Here’s a thought that occurs: which is the perversion being naked or wearing clothes? Not that I’m a nudist I’m a card carrying clothes wearer. One of the few clothes wearers who feels the need to carry a card no less. But here’s my point.
There is an extent to which perversion is defined as doing what most people aren’t doing. But that kind of definition falls down when you realise that not many people are making lace anymore. Are the lacemakers perverted? Of course not. So we need a different definition.
Actually what would happen if you were a nudist, you’d grown up in a nudist colony, and you had always secretly wanted to wear clothes. Would you be a closet clothes wearer?
I imagine that the best alternative is to say that perversion is things that are animalistically not normal. Things like, supposedly, being gay. The idea being, I guess, that procreation is always supposed to be about making babies. This despite the fact that there are gay animals and all animals are naked.
This takes us back to that pointless definition which I guess is “people who do things which I don’t”. Is their any other kind of argument?
I can’t imagine one, which leaves us in the situation that everyone in the world is perverted except for you. Or that no one is perverted. Which is it? Or is it another word destined for the scrap heap?