One topic is guaranteed to polarise any group that discusses it, and\ud that is sex. What other word is guaranteed to make the person you say it to\ud hot and bothered? Ask the people around you what is the most perverted\ud thing you can think of and there would be as many answers as there are\ud people present. One of the world’s favourite authors, Terry Pratchett, musing\ud on the difference between erotic and perverted, suggested that erotic would\ud be using feathers during the sexual act, whereas perverted means using the\ud whole chickeni. Some of the following chapters stretch this distinction to its\ud limit.\ud The perception of what is sexually perverted shifts dependent on\ud who is talking about it. A person’s profession, gender, age, race, proclivities,\ud education and even which century they live in, have all effected the\ud viewpoint on sex and sexual perversions. For example, homosexuality has\ud long been stigmatised as sexually perverted, (and remains so among some\ud portions of society), but in most of the world it is no longer considered\ud pathological. However, in some individual minds and religious dogma,\ud atypical sex and sexualities are still judged as wrong, unnatural, or immoral.\ud So what is bad sex? Indeed, do we even have an understanding of\ud what is good sex? The papers collected in this volume reflect debate and\ud discussion about these very questions that took place in Prague at the 2nd\ud Global Conference Good Sex, Bad Sex, Sex Law, Crime, and Ethics in May\ud 2010. The deliberations covered issues of defining sex, sexual consent,\ud sexual law and its agencies and sexual crimes. Some papers are deliberately\ud provocative, designed to stimulate dialogue and debate. Others are intended\ud to be informative, or to signal areas of potential empirical investigation. All\ud of them address the vexed and vexing topic of sex.\ud In the section Defining Sex and Sex Crime, the editors’ paper on\ud sexual deviancy asks what exactly is bad sex? If it is an issue of consent, then\ud why do we still have intensely negative views about extreme, but consensual\ud sexual acts that involve no (clear) victim, such as necrophilia, or in which\ud lack of consent cannot be assumed, such as autassinophilia? We also explore\ud the background to sexual intolerance as one of state-controlled intrusion and\ud hypocrisy. In her paper, Claudia Lodia goes further, and suggests that\ud society’s pathologising of sex that is outside the strict binary of adult\ud heterosexuality is akin to other undesirable perspectives, such as racism. Just\ud as racism refuses to acknowledge the benefits of diversity, so does sexual\ud intolerance and inequality. The argument is extended to zoophilia by Brian\ud Cutteridge, who points out that the animal husbandry and harvesting\ud practices that we accept as normal, are exceedingly more harmful to ani
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.