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

Zloduska (
Mon, 24 May 1999 03:22:00 -0500

Brett wrote:

>I asked my sister-in-law one time if there was a situation in which she
>could imagine having sex with one of her sons. SHE said that she could
>imagine it happening... perhaps in the situation where the son was
>disabled and would never be able to have a woman otherwise.

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.

>This is just to show-- from a mother's perspective-- that sex is not
>necessarily perversion by the definition given.

Alright, this may be treading over familiar territory, but I still maintain -and am very adamant- that there is no such thing as "perversion". All perversion is natural, and so by its very nature it cannot exist, yadda 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'? If a so-called perversion hurts someone else (pedophila, for instance), then it is *not* a perversion, but a crime. 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.

>Another example, knowing your own mothers, sex which your mothers
>consent to, indirectly... that is, sex which she can rationalize (ie.
>for family and children's sakes) ARE acts which are performed upon one's
>mother. This example suggests that if one can maintain ties with the
>degree of acceptance that one's own mother represents (and certain ties
>to one's actual mother in the face of certain acts performed), then
>these acts are not perverse.

I find it odd, under the circumstances, that you don't consider sex with one's mother because you've suffered a crippling accident to be "perverse".

>In situations where one's own mother can condone certain acts which
>other mothers might find perverse (and convey the acceptability to her
>son's and daughters in a way that isn't considered "perverse" in its own
>right), one must resort to a more pure logic... one in which "mother"
>represents other than one's own biological mother (ie. "holy mother").
>Only in such cases can we speak of a righteousness which might be termed
>"immaculate conception"-- though by degrees, we can assume that this
>standard is represented by the biological and social roles of actual
>mothers (and to a certain extent, "fathers").

I think you are delving a bit too deep into the pond here, and pulling out a Trout of Nonsense. Going from incest to the Blessed Virgin Mary is just too far a stretch.

>It is a good definition.

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

>An individual's inability to imagine sex which
>is acceptable to their own mother would be more indicative of that
>person's perversions than of the utility of the definition (or else
>shows a lack of imagination).

I hope you don't take my defense as an attack on your ideas. It more of a rant regarding a couple of my pet peeves. I intend no personal slight; I only disagree. And also, I don't think my own mother would at all object to participating in my particular cup of "sexual perversion" tea- she always wears dresses and women's clothing anyway.

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