When you hear the word SEX, what comes to mind? This seems to be the first question that needs to be addressed when discussing anything sexual as this definition is the basis of all others. The biggest problem with defining sex is that it is a very personal definition and therefore will be different for everyone. For some it pertains to one's gender, to others, it is the act of love in a physical way. Something ethereal, spiritual, meeting of the souls. When brainstorming synonyms, thoughts and feelings regarding "what is sex?", these are some of what came up:
Intercourse
Gender and personal sexuality
Reproduction and pleasure acts
Physical act between partners/self
Emotional connection (good and/or bad)
Weapon/tool/trade
Pornography
Sex for pleasure
Acts as a specific purpose
Sign of love
Men dominant/women submissive (often/a prescription?)
Way to exert power/control
Intimacy/security
Voluntary/involuntary
Physical manifestation of emotional connection
Recreation
Definition is culturally dependent, exists on a continuum/culturally defined
Reward
Sacred activities
Fantasies, fetishes
Rites of passage
Creates a legal marriage in many societies/ or not allowed until marriage
Personal interpretation
Vaginal/penile (but other types too)
Duty/obligation
Penetration or touching of erogenous zones
Mutual consent
Fun activity that can lead to danger- STIs, unwanted pregnancies
Vice to be controlled/avoided
Responsibility
These encompass vocabulary of physical, power, control, intimacy, positivity, negativity and love.
For me, when I thought about sex, I always thought I thought quite simplistically. Sex is penile-vaginal intercourse. That's it, simple and to the point, until I asked myself, what about____? Is this sex? Is that sex? Are you having sex if you make out with the intent to have sex? Is it about intention? Are you having sex if you engage in oral sex? It has sex in its name. Or does it have to be penetrative to be considered sex? If that is true, is anal sex, sex? Oh goodness, this is not as simple as I thought.
These questions and the above list (which is a collaboration of my own thoughts and those of my classmates), I came upon the conclusion that sex is both a physical act and a multi-layered category encompassing all things sexual. It is amazing how long it took me to come up with this definition as I have never put any thought into what I would classify as sex. It is also interesting how I would change the definition of sex depending on the situation I am talking about. For example, if someone asks me when can you definitively say you are no longer a virgin, I would answer when you have engaged in penetrative intercourse. So this means I do not consider oral sex to be sex (as defined by “the act of”). Yet I would say oral sex is sex, or at least part of it. To some of us, oral sex and manual stimulation are just "play" and doesn't count as sex. So confusing!
Have you ever heard the saying, "Too many cooks ruin the stew" (or something similar)? In, The Fundamentals of the Philosophy of Sex, Alan Soble talks about how there are several "experts" on sexuality and the more these experts write about things, the more silly the collection of "expertise" becomes. Soble begins his article by discussing the differing definitions of sex and how some people struggle to define it for themselves since each definition inevitably excludes something or someone (therefore, it is not generalizable). For example, some in his article have said that heterosexual penis-vagina intercourse is the most intense, and a time when two people give themselves to each other completely. To believe this as the true definition of sex is to exclude homosexual encounters and anyone who doesn't feel intensity in their sex lives. Also, some contributors to Soble's article suggest that the act of sex is defined by emotion. In this case, the definition of sex being connected specifically to an emotional commitment, attachment or feeling excludes those that appreciate a simple roll in the hay with no strings attached. While a "romp and breakfast" (as I like to call it) is not as popular for some as for others, I do not believe that it should be excluded as sex simply because the sex itself came from the hormones and not the heart.
Secondly, in his article, Soble delves into the world of right and wrong and how people's definition of an act (in this case, a sex act) will alter the ethical debate of that act. For example, how someone defines consensual sex can affect the definition of rape and therefore the laws surrounding it. Thus, having a solid general definition of such things is imperative so everyone is on the same page. Sobel explores the moral side of sexuality by breaking sexuality into 4 categories: morally good, morally bad, nonmorally good and nonmorally bad. When I first read these I thought, nonmorally good? Is that possible? Upon further reading, these categories made a lot more sense. According to Soble, for something to be considered immoral, it must be wrong in every situation for any reason (for example, the universal taboo of incest). It is also important to mention that something being nonmoral is not the same as being immoral. Immoral indicates that something is wrong. Nonmoral is simply about pleasure (emotionally or physically). I think it would be easier to explain these categories with examples.
Nonmorally Good: sex that provides its participants with pleasure, emotionally and/or physically.
Nonmorally Bad: sex that is unsatisfying to its participants. Sex that is boring, tedious, unexciting.
