"Sexual deviation" is defined as any kind of sexual activity that deviates from what is considered "normal" sexual activity. What is "normal sexual activity"? I'll tell you what it is. It is the culturally constructed ideology that missionary hetero sex that is executed for procreative purposes is the "normal" route. Anything other than that (oral, anal, fetishes) is often deemed "unusual" or "deviant". Isn't sexuality the natural expression of an innate biological compulsion to engage in an intimate mental/physical/emotional union with someone you are chemically attracted to? Stop the religious heterosexist construct that says people are only "normal" if they restrict themselves as a result of religious fear-based conditioning about sexuality.
Religion tries to control society by limiting sexual activity because when it was first established, it needed a way to keep people from fucking all day and getting rowdy to the point of a collapse in societal infrastructure. This methodology was useful as recent as hundreds of years ago, but it has no place in twenty-first century society, for obvious reasons. It should be up to the individual to decide what they do with their sex life. Do they want kids? Do they want to adopt or have a surrogate parent? Are they straight? Are they gay? I'm gay and I'm certainly of the mindset that being gay is NOT a decision one makes but a characteristic of one's sexual identity.
"Paraphilias", as they've been deemed, are just sexually explorative acts. Something like pedophilia is restricted by law because it involves a lack of consent (which makes it a rape) from an individual who is not physically or mentally mature for sex. Things like beastiality and necrophilia are indicative of mental disorder because they do not involve consenting human adults and pose a serious threat to human health.
I think we need to stop confusing healthy sexual behavior with disorderly sexual behavior by understanding the dynamic that healthy sexual behavior entails - two adults (or more, assuming all parties involved consent and are acting responsibly) engaging in private sexual activity.
Stop sexual stigma.
I've included them as you asked. Did you have a hard time understanding what I was saying without them?
I skipped the original post that was emailed to me, and was happy to see the paragraphs when I got here. I'm not singling you out in particular and I'm most definitely a protester against English/grammar nazis, but thoughts from other brains feeding my brain are digested much more easily in smaller gulps I can savor more often.
Take for example your second paragraph "Religion [...]". That's a delicious chunk, all by itself, and when looking at the original post I had difficulty finding and reviewing/rechewing it.
(Apologies for >1 of this post that people may be receiving from me because of my poorly planned edits/resubmissions.)
There has never been a moment in history where sexual repression was useful or necessary. There isn't a single historic example where sexual freedom (minus sexual abuse/procreative incest) altered society in a way that lowered peoples quality of living...that is except for those who were caught by murderous sex obsessed fanatical prudes.
The only thing that sexual repression is useful for is controlling the bodies (and in part the minds) of others.
Any society that is obsessed with the sexual activities of others (Iran, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, North Korea, Uganda) are all countries with serious social, political and economic problems. When only a narrow definition of sexual activity is permissible, it betrays the signs of a fucked up miserable place.
I very much agree with you. Sexual repression is just a primitive control mechanism. I see what you mean by saying it was "never useful". By that, you mean it was never a good idea, but it was carried out anyway, right?
Afghanistan is even more fucked up, in that part of their culture involved men having young boys as sex toys, as a status symbol, and the more pretty young boys you have, the more status.
That was one of the weird conflicts concerning US forces and the Taliban.
Essentially, the Taliban killed anyone who engaged in homosexuality, including with young boys.
The US forces were instructed to turn a blind eye to the child rape there, as they were fighting against the Taliban, and were allied with the warlords who kept kids to fuck.
Many of the young men of fighting age had BEEN young fucked boys...and LIKED when the Taliban came in and stopped it....freeing them.
There is a problem in that the definition of what constitutes rape has been a moving target for years. Beyond that, there's also little widespread agreement. For example, a man and woman go somewhere with a bottle of rum and a six-pack of cola and polish it off, both of them getting hammered. Then they have sex. Rape or not? Some feminists would say yes. But doesn't that imply that men are more responsible (or more capable of being responsible and thus are the ones to hold responsible)? Others would say hogwash. She knew she was going to be drinking and what can happen when one gets drunks isn't exactly a secret.
No reasonable person is for rape. If someone says "I'm for rape," that's a good enough reason to ignore their views. However, what rape is and how and when to apply the terminology isn't exactly a settled matter.
Rape is fucking someone in any orifice without their consent. It is well settled unseen. If you can come up with an actual sexual studies article demonstrating notable disagreement on that term by more than 5% of them...I'd love to read it. There's nothing more to it unseen. If you are for pederasty on boys unable to stop the enevitable fuck from a drty old man...you are for rape. If you are a Pakistani in support of the custom of forced marriages and the unavoidable sex that comes with it...you are for rape. If a girl is smashing drunk or passed out...she cannot give her consent. People are for rape unseen. Millions and million s of South Asians are very much for rape. They support girls being fucked without their consent. Its sickening how people trivialise forced sex. There's no difference between "she was asking for it" or "but that's the way my parents did it". However they window dress it as custom or sacred religious blah blah. Its sexual violation. Rape. And lots of people, Catholic priests or Hindus or Papual New Guinean pederasts are all for it.
Rape is fucking someone in any orifice without their consent.
Is it still rape if the male, to take a heterosexual example, is just as drunk as his partner and wouldn't be able to give meaningful consent himself, it the tables were turned?
What is your definition of "fucking"?
I've always noticed a correlation between radicals obsessed with prohibiting the harmless behaviour of others with those very same people commuting similar acts only in ways which harm, destroy or traumatised others. Your Afghan example illustrates it beautifully. The same goes for unforgiving police or moralising politicians taking bribes.
As disturbing is how the easier the target is...the harsher their treatment is for violating the law. A muslim woman is stoned after she is raped...for commiting adultery. The man is wipped a few times and then hugs the whipman. Homosexuals are thrown off buidlings while heterosexual men selling porn are fined. Racial minorities are all but guilty if accused while a community leader is not bothered by the authorities for his indiscretions with countless prostitutes (chechnia). One more way to show sexual moralising is about control of the bodies of easy targets and the control in general of easy targets.