The question of whether or not sexual activities are natural or unnatural has been a debate between many philosophers. What characteristics make sexual activities and sexual behavior natural or abnormal? Human sexuality consists of the desires and activities that involve searching and achieving sexual satisfactions. Philosopher Thomas Nagel and Alan Goldman have their own standpoint and theories on what ultimately determines sexual activities and desires as natural or immoral. Philosopher Thomas Nagel questioned what differentiated “natural” from “abnormal” sexual behavior. His studies were focused on the perverse aspect of sexual activity. He believed that sexual behaviors are only moral if it is a mutual act. He strongly stated that if two people are both aware of causing pleasure to one another, then the sexual activity would be considered natural. He claimed that when one sees that they are giving someone else pleasure, it causes satisfaction to themselves. Nagel explains that perversion, or abnormal sexual activity, occurs when mutual recognition of arousal is nonexistent; thus, being immoral. His perspective on whether sexual activity is natural or abnormal is not based off how bodily organs are used or where they are placed. His studies depended on the characteristics of the psychology of the sexual encounter. Where as many philosophers saw homosexuality, anal intercourse and many other “strange” sexual activities as abnormal and perverted, Nagel happened to disagree. Since homosexuality and other forms of intercourse are all practiced through mutual recognition and mutual arousal, he considered it as a natural act. He agreed with other philosophers that perverse sexual behaviors do not conform to natural sexual behaviors.... ... middle of paper ... ...se it is rare and uncommon; once it became a common practice, it was no longer considered abnormal. In the past, homosexuality was an infrequent practice therefore it was considered perverted. Since then, homosexuality has become more widespread and public, so it is no longer seen as an abnormal act. Nagel and Goldman both agree in the fact that many people confuse a sexual act as immoral when it is actually just uncommon and unusual. These philosophers both argue the traditionalists’ views on sex and try to reconstruct people’s perspectives of sexual activity. Many different philosophers have explored the concept of human sexuality. The debate over how to determine a sexual act as normal or abnormal has been ongoing. Thomas Nagel and Alan Goldman are two philosophers that have added on to this debate, and their accounts help better the understanding of this issue.
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 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
Alfred Kinsey, as described in the film “Kinsey” by Bill Condon and research articles, was an openness man determined to discover and reveal the truth behind the sexual behaviors of the American population. Moreover, he challenged beliefs regarding human sexuality. Being knowledgeable about sex was viewed as something immoral; a topic only a physician was to talk about simply because they knew body parts. In fact, people had no idea what masturbation meant or what being “normal” during sexual activity was. Even though, Kinsey’s scientific research was conducted within the United States, still his findings became a worldwide source of information. Yet, today many controversies arise as a result of his scientific research.
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.
...am Victorian society, sexual liberalism transformed the ways in which people arranged their private lives. Shifting from a Victorian environment of production, separate sexual spheres, and the relegation of any illicit extramarital sex to an underworld of vice, the modern era found itself in a new landscape of consumerism, modernism and inverted sexual stereotypes. Sexuality was now being discussed, systemized, controlled, and made an object of scientific study and popular discourse. Late nineteenth-century views on "natural" gender and sexuality, with their attendant stereotypes about proper gender roles and proper desires, lingered long into the twentieth century and continue, somewhat fitfully, to inform the world in which we live. It is against this cultural and political horizon that an understanding of sexuality in the modern era needs to be contextualized.
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.
Naturalism is about bringing humans into the “natural world”. We, as humans, are seen as aspects of nature collectively not separate like they once were. “Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us. Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself ” (“A Guide for Naturalism”). Humans are like “animals” they contain the same drives that animals have. They are just plain “natural”. Many authors express naturalism in their writings such as Kate Chopin. She expresses a naturalistic view on sexual drives which classify her as a naturalistic writer.
One point that Corvino makes is that even if homosexuality is unnatural, it would not be correct to say homosexuality is immoral. Let’s assume that homosexuality is unnatural in all aspects. Corvino’s claim would still hold true, homosexual sex would be moral. As mentioned in the essay, “unnatural” holds various definitions. Deviating from the norm would still be morally insignificant, innate desires are still not a good judgment or morality, and sex organs continue to serve more of a purpose than just procreation. The only argument of Corvino that would be up for debate would be the comparison to animals. If homosexuality does not occur in the natural world, then humans should not do it and is therefore
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 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.
Initially, Levin states that homosexuality is abnormal due to the mere fact that it weakens our society and inhibits our evolutionary development, not because it is sinful or immoral. He explains that being homosexual is a waste of bodily parts and a misuse of our genitalia. As a result, Levin argues that our body parts and bodily pleasures are highly related and connected to our happiness. Because homosexuals are misusing their bodies, they are more likely to be less happy on average than those who are straight. And in return, Levin believes that because they are less happy throughout their lives, they receive less out of life than the typical straight person. His theory as to why homosexuality is abnormal (because of humans misusing their body parts) may propose a weak argument at first; however he supports this aspect of his argument by giving an example unrelated to human sexuality. His example involves the use of our teeth, although we may not realize it, those who do not have teeth usually don’t enjoy consuming all of their ...
Sexuality is very diverse, in some instances normality is based on the cultural context of the individual 's society. In "The other side of desire" by Daniel Bergner, the author goes in depth into the lives of four individual 's whose lust and longing have led them far down the realms of desire. The current paper addresses the four individual 's Jacob, the Baroness, Roy, and Ron each exhibits a paraphilia that may or may not meet the full criteria in the DSM-5. Furthermore, each person’s specific paraphilia is conceptualized and explained in depth. Countertransferential issues anticipated before working with these individuals is analyzed and clarified. Also, the apprehension of sexual arousal and sexual behaviors is conceptualized into normality
Osmundson, Joseph. "'I Was Born This Way': Is Sexuality Innate, and Should It Matter?" Harvard Kennedy School. N.p., 2011. Web. 11 Feb. 2014. .
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.
How does 'sexuality' come into being, and what connections does it have with the changes that have affected personal life on a more general plane? In answering these questions, Anthony Giddens disputes many of the interpretations of the role of sexuality in our culture. The emergence of what he calls plastic sexuality, which is sexuality freed from its original relation of reproduction, is analyzed in terms of the long-term development of the modern social order and social influences of the last few decades. Giddens argues that the transformation of intimacy, in which women have played the major part, holds out the possibility of a society that is very traditional. "This book will appeal to a large general audience as well as being essential reading for those students in sociology and theory."(Manis 1)