Notice how neither of these pertains to right or wrong (not the same as immoral) but is just about pleasure
Morally Good: sex that is acceptable (ex, marital sex)
Morally Bad: sex that is unacceptable (ex, with minors)
In these cases, how good the sex is, is not examined since the morality of the sex is what is in question.
Just in case you aren't already lost, let's mix it up a bit. What happens if you take nonmorally good sex (feels good) and mix it with morally bad sex (wrong to do it)? I would use adultery as an example of this. Your extramarital affair may be satisfying (non morally good) but it is still wrong (morally bad) to be cheating on your partner. This of course is only true if you subscribe to monogamous relationships as the ideal. How about nonmorally bad and morally good sex? That to me would be like unsatisfying marital sex. Nonmorally good and morally good sex is (according to popular opinion) the ideal, great sex that is allowable. Nonmorally bad, non moral sex is on the other end of the spectrum, and in my opinion a complete waste of time. Why have bad sex for the wrong reasons?
All in all, I have to admit that I have not spent much time thinking about nonmoral vs moral vs immoral in my day to day sexual activities, but I understand its implications when thinking philosophically. As for defining sex, I am still not sure I know how I would define it. I certainly can't define it concretely, but I have a greater appreciation for the importance of defining such things. It still makes my head hurt though. :o)
Have you ever heard the saying, "Too many cooks ruin the stew" (or something similar)? In, The Fundamentals of the Philosophy of Sex, Alan Soble talks about how there are several "experts" on sexuality and the more these experts write about things, the more silly the collection of "expertise" becomes. Soble begins his article by discussing the differing definitions of sex and how some people struggle to define it for themselves since each definition inevitably excludes something or someone (therefore, it is not generalizable). For example, some in his article have said that heterosexual penis-vagina intercourse is the most intense, and a time when two people give themselves to each other completely. To believe this as the true definition of sex is to exclude homosexual encounters and anyone who doesn't feel intensity in their sex lives. Also, some contributors to Soble's article suggest that the act of sex is defined by emotion. In this case, the definition of sex being connected specifically to an emotional commitment, attachment or feeling excludes those that appreciate a simple roll in the hay with no strings attached. While a "romp and breakfast" (as I like to call it) is not as popular for some as for others, I do not believe that it should be excluded as sex simply because the sex itself came from the hormones and not the heart.
Secondly, in his article, Soble delves into the world of right and wrong and how people's definition of an act (in this case, a sex act) will alter the ethical debate of that act. For example, how someone defines consensual sex can affect the definition of rape and therefore the laws surrounding it. Thus, having a solid general definition of such things is imperative so everyone is on the same page. Sobel explores the moral side of sexuality by breaking sexuality into 4 categories: morally good, morally bad, nonmorally good and nonmorally bad. When I first read these I thought, nonmorally good? Is that possible? Upon further reading, these categories made a lot more sense. According to Soble, for something to be considered immoral, it must be wrong in every situation for any reason (for example, the universal taboo of incest). It is also important to mention that something being nonmoral is not the same as being immoral. Immoral indicates that something is wrong. Nonmoral is simply about pleasure (emotionally or physically). I think it would be easier to explain these categories with examples.
Nonmorally Good: sex that provides its participants with pleasure, emotionally and/or physically.
Nonmorally Bad: sex that is unsatisfying to its participants. Sex that is boring, tedious, unexciting.
Notice how neither of these pertains to right or wrong (not the same as immoral) but is just about pleasure
Morally Good: sex that is acceptable (ex, marital sex)
Morally Bad: sex that is unacceptable (ex, with minors)
In these cases, how good the sex is, is not examined since the morality of the sex is what is in question.
Just in case you aren't already lost, let's mix it up a bit. What happens if you take nonmorally good sex (feels good) and mix it with morally bad sex (wrong to do it)? I would use adultery as an example of this. Your extramarital affair may be satisfying (non morally good) but it is still wrong (morally bad) to be cheating on your partner. This of course is only true if you subscribe to monogamous relationships as the ideal. How about nonmorally bad and morally good sex? That to me would be like unsatisfying marital sex. Nonmorally good and morally good sex is (according to popular opinion) the ideal, great sex that is allowable. Nonmorally bad, non moral sex is on the other end of the spectrum, and in my opinion a complete waste of time. Why have bad sex for the wrong reasons?
All in all, I have to admit that I have not spent much time thinking about nonmoral vs moral vs immoral in my day to day sexual activities, but I understand its implications when thinking philosophically. As for defining sex, I am still not sure I know how I would define it. I certainly can't define it concretely, but I have a greater appreciation for the importance of defining such things. It still makes my head hurt though. :o)
0 comment(s) to... “Let's Talk About Sex”
0 comments:
Post a Comment