There are many discussions as to what constitutes perverse and what is considered acceptable sex. In Nagel’s Sexual Perversion, Nagel depicts sexual perversion as being any activity that a person may think or do to satisfy their perverse sexual desires. Nagel believes that normal sex is only sex that happens between married couples for the purpose of reproduction. In Nagel’s inspection of what is considered normal and abnormal sex, Nagel introduces his situations where sex would be depicted as unnatural. First, fetishes with objects will be abnormal while plain sex will not. Secondly, Sexual desire is a form of sexual perversion. Lastly, any sexual desire that is psychological and not physical is considered abnormal. To define what normal …show more content…
He goes on to say that because an appetite is normal, sex must be normal. He comes to this conclusion because sex is an appetite that can be fulfilled. Nagel goes on to say that normal sex has to do with the “communication” between two people. He believes that if the communication between the two is mutual than the sex would not be perverse no matter the circumstances, Nagel uses the story if Romeo Juliet to try and describe the necessary connection that is needed in sexual desire. Going back to how Nagel believes there must be communication between the two Nagel uses the example of the silent exchange between Romeo and Juliet that expresses the want for sexual desire and the want to go from the silent exchange directly to sex. He implies that there must first be sexual desire, then awareness of the mutual connection, thus ultimately leading to sex. To further illustrate his view of perverse versus normal sex, Nagel notes that Voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism and masochism are do not involve an exchange that is reciprocated by the other person, therefore, not being a form of normal …show more content…
He believes that saying sex is perverse is to say that it is not of the norm. First off, Goldman offers his thinking on ethical considerations and moral intentions. He believes that ethical differences depend on variances about facts not necessarily on moral standings. Goldman uses the “Means-End” study that shows something has a purpose in this case how sexual activity is a means to one end. Meaning, sexual desire is a desire to reproduce. He believes that this falsifies the perception of the relationship between sexual perversion and morality. Goldman uses this definition to show where unnatural sexual behavior comes from. He strongly disagrees with this study suggesting that sex is not the means to reproduction because nature does not have a purpose for us but rather a purpose for itself. He then notes disagrees with the idea that the end is affection between two people. This cannot be the only end because there are many ways to show love for another instead of having sex. Furthermore, he goes on to discuss how communication is also not a means of sex. Communication involves a series of gestures and symbols which is not considered a means to an end. Communication can be used to deliver a variety of messages. Lastly when it comes down to interpersonal awareness, Goldman notes that two can have random sex without
He introduces basic conditions that an act must meet in order to be deemed a perversion. The sexual acts must be unnatural, a fetish or unnatural inclinations (Nagel, 1). Nagel goes further to discuss a basic definition of a normal sexual relationship and he claims that the general basis of that relationship is two people noticing each other. The relationship initiates through one person’s arousal and then the arousal of the other person. Mutual arousal must precede physical contact, these mutual perceptions establish a normal, natural sexual
Most religions of the world address moral issues that arise from people's sexuality within the human interactions. “Sex and religion- two of the most powerful, passionate, and poetic aspects of human existence”( “Manning and Zuckerman pg. 1“). There are many distinct religious beliefs about the complexion of sexuality and the appropriateness of various sexual behaviors. “Some religious (or aspects within them) can be described as comparatively “sex positive”. By “sex positive“, we mean that sensual, erotic activity involving the consensual pursuit and / or actualization of gratifying bodily pleasure is understood as natural and acceptable , even holy. Conversely, some religions (or aspects within them) can be described as “sex negative”, that is, sensual, erotic activity involving the consensual pursuit and / or actualization of gratifying bodily pleasure is understood as unnatural and unacceptable, even sinful” ( “Manning and Zuckerman pg. 2“).
Sexual fantasy had often been defined as being almost any form of mental imagery that can be viewed as being sexually arousing to that individual (Bartels, 2013, p. 7) which can result in deviant sexual behaviour. Many offenders have sexual fantasies and the sexual arousal gained from these fantasies sometimes isn’t enough which therefore leads the offender acting the fantasies out on another individual regardless of the trauma or pain they inflict. The mental imagery of the fantasy can become less arousing and this can lead to them performing these fantasies in real life to get the sexual gratification they had when they first developed the fantasy. The offender in the article, Marc, Ronald’s, made his victim wear nappies and plastic underwear while he was assaulting and raping her which portrays the idea that he was fulfilling a sexual fantasy he may have had; this could link back to previous childhood experiences that may have caused trauma to the offender. Law and Marshall’s (1990) account of sexual fantasy has shown to have a similar assumption as McGuire et al (1965) that sexual fantasies are a stimulus that is able to be conditioned and fantasizing is a deliberate act by an individual.
