Is the word 'Pervert' applicable only to men?
If yes, then why so?
If no, then how would you define a 'Female pervert'?
I like that!
perversion is in the way a person thinks and that has nothing to do with genetics. the only reason men are more apt to be considered perverts is they tend to forget to use that little filter that keeps him from shutting his mouth before putting his foot in it.
Pervert can be a relevant term to a small percentage of both genders. In other words, women are people too.
As to definitions, a pervert is someone of either gender who commits deviant or depraved acts.
Examples of deviant or depraved acts (by either gender):
Voting for an incumbent.
Buying something from a telephone solicitor.
Other examples anyone?
A spade is a spade is a spade - a pervert is a pervert is a pervert.
The other difficulty I guess comes in trying to define pervert!
What one person thinks is 'normal behavior' and what another thinks is sometimes very frightening!
Is there actually such a thing as, perversion, or a, "pervert", anymore?
Most behaviours that were once looked upon as immoral, have been flipped and twisted by the moral relativists into, "normal", behaviour.
ie; a genetic component to homosexuality, or a genetic component to pediphelia, etc...
Moralism only applies to those who actually believe man is above the animals. Other-wise, it can all be chalked up to animal instict.
So.. if there is no moral standard... then how can anything be counted as immoral, or moral.
The relativists have destroyed morality under the guise of it being bigotry. And since so many in this world wish to rid us of religion, and man has no innate standard of morality, (or that standard varies so widely between all individuals.), to which we can hold ourselves. Then how can we measure morality in our lives and society in any meaningful way?
How do we uphold a moral standard? When that standard is up to each individual, and not recognized, nor embraced, by society as a whole?
We have thrown away morality.
So who then is a, "pervert"?
I submit, by todays standard of moral relativism, no one.
And I am sure I will be ran into the ground for this post... but I do not care.
I will not throw away my moral compuss, for anyone.
Hatred is a perversion of society's basic values. An example of such perversion is when a microscopic portion of a society tells the overwhelming majority of the society that the hatred should be practiced by all.
Your term possibly indicates less than moral thoughts.
Yes, I suppose that's one way to look at it. Kind of like the race riots of the 60's. Lettin' all them black people get out and make such a fuss over nuthin' I guess you would say.
Until you wake up in the 21st century and can't even believe there were battles over human rights to begin with. Wow. We were stupid hateful, people. ALL of us. Unfortunately, we still are, but I think (gratefully) less so than then.
Ignorance breeds hate and violence. Understanding has a way of uniting people.
I don't think the general public is without morals. I think views about sexuality have changed because more people have gained a greater understanding. While there are still big set backs about sex as a business, most people have morals despite it. Opinions about specific behaviors remain opinions, unless they are harmful to the person and to others. Morality is about not harming self or others. I think it's fair to clarify the difference.
Pervertress. Yes, I believe there are some posing as teachers in the public schools, tempting young pubescent boys into lurid sex acts. They are in the news these days.
I also believe MLM's are a perversion. Along with political parties, religion and a few other things. They seem to be nongender specific.
Just like leftists to try to turn this into a discussion of race or bigotry.
As I said above... you all just supply the examples of the destruction of morals on the basis of hate.
The conversation is about perversion, and in relation, morals. One can not, and does not exist, without a belief in the other.
Should morality be based on the views of so few people?
Are you saying that most Americans do not believe in God, and by relation, morality?
I think the question better asked would be...
Should morality be relativised based on the desires of so few?
The overwhelming majority of Americans do not share your understanding of a hateful, bigoted god. They do understand that moral issues have to be thought through rather than being based on empty claims of myth-based morality.
Just cause we Americans believe in free choice and individual liberty... doesn't mean we agree certain behaviours are morally correct.
Big leap from one, to the other.
And you leftys have a way of inflating and exagerating the position of your views, in the American mind-set.
What would you have to say at all, if there weren't "leftys"? hmmmmmmmm? Your knee jerk reactions are laughable but not even in the realm of real discussion on any topic! You sound like those under-educated who envy people who actually have an education, so they continually try to put them down as "liberals" and "leftys" - as if those were bad things! pathetic.
Anyone who doesn't agree with you all are under-educated and envious.
What a joke.
And my opinion of leftists inflating the facts and figures to meet their own requirements, is based on long standing observations in discussions with said leftists.
Wow that sounds almost scientific.
Observing the same results over and over... hmmmmmmmm?
"we Americans" all 13 of them who believe that tripe?
So your saying that I can believe someone has the right to do something immoral.
And because I believe they have the right to do it... means I agree on its morality.
I'm saying your concept of morality is baseless and not accepted by American society.
And your free to think that, Ron.
Your issue, as with many on the left, is with morality in general, not me.
Oh and your wrong again.
The ONLY difference between me and the majority of Americans, is I have the balls to say it. And many, many, of my fellow Americans do not, for fear of being called a bigot, or homophobic Christian, or hater, etc...
