Throughout time scientists, philosophers, and laymen alike have discussed questions of the complexity of sex. These questions range from what sex is, to what is a sexual perversion, and far beyond exploring every nook and cranny of the subject. One of the authors that is well know for this type of discussion for idea of how to explain sexual desire is Alan Goldman. During his writing of “Plain Sex”, Goldman tries to define what sexual desire is, what a sexual perversion is, and other claims relating to sexual desire, often shrugging off previously believed theories. His ideas lead away from the idea that sex has a means end and leads to a more primal basis that sex is a desire for physical contact and the need to fulfill this desire for physical contact. In the end I will argue that his definition leaves out our basic cognitive functions and defines humans as to primal form of being. This leads us into his central arguments for why he sees it logically necessary that sex is a need for physical contact and the pleasure that comes from it.
One of the first parts of Goldman’s arguments is that he believes that we run into trouble with defining sexual perversion is due to how we define sexual behavior and desire. The main reason he seems to find fault in this is due to the fact that he does not see sex as a means to an end. What Goldman means when he argues that sex is not for a “means end” is that there is no specific purpose outside the action of sex that is being pursued Goldman does not think that sex is not meant to be explained by reproduction, love, communication, nor as Nagel argues an interpersonal awareness. Instead as stated before Goldman wants to separate the moral, social and ethical issues away from sex and define it a...
... middle of paper ...
...t I could see him saying is that he does not argue against my idea of a complex system of human minds and emotions, but that even with this in mind that some might deviate from his explanation, a vast majority would fall into his account of events. These could be supported by evidence from things such as Freudian accounts, to similarities that run through most humans. He would probably use the idea that quite a few functions are shown to have some relative simple brain functions and that sexual desire could be one of those simple functions or preprogramed desires. These in my mind would be his strongest arguments against my response. Even with these arguments in mind I will explain to you why my objection still stands, by finishing and elaborating more on my discussion of how Goldman’s idea does not include the “human factor” nor takes it into account with pleasure.
He proposed a theory that people are different from one another, yet they strive to be the same. People have the desire to “fit in” or be “normal. This subconscious yearning to be like others causes people to betray their natural nature and to be untrue to their selves. What one considers the norm, pertaining to sex, another might not. Since the topic is rarely discussed, the idea of “normal” in society is ultimately a guess. We should not disregard our natural behaviors as humans to please others or to be accepted into a society or a culture. We have the freedom to make our own sexual decisions and possess our own values. This being said, it should be accepted and “normal” to express ourselves how we would like to without a second thought of what is important to
In the book, “On the Meaning of Sex” J. Budziszewski talks about the meaning of sex. Budziszewski states that the issue of sex is one of the most important issues in our culture since the sexual revolution. Budziszewski opens the book by restating a conversation he once had with a student about the Book, “Brave New World.” The student states that the people are revolting and disgusting. Budziszewski is delighted by this statement. He believes that the student and himself are on the same page. Budziszewski responds to the student by agreeing and saying that there needs to be some meaning to sex. However; the student replies by saying, that the manner in which babies are “born” in the brave new world is disgusting and that sex doesn’t necessarily
”The History of Sexuality” is a three-volumes book, published around 1976 and 1984 by the french historical philosopher Michel Foucault. The three volumes are “An Introduction” (which later is known also as “The Will of Knowledge”), “The Use of the Self” and “The Care of the Self”.
In the second chapter, The A, B, C, and Ds of Sex (and Asex), Brock University Associate Professor and Asexuality author, Bogaert, examines “some of the fundamental psychological processes of asexuality as they relate to both sexual and asexual people.” Throughout this section, Bogaert explains the “A (attraction and arousal), B (behavior), C (cognition), and Ds (desire)” by going through each letter and explaining what it stands for. He tries to get the younger readers to understand the definitions of asexuality by aiming focus on the constituents of sexuality first. The similarities between sexuality and asexuality are outlined throughout this reading. Surprisingly enough, Bogaert explains the differences and the relationship between romantic and sexual bonds and how they appear in asexual people as well.
The application of morality begins at a young age for many people. Many children take on the morality of their parents through the daily events that influence their development. In many ways, parental sexuality means fidelity, and the ability to stay monogamous in order to properly raise a child in a complete family unit. This in turn expresses sexual fidelity as a form of morality, and without sexual fidelity, there will be painfully undesirable consequences. Along with the family unit being an influential aspect of sexuality, religion, particularly Catholicism, claim that sexual activity is solely justified by the reason of procreation. Freud also perceived sexuality as the dark and evil part of the human being, when allowed to freely express sexuality, the person i...
