1. I voted pedophilia as most perverse because:
a) For younger than puberty children, we can not expect them to express consent since they are ignorant of pleasures so it is disgusting for adult to exploit them!
b) For from puberty to society’s recognized adulthood, it is a spectrum from exploitation to just plain stupidity (if the teenager actually consent with all knowledge and info). Why stupid? They are not adults with ALL rights yet so it is fairly like exploiting but at the same time, they are old enough to know that so it is very gray area in that part of spectrum.

2. Exhibitionism is least perverse because it is done with total consent from the exbihitionist, just don’t shove it down anyone’s throat (er, eyes, heehee). In fact, we are exhibiting in small ways daily anyway :).

I don’t feel I can answer, because I feel you’re loading the term ‘perverse’ – or that it at least has multiple meanings.

For me, ‘perverse’ in a clinical sense means ‘far from the average’ (’twisted’ to some extent), which means if there are more pedophiles than coprophiliacs, eating shit is more ‘perverse’ than fiddling kids.

But plenty of ‘perverts’ embrace the term, and I’m not happy with a scale that says ‘most perverse’ is only defined by ‘furthest from the norm’. Pedophiles are often the dullest of perverts (as Pervscan regularly affirms) – whereas someone who wraps themselves in clingfilm and begs to be urinated on by pygmies is possibly more perverted. I just don’t want to put the two on the same scale.

Then again, I just looked at the dictionary definitions of ‘perverse’ and ‘perverted’ and they’re not the same – I expect you knew that. I guess you can define ‘most perverse’ (but not ‘most perverted’) statistically…

Therefore (going on a bit here) – your question is wrong. People can only give a meaningful vote for what they consider to be the most perverted in others – that which is most perverse can only be determined by what they do themselves.

I voted Pedophilia (10/10) as most perverse due to the same reasons Oscar Serna mentioned. When perversion has direct, lifelong negative consequence on another sentient being it becomes a problem. bestiality (8/10) and necrophilia (8/10) are also perverse, but they will not cause direct emotional or physical damage to another living human being. The rest of the paraphilias I believe involve some form of consent (like masochism (6/10), fetishism (4/10), coprophilia (7/10), sadism (6/10)). Exhibitionism (3/10) doesn’t seem so taboo compared to the rest… images of sexuality and sexual activity are too prevalent in our society. Voyeurism is slightly different from the rest of the categories… If the victim finds out, the terror and stress inflicted is unacceptable. If they don’t then I guess its not as “bad”. Thus i really can’t decide on a “score” for voyeurism.

I considered this from the point of least reasonable from a biological sense (as opposed to right/wrong, in which case I would be right along with most of you in voting pedophilia as most perverse). However, considering how far “off track” something is from normal reproductive behavior, coprophilia then seems to be the most perverse, in that not only does it have no close relationship to reproductive attempts (e.g. pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality could arguably be interpreted as reasonably close to the usual brain wiring, but lacking a certain specifier – age, life, species), but it also deals with a substance that can be harmful (full of parasites/diseases), so most people are wired to avoid it altogether. Using this same logic, I would consider sadism to be the least perverse, as it is a sort of extreme version of the natural desire to exercise sexual/reproductive choice and/or gain/maintain social status (depending on how you interpret the term ’sadism’).

Acutally, Jaime, I’m questioning why Sadism would be the least perverse. If I followed your logic, I’d say Exhibitionism is the least perverse in a biological sense. Homo Sapiens lost the displays of sexual maturation a long time ago, unlike baboons and other primates that have obvious redness and swellings for all to see upon sexual availability. Thus wouldn’t displaying your sexual organs make the most sense biologically? It IS the most primitive sort of sexual advertisement and show of power. And I agree with you on the point with coprophilia, but perversion is a construct of culture and the norms of society, thus how can you evaluate the level of perversion purely on a biological level, without consideration of the values of society?

Necrophilia is without a doubt the most perverse and disturbing.

I find Beastiality perverse, but at least the sex is with a LIVING thing.

I mean serious, sex with dead people? That is taking psychotic behaviour to a whole new level.

However, by 2050, Necrophilia will be normal! Sex with living people will be “so 2007″!

Oooh! I’m like a kid in a candy store.

Does “most perverse” mean most bizarre, most counter-intuitive, most revolting, least popular among the general population, or something else entirely?

What are my choices again? Well I suppose I’d have to go for fetishism, masochism, coprophilia and necrophilia in that order (the verse that they edited out of “These are a few of my favourite things”).

Very philosophical – challenging the basic definitions of everything.

I didn’t really try to analise it all too deeply. My guts told me that Necro and Copra are just so way of base it’s untrue. I mean, dead people and shit? Are there any other two things in the universe we instinctively withdraw from like we do from those? Fire, maybe. But no one’s about to stick their dick in a flame. (Then again; Who’d want to do that with a turd?) Weird!

