payments because their severed hand fetish meant they couldn't do a job, I'd have issue with it, because my money would be going to support said fetish. Otherwise, they're really free to do what they like, provided they don't abuse their right to free speech and all that. People also have the right to not have to listen to people talk about wierd stuff. So, unless you can find a reason for someone to have the right to go in and stop people from doing things, there isn't really much to discuss unless there's a fundamentalist in the discussion, and even then you can usually show that their right to fundamentalism doesn't extend to complete strangers and their private lives.

[Bandev]

Aboo, on Jan 25, 2009 - 10:45, said:

While the idea of sexual gratification via an object is strange, there is no reason to prevent members of the public to satisfy their sexual needs from their weird concoctions.

Really, sexual gratification via objects is incredibly common prime example dildoes. I agree with as long as it is not in public and does not harm anyone else physically or mentally. But I don't agree with the law is irrefutably correct because if this were so then homosexuality would be illegal in many countries and still is in many.

[Mattias]

my philosophy has always been "if it doesn't hurt anyone, it cant be bad"

[Dreamer94]

It depends on the society you live in.

[Irene]

Bandev, on Jun 03, 2009 - 19:07, said:

Aboo, on Jan 25, 2009 - 10:45, said:

While the idea of sexual gratification via an object is strange, there is no reason to prevent members of the public to satisfy their sexual needs from their weird concoctions.

Really, sexual gratification via objects is incredibly common prime example dildoes. I agree with as long as it is not in public and does not harm anyone else physically or mentally. But I don't agree with the law is irrefutably correct because if this were so then homosexuality would be illegal in many countries and still is in many.

I think what Aboo means is being turned on by objects instead of the opposite/same sex. Dildos (in most cases) are merely substitutes... Right on with the law not being irrefutably correct though. If that was the case, laws would never change, but they do. Keeping an open mind seems the best stance on matters such as these that are against the 'norm'.

[bLub]

no, in my opinion, they should not be accepted. it's just weird and abnormal. and think of the children, if they saw, e.g. on tv, someone having s** with the front lawn, couldn't that kinda affect the child in a rather "bad" way? I think perversions should be "kept in secret" and just lived out with one's partner...

[Mahuta ♥]

I really think if sexual perversion is to be accepted and allowed completely then that's going to suck. You are going to have minors seeing perversions just as often as they see normal sex, and that will just make the perversions as often and public as normal sex. We would have a society full of perversions! That would suck.

Imagine having people jerk off on a pole on the street or using it as a stimulation..eww.

[Austin Glau]

Quote

Mahuta
We would have a society full of perversions! That would suck. Imagine having people jerk off on a pole on the street or using it as a stimulation..eww.

... yeah that would suck...
I think that people are overusing the freedom they have in the modern society. You can excessive your freedom, but you should still consider your moral boundaries and recognize when something is not right.