The definition of "pervert" seems to be at issue here. If one is unfaithful to one's marriage vows and has a consensual affair employing nothing, um, in the way of, um, alternative forms of stimulation, then one is simply unfaithful.
If one, however, gets into the many, many "perversions" of all things sexual, including various unconventional activities in the bedroom, socially unacceptable behaviors like peeping toms, sexual harassment, and the several kinds of rape, then one is a pervert.
It's interesting that the latter definition involves alleged assaults substantiated by evidence, and ideally supported by witnesses. The substantiation and support are often there in the more egregious situations, not so much in situations which, after the fact, it seems arguable whether an act of perversion took place. "My word against yours" no longer carries much weight except that which could be called prejudice or popular opinion.
Long story short: I sound like I'm imitating a lawyer, and drawing on my limited law training, I am. The reason for doing so is to show that, being fair, that pesky benefit of the doubt factors in. In polarized situations like politics, however, the weight is tugged from fair to unfair and back again, depending on the perspicacity of the populace.
Amplifying every scintilla of doubt, the press have a field day with every bit of dirt, no matter how small, and almost never report the good things one has done in one's life. Dirt sells. Good news puts people to sleep. So picking fly poopies out of pepper, the press and the public put politicians under the spotlight and magnifying glass, and actual competence and potential for success in the job no longer have anything to do with what happens in the polls.
This is how the machinery, not the people, put idiots in the state and national Congresses, the White House, and positions filled by appointees. The result is wholly in conflict with the intent of the Constitution, and the result of that is that things are no longer working so well in what was once a wildly successful great experiment.
We have strayed a long way from the correct approach originally intended. It's interesting to note that reading those early intentions often makes one say, "OH! Of course! That would fix all kinds of things!"
But now in these latter days we are all about self, the majority apparently are not the people for which the Constitution suited well; we're untrustworthy, rude, self-serving, and don't care to do any research on any topic not directly related to instant rewards. A return to the origins would be the fastest way to stop a lot of the malfunctions of Government, but where is the gumption, where is the spirit, where is the dedication that could muscle this land away from the brink of fragmentation? This is a rhetorical question, because we all know that where such energies exist, they are unfocused, or they are focused inward.