Freud believed that one’s sex instinct was the most determining factor of his or her personality; however, instead of relating sex to the mature class of humanity, he instead targeted infants and children (4). He generated a process of psychosexual stages in which each stage focuses in on a sensual body part and a corresponding time period in life (4). The stages are as followed, starting from birth: Oral, Anal, Phallic, Latency, Genital (4). Furthermore, each stage comes with its own conflict that arises when one is in this stage. He correlates that if this conflict is not solved during the set period of time, it can cause a fixation, thus bringing on personality traits in their adulthood relating back to that certain stage (4). For example, for one who is in the Anal stage (1 to 3 years) the conflict is toilet training. If the child remains too long or too briefly in this stage, later on in the future they could be more excessively cleanly or even destructive and rebellious (4). Perhaps the stage that was targeted with the most criticism, was the Phallic Stage or the Genitals stage occurring from 3 to 5 or 6 years (4). This stage mainly declared that young boys are more drawn to their mother and become more hostile towards their fathers, hinting to the underlying ideas that the young boys are sexually drawn to their mother. In a vice versa scenario,
Goldman defines sexual desire as the want to be in contact with another person’s body and the pleasure that the contact produces. He defines sexual activity as the activity which fulfills these desires and achieves pleasure. According to Goldman, contact with another person’s body is the minimum requirement that is needed for sexual desire. However, he firmly denies that sex is just a means to an end. Therefore, sex is not just for the purpose of reproduction, an expression of emotions, or a way to communicate. If one were to be in accordance with sex being a means to an end, then anything that did not meet that criterion would automatically be deemed as perverse. Thus, if someone were to have sex for any other reason they would be seen as perverted, according to this claim.
In conclusion, what I learned from this article is that sex is much more complicated then I could have believed it to be. This article made me aware of many conflicts, issues, and disagreements that go along with what is or isn’t sex, and how there is no clear way to say, it’s really just a matter of opinion. For lesbians the simple use of a finger is enough, for gay men its anal sex. For some sex is innate and instinctive, while others believe it is learned. For some it’s based on love and pleasure, while for others it’s about domination. I highly doubt that there is anyone in this world that could come up with a universal meaning to sex which would please all parties. It is my conclusion that there is no right or wrong definition of sex; it is whatever
Unlike sex, the history of sexuality is dependant upon society and limited by its language in order to be defined and understood.
Sexual objectification refers to the way in which a person sexually reduces another by treating them as a mere sex object (Halwani). Sexual objectification is rarely referred to as a benign topic, though throughout this evaluation, an enlightened, thou broad range of opinions are discussed emphasising the ambiguity of the term in relation to the morality of sexual objectification. Halwani’s definition only embraces ‘treatment’ and or the ‘behavioural’ aspects of sexual objectification, nevertheless Halwani recognises that the process by which someone is sexually objectified occurs most frequently throughout the following scenarios: During casual sex, as the parties desire nothing more than the others body party, essentially their sexual parts. When we look at naked pictures of people and become intrigued by their sexual aspects. Engaging in pornography, as the material already objectifies it’s actors as models (Halwani). Perving on a person’s bodily features such a “her booty” as he or she walks by. Catcalling, by reducing the person solely to their physical appearances and lastly, fantasising about someone, as it objectifies them solely on their physical appearances and can in turn symbolise men or women holistically (Halwani, 2010, pp 186). Allowing for a broader discussion in relation to when sexual objectification is morally permissible (if ever), idea’s constructed by Immanuel Kant, Martha Nussbaum and David Soble are broadly evaluated in order to construct when sexual objectification is permissible.
To support her first premise Anderson argues that the good which is sex in this case, is realized only when each partner mutually returns the other's gift in the spirit with which it was received by giving one’s own sexuality to the gift giver, so as to acknowledge that the good is serving a higher purpose than just sexual gratification. The commoditization of sex hence seems to address the lower value of sex and not the higher and more lasting value of sex. Anderson invokes the idea of the value of sex being personal and shared to those involved. The value of sex is at two levels and are both personal as is involves the fact that those entering the act of sex recognize that they are sexually attracted to each other and establishing an intimate relationship in their mutual offering of themselves to each other. This establishment of an intimate relationship implies a connection between the two as unique to them. The value is also shared as the same “good” is being realized for both involved in the act of sex, it is also in the virtue of the act being shared, that there is goodness of the value. Therefore the aspects of the higher value of sex can’t be realized in commercial terms as the norms that govern the goods as impersonal and individually enjoyable, but does indeed satisfy...
