Perverted, you say? The distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" or "perverted" sex has always been part of traditional sexual morality. Every major philosophy of sex has something to say about this distinction; and in some of them, the distinction is given a high value. In society, the word perversion is attached with many negative connotations. The word suggests a sexual act that is grotesque, strange, or unnatural contrary to “normal” sex. Yet, in both every day and more abstract contexts, the use of the term sexual perversion is plagued by considerable inconsistency and confusion. Two different philosophers, for example, have very different views on what accounts for natural and unnatural sex and their account of perverted sexual desires. Thomas Negal is most popular for his belief that sexual perversion is not the actual act itself, but the mindset with which the individual completes the act. On the other hand, Alan Goldman’s theory is that sexual desire is only the longing for physical contact with another human. However, even with these disagreements there seems to be one underlying common theme between both Nagel’s Sexual Perversion, and Goldman’s Plain Sex. It is that another person, or their body, is always the source of sexual pleasure.
Nagel stresses that sexual perversions are based upon the notion that, “unnatural sex lies not in the nature of the act performed, but instead on the mindset of the person who performs it” (Nagel, 33). To illustrate this farther, he uses the analogy of sex to that of hunger, explaining how, like the desire to eat, there is also an inherent desire in humans for sex. On the topic of perversion, Nagel explains that what may perverse to someone else, may not be perverse to another. There are of course certain scenarios in which everyone could potentially agree upon the degree of perversity, such as bestiality. He also goes on to assert that even if someone participates in an act that would be considered by the ‘norm’ to be perverse, it does not necessarily mean that the individual is indeed perverse. Contrary to Nagel’s beliefs, Goldman’s view on sexual desire is simply the longing to fulfill certain pleasures through bodily contact with other individuals. When somebody has a desire for something other than contact with another person's body, for example, contact with another person's clothes rather than body, and the satisfaction of such desire produces the kind of pleasure that the majority of human beings achieve through physical contact, the desire and the relevant activities are, according to Goldman, abnormal and perverse. Unlike Goldman, Nagel believes that sexual desire is contingent upon the awareness of the attraction between two people. He explains a series of steps that the two individuals will take when realizing that they are sexually attracted to one another and the most important aspect of it all is the moment when someone realizes the other person is also sexually attracted. This, he explains, is the ultimate goal of sexual desires.
Another interesting topic that is discussed between the two authors is whether or not homosexuality is seen as perverse. In today’s society, homosexuality is thought to be abnormal by many people, however according to Goldman, “It seems doubtful that homosexuality must be a perversion, though like heterosexuality it has perverted forms” (Goldman, 43). This is because homosexual couples do much of the same interactions that heterosexual couples partake in, and often times they even consume the gender roles that a normal heterosexual couple naturally fall into, such as a dominant man and a passive woman. Negal denies that homosexuality is either abnormal or immoral. In considering whether or not something is perverse, the question of morality might also come into play. However, both Negal and Goldman agree that what is perverse may or may not be immoral, however it usually is. For instance, someone who feels aroused by rubbing against a chair may be considered perverse but not immoral. Goldman pushes this idea even further and goes on to explain how even in if someone enjoys perverse or bad sex, it is still preferable over no sex at all. This assertion which he claims to always be true, gives humans alternatives to choose from, with no sex being the very last option. Even if that means partaking in perverse sexual acts.
The ultimate factor in deciding what is perverse or not lies completely on the definition of what normal sex is. To determine this might present a challange, simply because sex is such an intimate and subjective matter. In our culture however, it can be agreed that in “normal” sex men usually dominant the sexual process, and of course penetrates; whereas the woman receives, accepting the passive role. When these roles are not adhered to, the question of whether or not the actions are perverse or immoral come into play. The topic of perversion is an extremely controversial subject with which many philosophers have tried to define, dating back to the great philosopher Aristotle. The ‘definition’ is constantly changing based on the morals and ideas of the world that surrounds us, maybe a universal term is never going to be possible, however philosophers like Negal and Goldman help us get a better understanding.

Works Cited
Goldman, Alan. "Plain Sex." 2013. The Philosophy of Sex. Plymouth: Roman and Littlefield, 1977. 57-74. Print.
Negal, Thomas. "Sexual Perversion." 2013. The Philosophy of Sex. Plymouth: Roman and Littlefield, 1969. 33-44. Print.