Masturbation is such a simple concept, yet the controversy over the topic is discussed freely amongst many philosophers. Although the word itself has many definitions Alan Soble, Alan Goldman, Robert Solomon, and Thomas Nagel all have their own takes of the matter. Finally, in this essay, I will highlight the philosophical opinion of masturbation and the negative connotation it also possesses.
Alan Soble defines masturbation as a person who manually rubs the penis or clitoris, in private, until final orgasm. There were many different attempts of defining masturbation, but Soble could not fully agree to them all because they were flawed. The first description for masturbation is “a sexual act involving hands and genitals”. He disagreed with this because some sexual acts do not involve hands or genitals. The second definition says “ a sexual act with lack of insertion”. This is false because it states that if something is not inserted, then it is considered masturbatory; oral and anal sex is not considered masturbatory. The third definition says “sexual act not involving the insertion of a real penis into an orifice of a living being”. This presents a double standard because it is conveying that gays can have sex but lesbians cannot. Since intercourse between lesbians does not require a “real penis”, it would be considered masturbation rather than sex. Another definition with the same double standard is shown in the fourth definition, which states “a sexual act not involving the insertion of a real penis into an orifice of a human being.” Bestiality is not considered masturbatory; therefore this statement would be incorrect. In the fifth definition, it mentions “a sexual act not involving the insertion of a real penis into an orif...
... middle of paper ...
...feminist writers. From the liberal’s point of view, they believe that masturbation is wrong. They believe masturbation-- even pornography-- send out a bad message towards men undergoing a lot of pressure to become sexually active. Partaking in masturbation or watching pornography degrades women and makes them feel as if they are being used as an object. Just the thought of women while engaging in masturbation is frowned upon and seen as immoral. Soble deliberates that the liberals are underestimating men.
Through my readings, I have come to realize that masturbation has been an issue which many educated philosophers have strongly focused on. Many people have questioned whether or not masturbation is considered moral or immoral. Although most philosophers saw masturbation under a foul light, Alan Soble was able to prove that masturbation was not completely corrupt.
Francis Bennion has criticised the Act for this semantic ambiguity whilst acknowledging that too narrow a definition may tie the courts' hands in the application of the law. Sexual can be defined a simply 'of or pertaining to the sexual organs' which would render certain medical examinations sexual activities at the very least. Clearly the Act intended that in interpretation juries and judges would use the relevant cultural 'cache' in deciding the sexuality of an act. Intending to gratify oneself in a sexual manner seems to be closest thing to a criminal definition of 'sexual' yet neither gratification nor desire are mentioned anywhere in the relevant provisions.
There is no study indicating that females don’t have the same desires and need to explore themselves. In fact masturbation is a healthy and natural thing for both males and females.
Masters and Johnson were a pioneering team in the field of human sexuality, both in the domains of research and therapy. William Howell Masters, a gynecologist, was born in Cleveland, Ohio in 1915. Virginia Eshelman Johnson, a psychologist, was born in Springfield, Montana in 1925. To fully appreciate their contribution, it is necessary to see their work in historic context. In 1948, Alfred C. Kinsey and his co-workers, responding to a request by female students at Indiana University for more information on human sexual behavior, published the book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. They followed this five years later with Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. These books began a revolution in social awareness of and public attention given to human sexuality. At the time, public morality severely restricted open discussion of sexuality as a human characteristic, and specific sexual practices, especially sexual behaviors that did not lead to procreation. Kinsey's books, which among other things reported findings on the frequency of various sexual practices including homosexuality, caused a furor. Some people felt that the study of sexual behavior would undermine the family structure and damage American society. It was in this climate - one of incipient efforts to break through the denial of human sexuality and considerable resistance to these efforts - that Masters and Johnson began their work. Their primary contribution has been to help define sexuality as a healthy human trait and the experience of great pleasure and deep intimacy during sex as socially acceptable goals. As a physician interested in the nature of sexuality and the sexual experience, William Masters wanted to conduct research that would lead to an objective understanding of these topics. In 1957, he hired Virgina Johnson as a research assistant to begin this research issue. Together they developed polygraph-like instruments that were designed to measure human sexual response. Using these tools, Masters and Johnson initiated a project that ultimately included direct laboratory observation and measurement of 700 men and women while they were having intercourse or masturbating. Based on the data collected in this study, they co-authored the book Human Sexual Response in 1966. In this book, they identify and describe four phases in the human sexual response cycle : excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. By this point in time, the generally repressive attitude toward sexuality was beginning to lift and the book found a ready audience.
The first and most prominent of the perspectives that apply to this case study is psychodynamic psychology. This perspective is based on the studies and findings of Sigmund Freud, who was a neurologist that proposed that there is an unconscious mind into which everyone represses their threatening, vulgar urges and
In this paper, I will attempt to review the debate on pornography in Chapter 4 - State and Society - of Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, Seventh Edition by John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger.
