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

Joe E. Dees (
Mon, 24 May 1999 16:55:49 -0500

From:   (Brett Robertson)
Date sent:      	Mon, 24 May 1999 15:44:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        	Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign"
Send reply to:

> 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.
> ME:The example which involved a disabled child was NOT an example about
> disability... it was an example about MOTHERS-- who (by account) can
> imagine situations in which sex is something they can accept for their
> child (either directly or indirectly). The same could be said for
> "daughters" (are there situations in which fathers might NOT want their
> daughters involved in certain sexual relationships [of course there
> are]: And conversely, there are situations in which they could
> rationalize such relationships).
Yeah there are cases in which Daddy demends that his little girl belong to him only, and rationalizes incestuously molesting her on the grounds that it'll satisfy her "urges" (when it's actually his that are the prime motivator) so she won't get involved with those "nasty boys"! Thus does a puritanistic outlook, combined with the need to justify the indulgence in forbidden desires, get warped into a sick and abusive sexual parental domination.
> 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'?
> ME: By your definition, what DOES bring "harm" might be considered
> perverse...?
> If a so-called perversion hurts someone else (pedophila, for instance),
> then it is *not* a perversion, but a crime.
> ME: ...except that you define it as a *crime*. So I must ask: How do
> you define what "hurts" someone? If it is defined by the term
> "criminal"?: Then how do you define "criminal" (an act which hurts
> someone)? Is there NOT a standard (perversion/ harm) upon which codes
> of criminal behavior are based? Are they then arbitrary (If so, why
> would we abide by them)?
Abusing one's parental authority and control to molest one's underage daughter (or son) has to qualify as both a crime and a perversion if anything does.
> 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.
> ME: *Morality* is right action. Eating hot coals may be "morally"
> wrong because the standards for what is "right" includes "not hurting
> oneself" (but this is based on obvious results, at least in this
> example, by which what is moral is also OBVIOUSLY superior to causing
> oneself pain and death [and causing oneself pain and death would not a
> be a good survival strategy, such that a "standard" which suggests such
> action would not be much of a moral *standard*]).
This fronm the guy who sees no cognitive dissonance in sliding the ol' nut to his own mother! (MEDS, Brett; NOW!)
> It is a good definition.
> No, it's not. Any definition of "sexual perversion" is a bad one.
> ME: If you have decided that you will accept no definition, then...
> Oh, and btw: Is anything *imagined*, by your definition, perverted? Or
> does it have to be an actual *act* that condemns you?
> ME: I make no distinction between what is imagined and what is
> actual... that is, the same logic applies to what is imaginable that
> applies to what is actual (thus what is "imagined" is that which COULD
> be actual). On the other hand, what is *fantasized* is, by nature, not
> possible (and is founded upon a contradiction-- ie. "pink unicorns" as a
> fantasized element, and so one which is KNOWN to be non-actual-- or
> perhaps a "perversion" of the idea of "horse"). What is *fantasized* IS
> by definition *perverse* (and if made actual would, by this definition,
> seek to cause harm to what is actual [in this case, "horse"] so as to
> institute an un-natural element into reality whose sole purpose is the
> satisfaction of the person who has fantasized it such).
Thinking of pink unicorns is unnatural and perverse but fucking your own mother is just good clean fun? Someone bring me a puke bucket!
> ~kjs
> Brett Lane Robertson
> Indiana, USA
> MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> BIO:
> ...........
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!: