In Thomas Nagels Sexual Perversion he proposed that sexual perversion is any sexual act in which one or more person(s)

involved in the sexual act is not aroused by the other person involved and/or is not aroused by the other person being aroused. In layman terms Thomas Nagel believes that if two or more people are performing a sexual act and one of the people involved is not enjoying it or is not sexually aroused (excited), then the sexual act is perverted. Nagel believes that sexual acts are not perverted when all of the persons involved are each sexually aroused by each other and each person is sexually aroused by the other person(s) being sexually aroused. Nagel also states that social disapprobation or custom has no bearing on the concept of sexual perversion. He believes that anyone who is inclined to think that in each society perversions are those sexual acts and practices that the community disapproves of, should consider all the societies that have frowned upon adultery and fornication. These two acts have not been regarded as unnatural practices or acts, but they have been thought of as vastly objectionable in other ways. What is regarded as unnatural varies from culture to culture. In some countries such as the United States, adultery is considered to be an immoral act. But very few would say that it is a perverted action. In the United states a perverted act is an act that usually involves unauthorized touching of an individual or stranger, stalking and watching people dress and undress via hidden cameras, and also having any sexual contact or interaction with minors and young children can be considered perverted actions. Another important aspect of Nagels model of sexual perversion is that like hunger, sexual desire has as its characteristic object a certain relation with something in the external world; only in this case it is usually a person rather than an omelet, and the relation is considerably more complicated. This added complication allows scope for correspondingly complicated perversions. Nagel is trying to make the point that an aspect of sexual desire is craving and necessity. Like for example, for breakfast you may want and prefer to eat an omelet rather than cereal. An omelet is what you crave. It is in this similar way that an individual craves to have a particular sexual interaction whether considered perverted or not. This in my opinion is one of Nagels most important points. As when I think of perverts I think of peeping toms and people who grope and touch people without their permission. A person may gain the desire to touch and perform a perverted act based on someones appearance and their desire to touch and interact with that person even though its unwanted. Like a person really craves to have an omelet for breakfast a pervert craves to touch that child and craves to get aroused via watching a woman undress in her bathroom via a hidden camera. Graham Priest in his piece described perversion as a morally negative concept. He describes as an act that is morally unacceptable and rejected by society. One of the arguments Priest made against Nagels views is that Nagel would consider homosexuality, sadomasochism and pedophilia to all not necessarily be non-perverted if done in the right way. While masturbation, rape and even straight sex of a very bored kind -e.g., by a prostitute, or a Victorian wife thinking of the Empire - count as perverted. Priest disagrees with these notions and assumptions by Nagel. Priest in his piece stated and described that Nagels views of perversion are too broad and lack luster. For example lets say a husband and wife are having sex and the husband is aroused and enjoying it while the wife is bored and not sexually aroused. According to Nagel the husband is a pervert, and priest would strongly disagree. Priest and Nagel do

however agree with Nagel's account that there is nothing in itself immoral about being aroused by someone who is not themselves aroused. I think our society should not use the concepts outlined by Nagel and label "perversion" for some sexual acts or preferences according to his ideals. In my opinion if you commit rape, touch little children inappropriately, grope people without their permission, install hidden cameras in someones bathroom without their permission to watch them you are a pervert. These acts are all immoral and unacceptable in modern society. In the situation in which a couple is having sex and one person is enjoying it while the other is not, I dont think the person enjoying it is a pervert. A person does not always succeed in sexually arousing a person while performing a sexual act, and their failure to do that does not make them a pervert. I also feel that Nagels views that if all the people involved in a sexual act are enjoying it then the act is not perverted is not always a true case. A 50 year old man performing sexual acts with 11 year old girls is perverted to me even if the man and the girls are enjoying it. Not only is it perverted, it is immoral, wrong, and also an act of pedophilia. Thus, in conclusion after reading Nagel and Priests pieces on sexual perversion I would say that I favor Priests view of perversion being a sexual act that is a morally negative concept and ideal.