Paedo? I actually think that fazes down through an initial gray area, to start with. A fifty year old man with a seventeen year old girl? Legal ~ most places. Not considered Paedo. But still a bit harsh.

Twenty one man, fifteen girl? Illegal and termed Paedophillia. ‘But’ … Of course, once ye get down to True ‘kiddies’? Once more; Right off the scale.

As for Exhibitionism and Voyeurism? Doesn’t even register, does it? We straighten our own tie. That’s exhibitionism. We do it because we want our appearence seen and appreciated. And who hasn’t looked at porn or even admired a pretty girl in the street? Hardly ” Perverse ” by any standard.

Polls like this are fun, but ye’ll never word one to satisfie Everyone.

Fascinating responses, everyone. Thank you so much.

- – - – - -

Those who argue that pedophilia is most perverse because of its harmful effects make a very rational point. But — to play the Devil’s Advocate — what about those instances where there seemingly are no harmful effects? For example, in The Sexual Life of Catherine M., Millet writes about being groped by a friend’s grandfather. She tells her little friend about it, and the friend reveals that the grandfather had groped her too. Millet goes on, “We looked each other right in the eye as we spoke, trying to measure the magnitude of our discovery in the other’s gaze. We were pretty sure the grandfather was doing something forbidden, but the secret that he gave us to share was far more valuable than some moral whose meaning was, anyway, no clearer.”

So here is a difficult question: How perverse was the grandfather’s groping, given that the “victim,” far from being harmed, saw a higher meaning in it? Or to turn the question on its head, was the response of the “victim” perverse?

- – - – - -

Exhibitionism “done with total consent from the exbihitionist” — yes, but what about the people obliged to witness the exhibitionist’s public sex act? Is exhibitionism really a harmless crime? There is a similar question with voyeurism. Ask anyone who has discovered a spycam in her shower. Is it really a victimless crime?

- – - – - -

Harm would be a very rational and sound basis for determining the perversity of a given act or behavior. However, harm doesn’t seem to jive much with people’s gut reactions. Coprophilia harms no one — or does it? Does it represent a threat to the person who ingests or smears excrement on himself? (This is what Jaime is suggesting.) Is self-damage part of what determines the perversity of an act?

- – - – - -

If necrophilia is the most perverse act, then just what makes it so perverse? A cadaver is an inanimate object. Plenty of people regularly utilize other sorts of inanimate objects in their sex play (vibrators, cucumbers, high heels, etc). What is it about a cadaver that makes the act so much more perverse? Is it because the pervert repudiates a seemingly fundamental repudiation of death?

- – - – - -

“I mean, dead people and shit? Are there any other two things in the universe we instinctively withdraw from like we do from those?” So you think the perversity of an act is proportional to the “innate” repugnance people feel toward shit and death? And yet, isn’t that repugnance socially conditioned as well? Children will play with their own excrement.

Unlike the “popular” opinion, I didn’t vote for paedophilia as most perverse, but for sadism. Like others have said, “perverse” can mean many things. In my opinion, perversion isn’t measured by society’s opinions (if it can be measured at all), but could perhaps be measured by how different it is from the mainstream. If taking sexual pleasure from a beautiful woman is the norm, taking pleasure from a beautiful dead woman isn’t that much different. Taking pleasure from a beautiful woman taking a crap is just a variation on a theme. In some way or another, most of the perversions listed are still related to the basic act of sex. Sadism (and perhaps masochism) are the furthest removed, because in their essence they don’t need anything sexual to stand on their own. The others would all still involve sex in some way, even if in socially or morally unacceptable situations, making them slightly more “normal” than sadism. (Ideally this debate would involve face-to-face time with other perverts and easy access to alcohol!)

There’s nothing perverse about sadism. I like inflicting pain on women by having anal sex with them. For me, anal sadism is like food and drink. I’m sort of like Carl Panzram, except I prefer women.

Necrophilia is the most perverse because of the psychological state required to participate. Necrophiles/iliacs do exactly what serial killers do: they objectify and de-humanize the victim. Total disrespect.

You would hope that one time people are at peace is death. Who would want to be fucked when they’re a cadaver? Necrophilia, to a sane person, is utterly pointless. They are dead so the pussy/anus is almost certainly cold/dry. The cadaver receives no pleasure, gives no response or does anything.

Maybe a new branch should be considered, called Necro-Beastial-Paedophilia: the paraphilia of liking dead young animals.

Wierdly (is there any other way?) I’m on your wavelength Fugue.

I mean, you’re supposed to be having sex because it feels good, if it hurts like hell or whatever it seems condradictory (okay, there are psychoanalytic explanations, but we’ll ignore them).

I was thinking that coprophilia also doesn’t necessarily involve sex per se… But then it does fall into the Freudian “pleasure involving orifices” category (”children play with their own excrement”), so I reckon it can be rationalised that way.

