Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The philosophy of sex explores these subjects both conceptually and normatively

The view that the current presence of any type of stress at all is coercive, negates the voluntary nature of participation in sexual intercourse, and therefore is morally objectionable happens to be expressed by Charlene Muehlenhard and Jennifer Schrag (see their “Nonviolent Sexual Coercion”). They list, among other activities, “status coercion” (whenever women can be coerced into sexual intercourse or wedding with an occupation that is man’s and “discrimination against lesbians” (which discrimination compels females into having intimate relationships just with males) as kinds of coercion that undermine the voluntary nature of involvement by ladies in sexual intercourse with guys. But with respect to the types of instance we now have in your mind, it could be more accurate to state either that some pressures aren’t coercive and never appreciably undermine voluntariness, or that some pressures are coercive but they are nonetheless perhaps perhaps not morally objectionable. Can it be constantly correct that the existence of almost any stress placed on one individual by another quantities to coercion that negates the voluntary nature of permission, making sure that subsequent activity that is sexual morally incorrect?

Conceptual Analysis

Conceptual philosophy of sex can be involved to investigate and also to make clear ideas which can be main in this region of philosophy: sexual intercourse, libido, intimate feeling, intimate perversion, yet others. In addition it tries to determine less abstract ideas, such as for example prostitution, pornography, and rape. I wish to illustrate the conceptual philosophy of sex by targeting one particular concept, compared to “sexual task, ” and explore in exactly what means it really is associated with another central concept, compared to “sexual pleasure. ” One concept to be discovered listed here is that conceptual philosophy of sex may be in the same way hard and contentious as normative philosophy of sex, and therefore as a result company conclusions that are conceptual tricky to find.

Sexual Activity vs. “Having Sex”

Relating to a study that is notorious in 1999 within the Journal regarding the United states healthcare Association (“Would You declare You ‘Had Sex’ If…? ” by Stephanie Sanders and June Reinisch), a sizable % of undergraduate university students, about 60%, usually do not genuinely believe that participating in oral sex (fellatio and cunnilingus) is sex that is“having. ” This finding has reached very very first look really astonishing, however it is simple enough to understand sympathetically. To be certain, as philosophers we effortlessly conclude that dental sex is really a type that is specific of task. But “sexual task” is a technical concept, while “having intercourse” is a typical language concept, which relates mainly to heterosexual sexual intercourse. Therefore whenever Monica Lewinsky shared with her confidant Linda Tripp that she failed to “have intercourse” with William Jefferson Clinton, she had not been always self-deceived, lying, or pulling an easy one. She had been just depending on the standard language definition or criterion of “having sex, ” that will be maybe not the same as the philosopher’s idea of “sexual activity, ” does not necessarily add dental intercourse, and often calls for intercourse that is genital.

Another summary might be drawn through the JAMA study. Then perhaps we can use this to fashion a philosophical account of “sexual activity” that is at once consistent with ordinary thought if we assume that heterosexual coitus by and large, or in many cases, produces more pleasure for the participants than does oral sex, or at least that in heterosexual intercourse there is greater mutuality of sexual pleasure than in one-directional oral sex, and this is why ordinary thought tends to discount the ontological significance of oral sex.

Sex and pleasure that is sexual

In accordance idea, whether an act that is sexual nonmorally good or bad is generally connected with whether it’s judged to be always a intimate work at all. Often we derive minimal pleasure from a intimate act (say, we have been mainly providing pleasure to a different individual, or our company is also attempting to sell it to another person), and we also believe although the other individual possessed a intimate experience, we didn’t. Or even one other individual did make an effort to offer us with sexual satisfaction but failed miserably, whether from ignorance of method or sheer crudity that is sexual. When this occurs it could never be implausible to express that people failed to go through a sexual experience and thus would not participate in an act that is sexual. Then perhaps she did not herself, after all, engage in a sexual act if Ms. Lewinsky’s performing oral sex on President Clinton was done only for his sake, for his sexual pleasure, and she did it out of consideration for his needs and not hers.

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
Follow us now on Facebook and Twitter for exclusive content and rewards!

We want to hear what you have to say, but we don't want comments that are homophobic, racist, sexist, don't relate to the article, or are overly offensive. They're not nice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>