This is as good an opportunity as any to launch into my theory of perversion. A perversion is an unnatural sexual desire, and by that I mean it is a sexual desire unhinged from external realities - from other actual people - and trapped in an inner self-referential loop.

Let's take the trad perspective for a second and assume same-sex romantic relationships are morally wrong because they do not fulfill the purpose of sex, procreation. Even so, even in those same sex bonds, there is a natural and good thing being sought after, even if incorrectly.
Even if the primary purpose of sex, from the trad perspective, is not being fulfilled, other natural aspects of the sexual act are: physical solace and the comfort of another person's embrace, and the tenderness and kindness lovers express to each other through sex.
So that even if one assumes gay sex is unnatural, it is only so because it seeks through unnatural means to live out a perfectly natural goal: love, mutual enjoyment of the lovers, the generosity and tears of the bedroom.

True perversion is desire turned inward, locked in itself
Perversion is sexual desire with NO connection to nature, because it is not externally attracted to other people, but inwardly fixed on one's own particular state of mind. It may take on characteristics of natural sexual desire, but only incidentally.
For instance: both the rake and the cuckold are willing participants in the same wrong, adultery. But the rake at least desires someone else: particularly, someone else's wife.

The cuckold's desire is for his own humiliation, his fantasy of inferiority.
His wife, her lover, the entire construct around which the adultery occurs are props. They are the scenery necessary for the enactment of his own pleasure at feeling debased. He does not want his wife. He wants his own feeling of being cheated on. His desire is locked within him.
Arguably the same thing happens in more advanced forms of sado-masochism. For some it may simply be a matter of the pleasure that may be contained in physical pain. But whenever it becomes ABOUT the play-acting, the "I am a master" or "I am a slave", it is a perversion.
The same goes for pornography, and especially for the animated or hand drawn furry pornography. You have so divorced yourself from natural desire, from wanting other people, you masturbate imagining yourself an anthropomorphic cartoon animal doing it to other cartoon animals.
And the same again goes for this weird cannibalism fetish. It is unnatural not only because it is creepy and wrong to eat other people, and not only because it will and cannot (hopefully) ever actually happen, but because again, it is completely self-referential.
It is desire not for another person, but literally for a thought. Or worse, a thought about a thought. To feel aroused by the thought of projecting an image of yourself as someone who eats other people.
Whenever sexual desire is not focused externally, but turned inward to fantasies about one's own mental state, and made to twist and burn a mental groove in one's mind so that desire can only flow deeper and deeper into this narcissistic loop, that is perversion.
One more example of this: the man who becomes addicted to porn. I know people who could have sex but do not: they only want to look at porn. People think it's because porn projects a world of such perfect bodies and athletic sexual stamina that the real thing looks unappealing.
This is false. The problem with the porn addict is not that he has developed such a connoisseur's eye for perfect photoshopped asses that real, flawed asses cannot arouse him. The problem for him is that the real asses ARE REAL. They are not porn.
He is aroused not by thinking about what he would do if he could get a woman. He is aroused by the act of watching porn itself. The visual stimulus of porn is almost incidental, it is the fuel for the mental state that really arouses him: the thought "I am watching porn."
Just as the alcoholic does not drink for the pleasure of drinking or for the taste of the liquor. It is just the relief that at last, you got your medicine.

More from Society

It is simply not correct to point fingers at wind & solar energy as we try to understand the situation in TX. The system (almost) had a plan for weather (almost) like this. 1/x


It relied on very little wind energy - that was the plan. It relied on a lot of natural gas - that was the plan. It relied on all of its nuclear energy - that was the plan. 2/x

There was enough natural gas, coal and nuclear capacity installed to survive this event - it was NOT "forced out" by the wind energy expansion. It was there. 3/x

Wind, natural gas, coal and nuclear plants all failed to deliver on their expectations for long periods of time. The biggest gap was in natural gas! The generators were there, but they were not able to deliver. 4/x

It may be fair to ask why there is so much wind energy in ERCOT if we do NOT expect it to deliver during weather events like this, but that is an entirely different question - and one with a lot of great answers!! 5/x

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
**Thread on Bravery of Sikhs**
(I am forced to do this due to continuous hounding of Sikh Extremists since yesterday)

Rani Jindan Kaur, wife of Maharaja Ranjit Singh had illegitimate relations with Lal Singh (PM of Ranjit Singh). Along with Lal Singh, she attacked Jammu, burnt - https://t.co/EfjAq59AyI


Hindu villages of Jasrota, caused rebellion in Jammu, attacked Kishtwar.

Ancestors of Raja Ranjit Singh, The Sansi Tribe used to give daughters as concubines to Jahangir.


The Ludhiana Political Agency (Later NW Fronties Prov) was formed by less than 4000 British soldiers who advanced from Delhi and reached Ludhiana, receiving submissions of all sikh chiefs along the way. The submission of the troops of Raja of Lahore (Ranjit Singh) at Ambala.

Dabistan a contemporary book on Sikh History tells us that Guru Hargobind broke Naina devi Idol Same source describes Guru Hargobind serving a eunuch
YarKhan. (ref was proudly shared by a sikh on twitter)
Gobind Singh followed Bahadur Shah to Deccan to fight for him.


In Zafarnama, Guru Gobind Singh states that the reason he was in conflict with the Hill Rajas was that while they were worshiping idols, while he was an idol-breaker.

And idiot Hindus place him along Maharana, Prithviraj and Shivaji as saviours of Dharma.