One online dictionary defines pervert thus: “To distort or corrupt the original course; to lead (someone) away from what is considered natural or acceptable.” Then there is: “Sexually abnormal and unacceptable; a person whose sexual behavior is considered abnormal and unacceptable.” Which invites the obvious questions: What precisely is normal and acceptable sexual behavior? Who sets the parameters and guidelines? What are the consequences, should these guidelines be ignored or (God forbid!) perverted?
Are those who set the boundaries also to be guided by them? And what if they refuse to be?
All of the above came to mind last week after the “nipplegate” furor over the STAR’s July 26 front page. The word “pervert” was liberally tossed around, usually aimed anonymously at the paper’s publisher—who is by now used to the knee-jerk hypocritical response to anything remotely connected with sex. Conveniently forgotten are his consistent campaigns against nationally endorsed (tacit and otherwise) rape, sex with children as young as five and eight years old.
Not that Rick gives two hoots. I’ve often heard him say it’s when hypocrites agree with him, praise him, whether for his writing or his photography, that he worries. But seriously, does the fact that someone allegedly enjoys sex his way and not your way make him a pervert? Or is a guy a pervert simply because he photographs or sculpts women without their clothes? (Ever heard of Michelangelo? He numbers among his fans the occupants of the Vatican.) How about photographers, including females, who photograph naked men?
A new thought occurs to me: I don’t remember having heard anyone declare a local rapist a pervert? Are rapists not perverts? I won’t ask about the gay lifestyle. Every holier than thou knows those who live it are doomed, here and the hereafter. And speaking of styles: How perverted is it to do it doggie style?
Ever wondered how the missionary position got its name? I assure you it has nothing to with getting down on your knees in prayer; according to one authority it was once the only sexual position permitted by the church. (Tell that to the cassocked pedophiles!)
I now turn my hardly prurient attention to two locally produced (who knows if perverted?) videos recently gone viral. The first features a young girl orally pleasuring a guy. (Ever heard of Oral Roberts, the famous televangelist? Wonder who named him and why?)
From all I’ve learned the video was leaked by a close friend of the young pleasure giver. But never mind the horrid betrayal by a friend, the wise and holy Facebook commentators have been giving it to the young woman the only way they know. Many claim to know her “personally.”
Others insist she’s done it all before, on the Net. But this I ask: if the portrayed blow-jobber is a pervert headed for hell, then what about the holy-holies who have taken on the task of forwarding copies of her evil video to their BFFs the world over? Are they performing a moral obligation?
Though I find it hard to believe, a local lawyer assures me that “right now there is nothing illegal about shooting sex videos and then releasing them on FB, provided you do not add your own commentary.”
As I write, England, where most of our laws originated, is seeking to legislate against “sexual bullying,” whatever that might mean. (Is rape sexual bullying? Is battering? Is bulling? I ask, but really my own special interest is in sexual healing!
The second video shows a man engaged in furious open-air masturbation, reportedly at pristine Vigie Beach. His videographer, after secretly capturing the action in graveyard silence for several seconds, suddenly becomes absolutely disgusted, enough to start calling the self-pleasurer a bunch of names, including our second national favorite: “Salop!”
The man calmly reminded the Peeping Tom that his chosen form of sexual relief places no one’s health at risk. By the way, I say Peeping Tom but this particular Tom was a Jane. I need only add that name callers often reveal more of themselves than they realize!