Perversion

[TooCurious]

Though it's not my intention to stir the semantic waters unnecessarily, I'm interested enough in linguistics that this discussion has piqued my interest.

It seems to me that the issue of referring to homosexuality as a perversion is an issue of connotation vs. denotation. The dictionary definition of the word, the denotation, as we have discussed, is simply "that which deviates from the norm," to paraphrase. However, in common usage, the word carries a connotation, an implied meaning, beyond its dictionary definition: "something wrong or disgusting."

Many words have connotations above and beyond the literal meaning which they denote. I might hypothesize that this "corruption" of meaning is how the language evolves. If this is the case, dictionaries would likely experience some lag in keeping up with usage, in part due to the prevalence of prescriptive linguistics in some academic circles. (I'll admit, I'm something of a prescriptive linguist myself; it's my intuition that there should be a "right way" to use a word. )

Regardless, if my hypothesis regarding the evolution of language and the gradual change in word meaning over time is correct, then while at the moment the meaning denoted by the word "perversion" may accurately apply to homosexuality (i.e. that it deviates from the norm), over time the denoted meaning of the word "perversion" may evolve to reflect the word's connotations,--which, it seems to me, are often intended instead of the word's dictionary definition by people who may not be fully informed of its literal meaning--and truly come to denote "something wrong or disgusting," which I feel would not accurately apply to homosexuality. And that really should have been more than one sentence, but it's almost 3am and I'm reasonably certain that it was vaguely grammatically correct.

 

[k]

Respectfully, I said this several days ago, but basically you're saying that you want an additional definition.

You must realize that it doesn't matter how many words are changed or used, the reason people may make a statement towards a moral stance will not change just because the word has an additional meaning.

To the point....Most people do not feel homosexuality is immoral due to the definition of perversion. I think you're equating word use ensuring the way people will look at it.

Remember a few years back when Queer was spoken as insulting, and now queer is used in trendy slogans and titles. Changing the term is not the issue.

I am not adding any definitions....thought the chocolate milk/sliced banana example showed how "perverted" is used in a certain light.

How many have ever heard "pervert" used in a positive or even amoral manner?

Changing how a term is used is the issue.

 

[k]

Though it's not my intention to stir the semantic waters unnecessarily, I'm interested enough in linguistics that this discussion has piqued my interest.

It seems to me that the issue of referring to homosexuality as a perversion is an issue of connotation vs. denotation. The dictionary definition of the word, the denotation, as we have discussed, is simply "that which deviates from the norm," to paraphrase. However, in common usage, the word carries a connotation, an implied meaning, beyond its dictionary definition: "something wrong or disgusting."

Many words have connotations above and beyond the literal meaning which they denote. I might hypothesize that this "corruption" of meaning is how the language evolves. If this is the case, dictionaries would likely experience some lag in keeping up with usage, in part due to the prevalence of prescriptive linguistics in some academic circles. (I'll admit, I'm something of a prescriptive linguist myself; it's my intuition that there should be a "right way" to use a word. )

Regardless, if my hypothesis regarding the evolution of language and the gradual change in word meaning over time is correct, then while at the moment the meaning denoted by the word "perversion" may accurately apply to homosexuality (i.e. that it deviates from the norm), over time the denoted meaning of the word "perversion" may evolve to reflect the word's connotations,--which, it seems to me, are often intended instead of the word's dictionary definition by people who may not be fully informed of its literal meaning--and truly come to denote "something wrong or disgusting," which I feel would not accurately apply to homosexuality. And that really should have been more than one sentence, but it's almost 3am and I'm reasonably certain that it was vaguely grammatically correct.

Good stuff! It is all in how words are used in context of the speaker and audience. It would be abnormal for me to put my shirt on inside out, but if I did and walked down the street, how many people would think I was a "pervert?"

 

[DrFate]

So if I understand what you are writing Texassky, If i really get your meaning , you are saying
that some pervesions are only a version, while other perversions are universally dispicible. Is that right?