“It is not through some libidinal investment, through some energy of desire that [seduction] acquires intensity, but through the pure form of gaming and bluffing” (Baudrillard, 164). It is beyond the commodification process that is manufactured to guarantee success. Its nature is elusive and though it may use sexuality-it is only as a means to an end. Baudrillard asserts that “if sex has a natural law, a pleasure principle, then seduction consists in denying that principle and replacing it with a rule, the arbitrary rule of a game.” (Baudrillard,
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.
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.
In Sigmund Freud’s “Sexual Morality and Modern Nervousness”, contained in Sexuality and the Psychology of Love, the writer presents separate roles for men and women as it relates to sexuality, even referring to a “double code of morality” (22) for the genders. In his paper the former often takes the role of the subject while the former becomes the object. In fact, women are described as the “true sexual guardians of the race” glorified, it seems, instead of truly studied. However, in one particular section of the essay, Freud turns his focus onto the female sexuality. In specific he references the various factors that, in his eyes, can influence the female sexual formation. The primary influences being that of the society, primarily the institution of marriage, and that of the family, which would include both a woman’s parents and children. After discussing these elements, Freud then
Milstein, Susan A. Taking Sides Clashing Views in Human Sexuality. Ed. William J. Taverner and Ryan W. McKee. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
In today’s heterosexual and patriarchal society sex and sexual desires revolve around men, and Hoagland sets out seven patterns showing how this is the case. Sex is thought of as a “powerful and uncontrollable urge” and male sexuality therefore is a basic component to male health, sexual acts show male conquest and domination, sexual freedom gives men total access to and over women, rape is, by this logic, natural and women who resist a man’s advances are “‘frigid’”, sex involves losing control and sexual desire, when described as erotic, “involves a death wish (eros)”. The bottom line is that in today’s heterosexual and patriarchal society sex is all about men having a natural power over women; sex involves a total loss of control which creates a split between reason and emotion since being in control is a matter of reason controlling emotions, “we tend to believe that to be safe we must be rational and in control but to...
Means-end analysis “attribute a necessary external goal or purpose to sexual activity, whether it be reproduction, the expression of love, simple communication, or interpersonal awareness” (Goldman, 268). In Stewart’s case, he emphasizes meaningful sex and showing respect, which can be classified as expressing love and interpersonal awareness from the given quote. Goldman then adds “All definitions of this type suggest false views of the relation of sex to perversion and morality by implying that sex which does not fit one of these models or fulfill one of these functions is in some way deviant or incomplete” (Goldman, 268). Goldman is implying that these particular end means cannot be justified correctly from a morality standpoint as they allude to false misconceptions of what sex should result in. These objectives of sexual activity have been synthesized by countless philosophers and figures of the Church over the course of several centuries. Thousands of years ago, before Immanuel Kant, Robert M. Stewart, and the Catholic Church etc., who was to say that junk meaningless sex is immoral? It is essentially a philosophy created, developed, and followed by humans, manipulating them into generating the stigma on junk sex that is prominent in today’s
In order for Corvino to make his position that gay sex is not morally “unnatural”, he must first respond to several arguments. Many natural law theorists believe that sexual organs should only be used for three distinct purposes; reproduction, making a home for children through marriage, and emotional bonds. However, Corvino responds to this by arguing many of the human organs can be used for different functions, therefore we cannot make an argument defending only sexual organs. In his work he refers to this principle of what can be considered natural and unnatural when stating, “If the unnaturalness charge is to be more than empty rhetorical flourish, those who levy it must specify what they mean” (Corvino 84). He uses this statement to support his claim that gay sex is morally natural by proving that society often claims many “unnaturally” processed goods as being natural. If this is the case then we cannot define a human function as “unnatural” with any moral justification.
Jacques Balthazart, in the book, Biology of Homosexuality, examines the historical and cultural context in which homosexuality is expressed and attempts to dissect homosexual behavior and cognition from a biological perspective. He explains that there are behaviors in human sexuality that exhibit greater diversity than the sexual behavior of other animals. This exertion may lead one to conclude that human sexuality, as a result of its biological and emotional components, is more complex than the sexuality of other species. (Balthazart, p.4)
DeLamater, J. & Hyde, J. (1998). Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality. Journal Of Sex Research, 35(1), 10-18.