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
Donna J. Drucker, “A Most Interesting Chapter in the History of Science: Intellectual Responses to Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male”, History of the Human Sciences 25 no. 75 (2012): 79.
...gument against pornography is claiming that intercourse is an act of rape, the argument immediately seems outlandish and almost laughable, and it surely seems that way to the average person. People see these examples of radical feminism and attribute those isolated incidents as representative of the entire feminist movement as a whole. Therefore through complexity, the feminist movement lost a substantial amount of its genuine credibility due to perceived extremist views on female sexuality. This, among many other incidents, seems to be the cause of this great reversal in female sexuality in our current day society. Instead of putting an end to pornography, it flourishes. Instead of bringing an end to female objectification, it is often nowadays encouraged. This reversal of feminist ideals is the main cause for the damage to female gender roles in the 21st century.
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... ...
When women’s desires are less worthy of concern or not worthy of concern at all, it becomes evident that the hookup culture promotes women being used as a tool or a means to an end for male satisfaction. According to the Kantian moral theory, the culture is immoral because the woman is no longer being respected. The ambiguity of the hookup culture couple with societal effects of inegalitarian porn, according to Eaton’s “A Sensible Anti-Porn Feminist” and power imbalances in the sexes creates a culture that fosters rape. Women are placed in predicaments where they have to give in to pushy, coercive behavior by men who want to go further than the women intends to. Even if a woman feels liberated by participating in the hookup culture, that doesn’t mean she wants to go all the way, with every partner, every time. The objectification of women and rape are two serious and harmful effects of the hookup culture.
This essay will analyze and critique Michel Foucault’s (1984) essay The Use of Pleasure in order to reveal certain internal weaknesses it contains and propose modifications that would strengthen his reading of sexuality as a domain of moral self-formation. In order to do so, it will present a threefold critique of his work. Firstly, it will argue that that his focus on solely the metric of pleasure divorced from its political manifestations underemphasizes state power as a structuring principle of sexuality. Secondly, it will posit that his attention to classical morality privileges written works by male elites and fails to account for the subtexts that would demonstrate other forms of morality. Finally, it will argue that the nature of actors’ resistance to moral codes, explicated through Butler’s concept of iterability and signification, is an important factor that should also be considered. As a result of this critique, this essay
The combination of liberal and radical feminism is not one that often comes to the mind, but it can be useful to consult various viewpoints when tackling complex issues. Despite drastic differences between them, these two views of feminism do hold some similarities with each other by virtue of their common goal (when that goal is simplified to simply equality of the genders). In this paper I will be outlining some of the basic similarities and differences between these two ideologies of feminism and I may not cover all of the connections and gaps between the two for the sake of length. Moving forward from this explanation of liberal and radical feminism, I will use it to explain their views of pornography and how it aided my own understanding
One of the earliest proposed definitions of asexuality came from the famed Alfred Kinsey in 1948, who called it “a lack of sexual behavior associated with a lack of sexual response to erotic stimuli” (Houdenhove, “Asexuality” 1). Later re-definitions include “a lack of sexual behavior associated with a lack of sexual desire” in 1977, “a lack of sexual orientation” in 1980, “a lack of sexual behavior” in 1993, and “a lack of sexual desire or excitement” in 2007 (Houdenhove, “Asexuality” 1; Yule 1). It was not until 2016 that researchers recommending using the definition that asexuals had been using to define themselves (which had also undergone some modifications), describing asexuality as “a lack of sexual attraction” (Houdenhove, “Asexuality” 1). It is interesting to note that all of these definitions define asexuality as “a lack of ______”, as it implies that there is something that asexuals are missing and that they are not complete, but the currently used definition at least describes the phenomenon in a way that is satisfactory to almost all who discuss asexuality.
Sex is generally defined the medical definition involving the sex organs, and participation by more than one party, but as humans are complicated beings this is insufficient to provide an account of sex. In Thomas Nagel’s essay “Sexual Perversion” he addresses the psychological account of sexuality with a phenomenological approach. Nagel describes a scenario of Romeo being aroused by Juliet, and Juliet being aroused by Romeo, and Romeo being aroused by Juliet’s arousal, and so on and so forth (Nagel 37). This progression of sexual arousal between two parties is the basis for which Nagel understands of sex. This progression eventuates in physical contact wherein the other becomes more and more “possesible” by physical contact, and the progression of arousal (Nagel 39). This progression of arousal in two parties, and the embodiment by physical contact is how Nagel describes sex. This definition provides Nagel with a basis for describing sexual perversion as anything that lacks the progression of arousal between two or more conscious individuals eventuating in physical contact that emb...