Not I though... I will speak my mind regardless of the hate from the other side.
so, let me get this straight? You're saying that homosexuality is a perversion? see, that's just so uninformed and wrong and empty headed to even say that! And are you trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia? Then you're saying that "leftys" exaggerate and inflate things? Man, you're so transparent and uninformed it is funny. I can see that any logical discussion here in the HP forums is always going to get derailed by you! It happens everyday. Well, now I've had my say - been wanting to say this to you for awhile now, not that you will listen with your self-righteous, bigoted ears!
I see homosexuality as a perversion, an imorality, as many in this country and the world do.
Yes. I am a bigot because I have a moral standard. I am a bigot because I refuse to bow to the moral relativist.
Now... You, as all, have the freedom to choose to act in almost any immoral way you wish to, (as long as it is not illegal also.), but that doesn't mean I have to except your immoral behaviour, as moral.
See how that works?
If you don't like my opinions and views... too bad.
And why shouldn't I equate the two, homosexuality and pediphelia, moral relativists equate all things, all the time.
So what is your, or the, problem with applying their logic and reasoning here?
nothing you say sounds like logic and reasoning to me. But you, of course, have every right to say anything you want and sound as stupid as you do! Just don't believe that anyone who isn't already in your camp could possibly take your "moral relativist" stance seriously!
What don't you see as his logic?
He thinks homosexuality is wrong therefore it equates to a perversion to him.
You think homosexuality is not wrong and therefore it is not perverse to you.
Its called a differing opinion.
And you should be more tolerant of differing opinions.
After all, tolerance is what you are wanting is it not?
Well, yeah, I went over board on that post. You're right, you got me, TM. I shouldn't have brought in the race thing at all. I concede. Apologies.
However, I think you set your self up by hijacking the thread and changing it to morality instead of addressing the OP. (Just so ya know....)
I should have stuck with MLM's being a perversion, which they are, and there are pervertresses in a lot of areas in life, just as there are perverts.
necrophilia, child pornography and bestiality are the ones that comes to my mind,
Are we just throwing out random perversions?
Watching Fox News naked.
I wouldn't call this a perversion - they show a lot of Sarah
OK, if you turn the sound down it could be classified as a normal heterosexual activity.
Have a kleenex.
In recent years more women are coming before the Courts in Europe charged with sexual criminality. Traditionally men were believed to be the sole perpetrators of sexual crime. However, recent high profile cases show that women without any assistance from men are capable of committing some of the most heinious crimes imagainable. Yesterday in Ireland another case came before the courts and here are the details:
A WOMAN charged with 87 counts of indecently assaulting a number of girls may face further charges.
Tullamore Circuit Court was told a jury would be required for the trial of the 61-year-old, who is pleading not guilty to offences that allegedly took place at an Offaly school between 1973 and 1977.
A number of the alleged victims were in the court, as was the defendant.
The book of evidence refers to seven named female victims, with 20 offences each alleged to have been committed against three of them, 10 against two other victims, six against one and one charge against the final victim.
I simply use this case as an example of the latest to appear before the Irish Courts. The correct forensic psychological term for a woman sexually abusing female children is a Homophile. Men who abuse young boys are also Homophiles. Men who abuse young girls are Hetrophiles. Women who abuse Boys are Hetrophiles. People who abuse boys and girls are known as peadophiles.
You may ask why make a distinction, surely they are all scum bags. The answer to that is simple. If we dont make these very important distinctions then we are giving parents and children the impression that there are certain sections of our society who do not abuse children.
Over 98% of those members of religious orders who abused children the world over were Homophiles. These were men abusing pre-puberty boys. Or women abusing pre-puberty girls as in the case alleged above. If we as a society create the impression that certain people dont abuse children then we are guilty of facilitating that abuse.
Children can only be protected by vigilence and education. If we fail to educate our society that sexual crime is not the preserve of one group of individuals, then we facilitate sexual crime. For generations Social Services and the Criminal Justice system have dealt with men and women differently when it has come to sexual crime. It was always believed that women were not capable of sexually abusing children.
The reality is that the 14 Health Boards in Ireland show that women are in fact the greater abusers of children. While men are periodically dragged before the courts and paraded in the tabloids, women are more often given councilling or sent off for a few weeks holidays having committed the exact same sexual crimes.
Our Political System and Criminal Justice system are dominated by men, and these men appear in most cases to be unable to deliver the laws necessary to address the sexual criminality of women. Indeed in the latest piece of sexual crime legislation introduced in Ireland, a male under the age of 17 years can be charged with rape while a woman cant.
It is this type of blinkered law that facilitates and condones the sexual abuse of many thousands of children and others each year at the hands of women. Of course those so called 'victims' groups that are mainly run by men haters are not going to highlight the sexual criminality that is committed by women.
So we have in Ireland a Moral Quagmire in which the female sex criminal can continue to ply their trade. It is shameful and disgusting to think that our politicians are incapable or unwilling to stand up and be counted, to address the rape of a child by a woman, with equal outrage as that by a man. However, our politicians have been bullied in to silence. They fear that if they openly and honestly address the rape of children by women, they will be lambasted in the lurid tabloids in which they have so much faith.