The medicalization of sex addiction demonstrates the lengths at which medical authority will go to inject another fabricated disease into the blood of society. While alleged sex addictions have existed for many years, they have only recently been accepted as valid excuses for sexual deviancy. Attitudes toward sex addiction in the past offer a stark contrast to how it is viewed today, as the constantly medicalizing society insists on putting everything under the technical microscope. Sex addiction is commonly associated with a person’s inability to control his sexual behavior, implying an abnormally high sex drive and obsession with sex which have negative effects on his personal life (MedicineNet 2007, 1). Rather than breaking down the science behind the disorder, a customary practice in today’s medicalized society, older attitudes towards sex addiction placed it under the same light as alcoholism, where a lack of control and unwillin... ...
The term “fetishism” first came to light in 1887. Psychologist Alfred Binet first presented the terminology to explain those that feel sexually attracted to inanimate objects. As the years passed, other psychologists such as Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Sigmund Freud made adjustments to the word until it encompassed all overwhelming urges to use an object or part of the body that is normally considered nonsexual to reach sexual fulfillment. (Sexual Fetishism, 2003, Metacalf, Luke, Nationmaster.com) Until the time of the sexual revolution, fetishes where thought of as abnormal or deviant behaviors and mental illnesses. However, in more recent years the more acceptable “paraphilia” has been used to label those who have peculiar sexual desires. (Crooks & Baur, (2013). Our Sexuality (12 Edition) Page 488)
In the original play, the problem lies with the parents, who have failed to educate their children on matters of sex and their bodies. This leaves their children ill prepared to deal with their sexual urges for one another. The adults attempt to mold their children into their own “ideal self-image” (Boa, Spring Awakening 35-36) They do all of this “in the name of morality, but in reality to satisfy personal desires.” (Boa, Spring Awakening 35-36)
The issues of sexual ethics in relation to morality and perversion have been addressed in depth by each of the gentleman at this table. Sexual activity as described by Solomon and Nagle is comprised of a moral standard and ‘naturalness’ aspect. So, in claiming an act is perverted we must first examine it through a moral framework and understand how this interacts with the ‘naturalness’ of a particular act. Solomon makes the distinction as follows “Perversion is an insidious concept…To describe an activity as perverse is not yet a full blown moral condemnation, for it need not entail that one ought not to indulge in such activities.” Along with the examination of the nature of an act, there must be clear justification as to why sexual acts deserve special separate ethical principles. The question arises: does an act simply due to its sexual nature deserve a separate form of moral inquisition than other acts that occur in nature? In this essay I shall argue that perversion and immorality are not mutually exclusive. By this I mean that a sexual act that is, by my definition, immoral must also be perverted. It is also my contention that if an act is perverted we must also define it as immoral. This second part of the argument is contrary to what many of you have claimed. At the outset of this paper I would also like to state my support of Thomas Nagel’s argument holding that the connection between sex and reproduction has no bearing on sexual perversion. (Nagel 105)
Sexual remarks can be seen and heard everywhere in today’s society. Music, television, movies, and magazines are resources that can easily corrupt and be discovered by children through a push of a button. A child mind and body is consistently developing every day. Abstinence-only programs tell students to not have sex, but their body becomes curious as it develops. There are many people we object to giving directive sex education to young children because it can simply corrupt the young minds and are not the key to preventing sex between young adults. Family and Youth Concern director, Robert Whelan, states that people make claims of the benefits of comprehensive sex education, but the main determinant are family background and structure (Cornell, 2003). Comprehensive sex education programs are needed in school curriculum because it helps young adults mature appropriately through all the exposure. The study done by Kirby in Whitehead’s (1994) article states, “Once patterns of sexual intercourse and usage of contraception are established, they may be difficult to change.” Henceforth, it is important to educate young adults through the comprehensive sex education program at school. In Tobin’s (2001) excerpt, he states that children already began having sexual urges at a young age. As Freud has shown in his theories, adolescents must complete different stages throughout their childhood to avoid any fixation. Instead of repressing these sexual urges, the Nursery School Education (1939); by Wheeler and Earl; suggest that active curiosity to sex should be met with honesty. Any sexual fixation shown in the adult life can be traced back to the repression of the child’s curiosity (Tobin, 2001). Moreover, children can easily be scarred and fearful of their curiosity. The Nursery School Guide (1949) states that children who are yelled at for soiling or masturbating deem
Sex has been a taboo subject for many generations in nearly every culture present in the world. Many seem to rely on the traditional idea that one should abstain from sex until marriage, while others evolved and began to exercise the idea of sexual freedom and are not held down by any certain beliefs or traditions. Leslie Bell takes an in-depth look into this complex situation by taking into account various psychoanalytical theories and first-hand experiences in order to make sense of this complicated subject. One can argue that sex becomes a much more complicated rather than a pleasurable experience for women due to the confusing standards that society has put in place, their upbringing from childhood to adulthood, and their overwhelming desire