Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cultural construction of sexuality
Critique the influence and impact of culture on human sexuality in our society
Sexual Morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cultural construction of sexuality
The aforementioned hypothetical situation could be avoided if commitment and meaningful sex had not occurred prematurely, which brings me to my next point: Love and sex have historically been reversed, meaning sex should come prior to love as opposed to the other way around. During intimate sexual activity deep character traits are revealed, allowing one to see the side of the other that they may have never seen before and perhaps could be impossible to see without sex. Subsequently, once the intercourse has transpired, one can now make an informative decision on whether or not they truly desire the pursuit of a loving relationship with that person. In doing so, not only can an individual learn profound attributes about their partner, …show more content…
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
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
Francis Bennion has criticised the Act for this semantic ambiguity whilst acknowledging that too narrow a definition may tie the courts' hands in the application of the law. Sexual can be defined a simply 'of or pertaining to the sexual organs' which would render certain medical examinations sexual activities at the very least. Clearly the Act intended that in interpretation juries and judges would use the relevant cultural 'cache' in deciding the sexuality of an act. Intending to gratify oneself in a sexual manner seems to be closest thing to a criminal definition of 'sexual' yet neither gratification nor desire are mentioned anywhere in the relevant provisions.
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
There are many discussions as to what constitutes perverse and what is considered acceptable sex. In Nagel’s Sexual Perversion, Nagel depicts sexual perversion as being any activity that a person may think or do to satisfy their perverse sexual desires. Nagel believes that normal sex is only sex that happens between married couples for the purpose of reproduction. In Nagel’s inspection of what is considered normal and abnormal sex, Nagel introduces his situations where sex would be depicted as unnatural. First, fetishes with objects will be abnormal while plain sex will not. Secondly, Sexual desire is a form of sexual perversion. Lastly, any sexual desire that is psychological and not physical is considered abnormal. To define what normal
Love can sometimes be seen as a counterintuitive and unconventional sense of life. The irony in it all is love could either be as warm as the Sunday morning sun or as cold as a New England winter when touched by the heart or the skin. As we grow up, if we believe we are cherished by the most respectful and admirable person, we give up the most vulnerable parts of ourselves: the body. However, throughout modern society, people tend to use sexual intercourse as a form of personal pleasure and gain without the obligations of emotions. Henceforth, stated in Sharon Olds’ “Sex Without Love”, premarital sex may be against God’s intentions to be pure but at the same time people love the priest more the teachings and are willing to go against the Lord
...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.
“…sex attains meaning in social relations, which implies that we can only make appropriate choices around sexuality by understanding its social, cultueral and political context.” (Quote: 9293 jeffrey weeks)
Sexuality is often looked down upon by mainstream society. Embedded into culture and tradition, sex itself has been made to be seen as a taboo of sorts. Prostitution was made illegal; pornography was made evil. Rooted deep within the teachings of the most common religious morality systems, sex and sexuality is often paired with punishments. Those who explore their sexuality is often shamed, and labeled with words that can ostracize such persons from society. Kant’s view of sexuality almost destroys his credibility as a philosopher by providing unclear and unreasonable points of sexuality and objectification, yet he remains keen on trying to prove that sex, outside of marriage, is the worst possible sin. However, there are those who believe that expressing sexuality is power, and is exercising autonomy. Many existentialists see sexuality as a means of self-expression, and to not be comfortable with sexuality shows that the person inhabits the morality of the sheep.
The proper expression of human sexuality is a abiding question for the world of sexual ethics. There has never been a society that has not reflected upon and prescribed rules and regulations for this powerful and yet mysterious dimension of personhood; and there has seemingly never been a social order in which sexuality has not breached the boundaries established for it. On the surface scripture and much of the Christian response to sexuality appears to be establishing rules and regulations which attempt to limit sexual behavior until the ‘appropriate’ time or stage in ones life. Though this is a narrow understanding of sexual ethics– instead the goal of sexual ethics should be in the importance of how we relate ourselves and desires to others. Specifically, the relation between God : Humanity, and Humanity : Humanity.
Uninhibited sexual freedom provides happiness to this society’s citizens, the Fordians. Promiscuity is encouraged, and monogamy is discouraged. There is no room for love, or real emotional ties. John Savage does not agree with these ideas, but he fails to see the implications of loving others. In our society, love and sexual desire are the causes of murder, suicide, and rape. “Everyone belongs to everyone else”(pg.35). This is one of the many hypnopaedic messages that are repeated to the Fordians. It prevents them from feeling passion, desire, lust, jealousy, and true love. In absence of these feelings, they are free from emotional ties and have no reason to rape or murder someone because of inner desires. They are able to express their sexuality with others, and release sexual tension. Hurt and pain is eliminated from their minds, and these people can live the rest of their lives with child-like bliss. John Savage disagrees with these ideas and objects by stating,
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.
Many times people who are in a relationship show their affection through sexual intercourse. Sometimes people choose only to participate in sexual activities with someone that they feel they love. Other people choose to separate the acts of “loving” someone and having sex with someone. It is truly left up to the individuals that are involved in choosing to take their relationship to a sexual nature. Our society often labels sexual activity that occurs outside of an exclusive relationship as scandalous, which then makes some people connect love and sexual activity. People also do not always have sex if they are in love. Kinsey attempted to show that love and sex do not have to be connected. He saw the world in a biological way, leading him to have sexual encounter with other people while he was still in love with his wide. For some people they are able to separate sex and love because they are have different ideals. There are also many types of sexual acts, for which people hold to a different value, allowing them to determine when they would participate in them. Because there are different types of love people cannot always have sex with everyone they are in love with. Defining love is impossible and is why people cannot always see love and sex as dependent of each
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)
This topic can be argued from many perspectives, such as from an evolutionary stance, a personal stance, and even from a psychological stance. For the sake of the piece, I will be discussing it from a psychological point of view. According to Kurt Frey, a former Yale University professor and his co-writer, Mahzad Hojjat, there is a definite relationship between the style of love versus the style of sex. Their argument is that even if the love is only needed to nurture a child conceived from a sexual encounter, there still is a need for some type of love. This isn't the focus of their view, rather a mere example of the necessity of love in correlation to sex.