Yes many of our legislators are at the dictate of the lurid tabloids, the same tabloids that facilitate and promote the sexual objectivication of men, women and children with their lurid sex chat lines, their pornography and filth. This tabloid filth facilitates and normalises the rape of men, women and children, yet out legislators sit like baying dogs, as they seek applause from the filth mongers.
The rape and sexual abuse of human beings by other human beings has been about since time began, however, in 2010 there is no excuse for our legislators to facilitate the rape and sexual abuse of men, women and children by failing to address the sea of legislative unertainty that allows these deviants to swin in their moral quagmire.
I believe any human can get perverted. I haven't ever known any perverted women, though I have met a few with real filthy minds! But there are probabl MORE men out there who act on their perverted fantasies than women. Women probably keep it to themselves. and anyway, we would have to define perversion and I really don't want to go there!
I searched far and hard.. very hard... for female perverts during my single days
I married the only one...
...gotta go now.
It must have been very, very lonely out there....
Mega said... "But you, of course, have every right to say anything you want and sound as stupid as you do! Just don't believe that anyone who isn't already in your camp could possibly take your "moral relativist" stance seriously!"
Yet I tell someone they are playing stupid and I am suspended for it.
yeah... the admins are so very non-biased.
I say you sound stupid to me - so what's the problem? I am not calling you half the names you call others! but anyhow, this is not a discussion of whether women can be perverts! I believe pervert is a non-gender term. Not that it matters to you. I just wish you'd stay on topic and not start flogging at liberals and leftys everytime you come online. Doesn't it get tiresome to hear yourself talk? Or do you listen to yourself?
Who do I call what? Leant leftists?
I have been called a racist, a bigot, a hateful person... and stupid, all because I espouse a different view than yours and others.
I have not dis-agreed that "pervert" is a gender nuetral discription.
Have you read my posts?
Perversion is an act... many an act is perverted, mega.
And you are welcome to have whatever moral standard you want.
You, though, do not get to set my moral standard.
Gee you wouldn't be one of the Admin, would you?
Is there a list of the admins on here somewhere?
omg - habee a pervert? not even. These other guys really seem to know ALL about perverts and perversions - seem to have made a study of it! and believe me, sister, you don't qualify in the definition there. hehehe! But I bet you can get pretty "raunchy" - in a good way!
Women should aspire to the kind of perv you are, my dear.
TM, I'm curious. Do you think any sexual acts between a man and wife could be considered perversions? No kids and no animals involved - just 2 consenting, married adults.
I've always wondered what you look like in real life, mega...
Cool picture. Saw something like it, but those drugs are all gone now. Perversion is decided by the mores of the society in which you live. By some standards, America is a perverse society, by our own standards, those same societies which think us perverse are the ones who are perverted.
No, TM. I think anything my husband and I do in the privacy of our own home, as long as we both consent, is fine and not perverted.
I disagree with your last sentence. For example, I'm sure you'd agree that "normal" intercourse between two heterosexual adults is not perverse. Yet, I hope you would think that that same act between an adult male and a 5-year-old girl is a perversion.
TM, I disagree with you, but I can see your intent is not to be a racist or bigot. However, you and I and a lot of other people know we're not going to agree on a lot of things. You may not even agree with my idea of "agreeing to disagree" but it works for me. It just means at the end of the day, I don't have to attack you personally for your beliefs (as long as you don't attack others).
You get attacked by attacking. The way that stops is not to attack. I think most of us are guilty of that at some point or another.
So, I disagree with you, but respect your right for you to have your opinions.
pervert is like any other idiotic word without meaning - all that it does is explain that someone somewhere doesn't like something that someone else does.
"pervert" "hoarder" "libeler" "jerk"
And yet you just used the term "jerk" on another thread...
Does hypocrisy actually mean anything?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Wilderness has a way of presenting a logical and intelligent conclusion to many arguments. What makes so many people drawn to religion although the bases of religion aren't based upon any logical premise? Why do so many people feel the need to have a religion? Is...
by taburkett 2 years ago
What do you do personally to make society a better place? What do you think others should do?Today many people blame others for the decay in moral society. However, these same individuals do not accept responsibility for their negative actions. What do you think needs to be done to restore...
by taburkett 23 months ago
How do you convince someone that they are not destined to be LGBT?As a young executive, I counseled individuals in the past and promoted them into moral society by consistently stating the truth about the mental affliction. Emotional outbursts continue to support the education of LGBT as a...
by fred allen 6 years ago
Can morality exist without a divine authority?Without absolutes who has the authority to establish moral boundaries? If there is no divine standard, can there be such a thing as morality or right and wrong?
by skyrapiz 6 years ago
this is to give an insight of what is the moral standard of people today
by Jessie Watson 5 months ago
Do you believe that the concept of "right" or even what you would define as "human flourishing" is only a subjective choice that groups agree upon?Or is there an ultimate reality that shows us that certain things are almost always in support of human flourishing (or not)?An...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|