 

[*Starlight*]

If a perversion is just something which doesn't happen often, then I guess things like homosexuality are perversions, together with being left-handed, or being exceptionally tall. However, the word "perversion" is generally used in a derogatory sense, that's why I don't think it should be used to describe, for example, homosexuality, even if you personally believe it's wrong, because you can just hurt someone a lot by using that word to describe them.

 

[k]

If a perversion is just something which doesn't happen often, then I guess things like homosexuality are perversions, together with being left-handed, or being exceptionally tall. However, the word "perversion" is generally used in a derogatory sense, that's why I don't think it should be used to describe, for example, homosexuality, even if you personally believe it's wrong, because you can just hurt someone a lot by using that word to describe them.

Exactly...it is about meaning and use. People can look up L Wittgenstein's work on this in "Philosophical Investigations."

 

[DrFate]

Exactly...it is about meaning and use. People can look up L Wittgenstein's work on this in "Philosophical Investigations."

To pervert the use of something is to use it for something other than its intended use right? Such a use is called a perversion, right? So a reasonable argument can be made that sodomy is a pervsion. Based on related laws a reasonable argument can be made that the Texal legislature is insane.

 

[k]

To pervert the use of something is to use it for something other than its intended use right? Such a use is called a perversion, right? So a reasonable argument can be made that sodomy is a pervsion. Based on related laws a reasonable argument can be made that the Texal legislature is insane.

per·vert·ed ([FONT=verdana, sans-serif] P [/FONT]) Pronunciation Key (p

r-vûr

t

d)
adj.

1. Deviating from what is considered right and correct: a perverted idea of justice.
2. Of, relating to, or practicing sexual perversion.
3. Marked by misinterpretation or distortion: a perverted translation of an epic poem.

Its use always carries with it an inherent moral judgment; therefore it is strictly subjective.

Some Texas laws are insane.

 

[DrFate]

Thanks for the def!
Its use always carries with it an inherent moral judgment But it may not be strictly subjective.

 

[beechy]

To pervert the use of something is to use it for something other than its intended use right? Such a use is called a perversion, right? So a reasonable argument can be made that sodomy is a pervsion. Based on related laws a reasonable argument can be made that the Texal legislature is insane.

Would you say that using your ears to hold up your glasses is a perversion, because the "intended use" of ears is for hearing? I'd be willing to bet that most people who attach a moral stigma to anal sex don't attach such a judgment to glasses. And how are we to determine "intended use"? Who's "intention" are we talking about?

 

[holyorders]

 

[k]

Thanks for the def!
Its use always carries with it an inherent moral judgment But it may not be strictly subjective.

As sick as this may sound, it is always subjective because there are people out there who advocate pedophilia, beastiality, etc....

 

[sparklecat]

Its use always carries with it an inherent moral judgment

I would say it usually does, but not always; I have no problem in using 'perversion' to describe abnormal behaviors, including those I practice myself, and mean no moral judgement by it.

 

[kopilo]

I agree with knightlight; going by the definition of perversion as abnormality, homosexuality clearly would fit - it's a minority position. From what I see, you're not using it as any sort of moral statement, correct?

So those who wear red pants are perverts? Better check anyone who has wears red pants for camera gear. Ohh my camera is red. :S
^just a demostration of connecting perversion to pervert.

Thanks for the def!
Its use always carries with it an inherent moral judgment But it may not be strictly subjective.

So you believe that moral judgement may not be subjective to a person's or group's moral belief?

 

[sparklecat]

So those who wear red pants are perverts? Better check anyone who has wears red pants for camera gear. Ohh my camera is red. :S
^just a demostration of connecting perversion to pervert.

In a technical sense, perhaps. Again, a lot of it comes down to what connotation you're attaching to the word.

 

[kopilo]

In a technical sense, perhaps. Again, a lot of it comes down to what connotation you're attaching to the word.

What about an emmotive sense? I have a feeling if you call somone a pervision they might connect it to pervert, more easily then `not being the norm`.

 

[sparklecat]

What about an emmotive sense? I have a feeling if you call somone a pervision they might connect it to pervert, more easily then `not being the norm`.

Probably, yes. I don't use the words pervert or perversion with any sort of moral judgement implied, but as most people don't realise that, I simply don't use the words very often, or take care to clarify my meaning.