I’d also be interested to know the personal preferences of people who voted. Do people want to stake a claim for their personal deviance as the most perverted one, or are they trying to normalise it?

I am going to write an article for you on the relationship between Peeping Tom and serial murder.

Fuge: ” (Ideally this debate would involve face-to-face time with other perverts and easy access to alcohol!) ”

That cracked me up! :D Funny enough, Fuge; I normally only get to come back here towards the end of my ‘evenings’. So I’ve usually accessed a fair bit of alcohol by now myself! ;-)

Me / ‘Vert: ” “I mean, dead people and shit? Are there any other two things in the universe we instinctively withdraw from like we do from those?” So you think the perversity of an act is proportional to the “innate” repugnance people feel toward shit and death? And yet, isn’t that repugnance socially conditioned as well? Children will play with their own excrement. ”

Would not more children be repelled by the presence of a dead person? Would they play with a corpse, d’ye think?

Maybe my own angle is derived not so much from ’socially conditioned repugnance’ as just plain understanding. Eg. I’ve just this minute come from a forum where it was showing a media report of how a load of hospital patients had died of a specifically shit borne disease, contracted on the wards.

Shit can be dangerous. So can snakes and loaded guns and berries. We have to teach our children these things. If ye want to call that ’social conditioning’? That’s fine. But it still stands, doesn’t it?

Dead people? I have to admit; The above (my) criteria doesn’t fit so well there, does it? A dead paedophile is a lot less danger to a child than a live one. And I say that on the given that no one, in discussing Necrophillia, would be thinking of a well rotted corpse.

Embrace my naked body now? No harm. If I drop dead now and ye embrace my dead, naked body tomorrow night? Again, no harm, I’d have thought. But, by the time I started blowing up and splitting? Ah, jesus ….!

Interestingly; One of my Dogs died the other week. As I laid him into the ground, just hours later, no way could I bring myself to kiss his face goodbye. He was stiff and cold. A corpse. No longer the warm and responsive creature I’d unhesitatingly plant a kiss on the day before.

No one’s ever “conditioned ” me for that. I just *Instinctively* recognised that this was dead and decomposing meat. Other animals too recognise death in their friends. Though, conversely, they’ll happily eat that friend once the body reaches a certain state of decomposition.

I recognise that I’m bouncing around a bit here, ‘Vert. But that’s just due to my own attempting to pin the point down: Kiddies will indeed play with excrement. They don’t yet recognise the inherrant dangers. Yet DO kiddies play with dead things in the same way?

Whilst having no personal reccollection of any fasination with shit, I Do remember picking up some dry Dog shit and chasing my mortified friends with it. But I could see it was dry and hard as stone. Not as if it was wet and sticking to my fingers.

At the same period we found a dead sparrow. I busted it open and we were all fasinated by what was inside it. But mess with what was in there? Hell no! It was dead and we *Instinctively* felt it would be wrong. No way were any us of going to let our own skin touch That lot.

Damn. Now ye’ve got me so wrapped up in all this, I think I’ll go back to my ‘home’ forum and present this question to a bunch of perfectly average, ‘normal’ people! I just need to figure out what ‘The Question’ is! :D

“Would not more children be repelled by the presence of a dead person? Would they play with a corpse, d’ye think?” Plainly an experiment is in order. Somebody round up some cadavers to leave in the playground…

Necrophilia is in the lead as most perverse?! Madness. Then again, this was a hard poll…

Since no one else is volunteering for the school experiment I’ll bring a cadaver if someone else provides the shit.

Requiescat in pace etc.

I cannot vote because I cannot break the tie for most offensive — I am torn between Bestiality and Pedophilia. Both are offensive because they are living sentient creatures who cannot consent and cannot refuse. Both, therefore, are rape. I look forward to the results. I think. ;)

I love this conversation. Thanks, Supervert!

My only “problem” is with the use of the word “Fetishism” as a catch-all term. IMO, all these things ARE fetishes. So if you mean “Fetishism” to be “everything else” than that’s problematic IMO.

Pedophilia is pretty much main stream as far as I can see. I agree that it is reprehensible because of the violation of trust but children are beautiful. Just look how the torture of innocence dominates pop culture. Of course pop surrealism explores most perversions simultaneously in the visual arts. Innocence and morbidity, the fascination is undeniable and perhaps even understandable. We can all identify with both tormented and tormentor. Eating feces however…now, how can that be fun?

Curiously, babies will eat their excrement and small children are uniformly fascinated with dead animals. My daughter and her friends once repeatedly dug up a dead turtle to play funereal. So obsessed were they that the poor turtle had to be secretly buried elsewhere. What conclusions can be drawn? Are perversions perhaps normative in some primal sense? Could social conditioning be the most serious perversion of all?

All comments become the property of PervScan. You must use an email address to post a comment. However, PervScan disallows email addresses in the text of comments.