Sexuality Debate Guide
From PhiloWiki
Contents |
General
Robert Gray is one philosopher who has argued that "sexual activity" should be analyzed in terms of the production of sexual pleasure. He asserts that "any activity might become a sexual activity" if sexual pleasure is derived from it, and "no activity is a sexual activity unless sexual pleasure is derived from it" ("Sex and Sexual Perversion," p. 61).
- What is sexuality? What constitutes sexual activity?
- Are sexual identities rooted in some fundamental ontological difference (such as biology)?
- Is there biological diversity in sex, gender, and sexuality? How do humans differ from other living creatures?
- What is (or should be) the function of the government regarding gender and sexuality? Whose responsibility is it to define gender, ethical sexual activity, marriage, and reproductive rights?
- What is the nature of the sexual impulse or of sexual desire?
Philosophy
The pessimists in the philosophy of sexuality, such as St. Augustine , Immanuel Kant, and, sometimes, Sigmund Freud , perceive the sexual impulse and acting on it to be something nearly always, if not necessarily, unbefitting the dignity of the human person; they see the essence and the results of the drive to be incompatible with more significant and lofty goals and aspirations of human existence; they fear that the power and demands of the sexual impulse make it a danger to harmonious civilized life; and they find in sexuality a severe threat not only to our proper relations with, and our moral treatment of, other persons, but also equally a threat to our own humanity...
Metaphysical sexual optimists suppose that sexuality is a bonding mechanism that naturally and happily joins people together both sexually and nonsexually. Sexual activity involves pleasing the self and the other at the same time, and these exchanges of pleasure generate both gratitude and affection, which in turn are bound to deepen human relationships and make them more emotionally substantial. Further, and this is the most important point, sexual pleasure is, for a metaphysical optimist, a valuable thing in its own right, something to be cherished and promoted because it has intrinsic and not merely instrumental value.
- Is making a person an object of desire degrading?
- When seeking a sexual partner, whether consciously or not, it is common to go out of our way to make ourselves look more attractive and desirable to the other person than we really are, and we go to great lengths to conceal our defects. Is this part of the nature of human sexual experience or is this morally reprehensible?
- Sexual interest differs from other appetites in that it is an interpersonal sensitivity, on that enables us to delight in the mind and character of the other person as well as their flesh. Is this difference enough to give sexual acts intrinsic value?
Society and culture
Note. Men who have had a lot of sexual partners are not called sluts. They're called very good kissers.
|
from Carrie Bradshaw, Sex in the City |
- Is there a gender double standard for dating and engaging in sexual activities? How many partners are too many? For men? For women?
- What constitutes a sexual partner?
- What counts as "having sex"?
- What role does our need for social inclusion play in our sexuality? Our gender identity?
- What are the interrelationships between sexuality and culture?
- How do religious dogmas compare and contrast regarding the definition of the morality of sexuality?
- Can sexual practices lead to higher spiritual development?
- What is love? How is love related to our sexuality? Can there be love without desire?
The physical act
It is reported that on the small Irish island of Inis Baeg, the female climax is virtually unknown, or considered abnormal. On the other end of the spectrum, on Mangaia, a small island in Polynesia, virtually one hundred percent of women achieve orgasm.
|
from Steintrager, James A. ""Are You There Yet?": Libertinage and the Semantics of the Orgasm" differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies - Volume 11, Number 2, Summer 1999, pp. 22-52 Duke University Press |
- Is female orgasm, or lack thereof a cultural construct?
- How much does female orgasm during sexual activities depend on the other partner’s proficiency? How much does it depend on the woman's knowledge of her own body and her own arousal?
- Why do women fake orgasm? Under what circumstances (if any) is it acceptable for a woman to fake it?
- Size doesn’t matter. Or does it? When does it matter? Is it just a matter of ego and societal expectations?
- Can the practice and mastery of sexual technique lead to more satisfying and fulfilling relationships, or does it just lead to a mechanization of sex?
Ethics
We can also evaluate sexual activity (again, either a particular occurrence of a sexual act or a specific type of sexual activity) nonmorally: nonmorally "good" sex is sexual activity that provides pleasure to the participants or is physically or emotionally satisfying, while nonmorally "bad" sex is unexciting, tedious, boring, unenjoyable, or even unpleasant. … (A) sexual activity can be nonmorally good if it provides for us what we expect sexual activity to provide, which is usually sexual pleasure, and this fact has no necessary moral implications.
- What are the moral implications of sexuality? Are some sexual acts morally good and others morally bad?
- Can bad sex be good? Can good sex be bad?
- Under what circumstances are any sex acts harmful to the couple, society, or their offsprings?
- Is there a moral obligation to refrain from performing certain sexual acts?
- What contribution does sexuality make to the good and virtuous life?
- Can two people find a true union through sex? If the couple has children, how does this affect them and their bond with them?
- Where is the purpose of reproduction in the scheme of physical sex?
- A utilitarian view of sexual activity would justify any nonmorally good sexual act, just by virtue of the pleasure it provides. Is this enough for it to have moral value?
Pleasure and consent
Thomas Mappes writes that "respect for persons entails that each of us recognize the rightful authority of other persons (as rational beings) to conduct their individual lives as they see fit" ("Sexual Morality and the Concept of Using Another Person," p. 204). Allowing the other person's consent to control when the other may engage in sexual activity with me is to respect that person by taking his or her autonomy, his or her ability to reason and make choices, seriously, while not to allow the other to make the decision about when to engage in sexual activity with me is disrespectfully paternalistic. If the other person's consent is taken as sufficient, that shows that I respect his or her choice of ends, or that even if I do not approve of his or her particular choice of ends, at least I show respect for his or her ends-making capability. According to such a view of the power of consent, there can be no moral objection in principle to casual sexual activity, to sexual activity with strangers, or to promiscuity, as long as the persons involved in the activity genuinely agree to engage in their chosen sexual activities.
- What is consent? Are involuntary non-verbal cues (such as erection and lubrication) proof of consent?
- Can there be free and voluntary consent between people of widely differing socio-economic backgrounds, or between two people where one person is economically dependent on the other?
- In what way does seduction differ from nonviolent rape?
