Sexual Morality “There must be integrity between body and life. You must not do with your body what you’re not willing to do with your whole life” (Keller). Keller is directly talking about our individual sexual morality and how or how not it should be perceived in a social context. Most people think sexual dilemmas of it in a broader spectrum, not directly related to one’s morality, by saying “this act isn’t right” where others may simply say “why not”. Yet, what justifies an act for one person and condemns it for another? More importantly on what grounds do they condone their actions? Sexual morality can be described as: a communal and personal benchmarks for which we model are social relationships, as it pertains to all and every segment of engaging in sexual activities. This is not a limitless definition; it ranges from contact with one’s self or another, the context in which the act was preformed, and in some cases the place where it was performed. It can even be as controversial as what type of physical contact is considered sexual. All these guidelines must be met by our own standards to justify the sexual acts we partake in. Alan Goldman takes the non- tradition point of view in his analysis carefully named “Plain Sex”(Luper). Plain sex is exactly as we read it, sex with no other context or restrictions held by non-moral hierarchy. Goldman asserts sexual acts are a balance between one’s freedom and their personal duties. The interpretation of freedom comes from idea of natural rights, for which we are brought in to the world with including the ability to think, articulate our thoughts and act as we desire. Goldman limits these actions in the context of sexual morality as long as the act does not harm another. As Just... ... middle of paper ... ...oldman. Who would also say the evaluation of risk is out of tune with contraceptive technology. Others would say obligations are important but should be separated from sexual acts. The views of Goldman and Scruton have varying but, never the less, are important and significant in showing differing views that have changed with the time. None the less sexual morality will be an argument of scrutiny for years to come. My own view of sexual morality no matter how traditional has solid grounds stand on thanks to the works of Rodger Scruton. It uniquely allows for social acceptable units to restrain the risks associated with sexual activities. Although no plan based on the sexual morality of humans is perfect. We should strive for a plan that is socially responsible and limits the risks not only to children but gives grounds for acceptance within culture as a whole.
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“).
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.
Since the dawn of man, sex has played a crucial role in society. Before they learned to read or write humans were engaging in sex and without it none of us would be here. In today’s society, sex has grown to become much more complicated. If I were to ask a group of people on the street what they believed sex was? I bet they would have a hard time answering. The question puzzling society today is how do we define sex? Can we define sex? These are questions raised in Tracy Steele’s article “Doing it: The Social Construction of S-E-X”. This article is about the current questions and issues that have been raised about sex within today’s society. In this paper I will summarize the key points of the article, while sharing my own thoughts and opinions of Steele’s findings.
The Symbolic-Interaction Theory explains how everyone in a society views sexual behavior differently than others. Some cultures are more relaxed than others about sexuality and time also plays a factor in a societies viewpoint. Over a century ago, it was not acceptable to marry a woman who was not considered a virgin, but this did not always apply to males. This slowly changed due to birth control which changed how people viewed sex. Society is more tolerant of sexual activity, but some still consider sex before marriage
In his paper which is called Is There A History of Sexuality, Halperin drew a distinction between the topics of sexuality and of sex. He claimed that the two concepts are separate ideas. In Halperin's view, sex is a natural function that has not changed in many years, if ever at all. He says that sex “is a natural fact, grounded in the functioning of the body, and as such, it lies outside of history and culture” (Halperin 416). This means that sex cannot be measured in historical thought, for it has not changed since the beginning of time. As a natural function, it will continue to exist without the influence of culture, for it has always existed inside of the natural body. Sexuality, on the other hand, is a completely different issue to be considered. Sexuality is a socially created phenomenon, or as Halperin says, “sexuality is not a somatic fact, it is a cultural effect” (Halperin 416). This means that sexuality is entirely dependant upon the social world because it is created by the social world. Halperin argues against the prevailing concept that our sexual activities make any statements about our sexuality in and of itself. Halperin claims that “one of the currently unquestioned assumptions about sexual experience which the study of antiquity calls into question is the assumption that sexual behavior reflects or expresses an individual's 'sexuality'” (Halperin 417). With this statement, Halperin raises the issue of what exactly a sexuality is, and how it can be defined. Specifically, Halperin is saying that the modern concept of sexuality can not be applied to the supposed sexualities expressed...
In the article “An Anthropological Look at Human Sexuality” the authors, Patrick Gray and Linda Wolfe speak about how societies look at human sexuality. The core concept of anthology is the idea of culture, the systems of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors people acquire as a member of society. The authors give an in depth analysis on how human sexuality is looked at in all different situations.
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...
Milstein, Susan A. Taking Sides Clashing Views in Human Sexuality. Ed. William J. Taverner and Ryan W. McKee. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
Casual sex is very prevalent in today’s society. Raja Halwani writes that for casual sex to be morally permissible it must meet certain conditions. In this essay I will use the writing “Virtue Ethics, Casual Sex, and Objectification” written by Raja Halwani, to prove that most cases of casual sex are not morally permissible.
These changes of thought through time referenced in Mottier’s book serve as evidence towards her thesis that an understanding of sexuality develops from moral, biological, and social models of sexuality that can all be interpreted culturally (Mottier, 47). Mottier believes that understanding contemporary sexuality depends on understanding historical developments, and that from this understanding, we can precipitate change (Duncan, 2017). In short, ways in which sexual behaviors become known as sexual identities depend upon cultural and historical
From birth, one's sexuality is shaped by society. Cultures institute behaviors that are to be seen as the societal norms, which work to constantly reinforce societal expectations of how genders should act in relation to one another. Although some may argue that one's sexuality is an innate characteristic resulting from genetic makeup, there is a large amount of evidence pointing to its social construction instead. Through the power differences between males and females, established gender roles, and drastic economic shifts, society establishes sexuality and reinforces the behaviors that are expected of its citizens.
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)
These questions arise from our own desires as Christians to reflect a biblically sound attitude towards sexuality and relationships. That same desire to act according to biblical scriptures is subject to opposition from today’s culture and views about sexual relationships, gender, and roles. A new definition of marriage, sexual orientation, and sexual practices is challenging our relationship with God and our view of human sexuality. Bishop John Spong defines sex and its impact on relationships: “Sex can be called at once the greatest gift to humanity and the greatest enigma of our lives. It is a gift in that is a singular joy for all beings and enigma in its destructive potential for people and their relationships.” (Spong, 1988)
... decades ago. This book is one that will allow the reader to view many aspects of sexuality from a social standpoint, and apply it to certain social attitudes in our society today, these attitudes can range from the acceptance of lesbian and gays, and the common sight of sex before marriage and women equality. The new era of sexuality has taken a definite "transformation" as Giddens puts it, and as a society we are living in the world of change in which we must adapt, by accepting our society as a changing society, and not be naive and think all the rules of sexuality from our parents time our still in existence now.
In today’s society things are being expressed and experienced at younger ages, than ever before in our time. Children and teenagers are discovering their sexuality at very early ages. Sexuality is the discovering of who you are and what makes you different from everybody else.