In week 2 we looked at a lot of new and interesting things which really jumpstarted my conceptualization of sexual ethics.
This week we:
• Tried to define sexual ethics
• Looked at the philosophy of sex
• Looked at love and sex with robots
Readings:
• Soble, “The Fundamentals of the Philosophy of Sex” in Soble (ed.), The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings, Fourth Edition: xvii-xl
• Goldman, “Plain Sex,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6, 3 (Spring, 1977): 267-287
Questions raised:
Given your initial readings and our brainstorming last week, identify what sexual ethics means to you.
Given the initial readings and our brainstorming from week 1, my conceptualization of sexual ethics has still not really changed. The following is what I considered this week:
• Sense of right and wrong
• Moral philosophy
• Reflections of norms in society
• The definition or context of “sexual” may impact how we think about sex
• Ethics changes with societies ideals (changes with social contexts)
• Different ethical standards for men and women and for different sexual identities
• Our personal view of ethics influenced by sexual socialization
• Ethics changes with knowledge of sexuality
• Knowledge exposure changes our sexual ethics (more awareness)
Based on the reading “The Fundamentals of the Philosophy of Sex” by Sobel, I don’t think sexual ethics can ever be conceptualized. By conceptualizing, we attempt to clarify the fundamental notions of the discipline. We attempt to arrive at definitions of sexual practices. The reason I do not believe we can define/conceptualize sexual ethics is because it is really in the eye of the beholder. What I think is right or wrong may disagree with another person’s version of what is right and what is wrong. The point that I believe in most from above is that there are different ethical standards for men and women and for different sexual identities. It really varies with the person. I also think the more knowledge we have about things changes our awareness, i.e. if we don’t know the details of certain sexual practices, than how are we to judge what is ethical or not?
Why do you hold that view of sexual ethics? Where do your ideas come from?
In the reading, Nobel discusses what is considered moral and immoral and what is natural and unnatural. I think that some things are immoral and unnatural such as bestiality. I also think that some things can be both unnatural and moral, such as a shoe fetish. I will expand more on this under the heading of philosophy of sex. My personal view of what is natural and unnatural and what is moral and immoral really influences what I think about certain sexual acts.
Are there any issues that you can think of where you might question your view of sexual ethics?
Issues that come to mind when I think of where I might question my view of sexual ethics is that how do I know what I consider to be morally acceptable/unacceptable or natural/unnatural is the right way to think. What if I consider something immoral and unnatural and someone else considers that same thing to be moral and natural? Does my conceptualization deviate from the norm? Or is it in line with what most people think? These are all questions I still need to answer.
Philosophy of sex
In the Soble article, he mentions the Aquinas Natural law and Nagel’s secular philosophy. Aquinas’ view of natural law basically states that what is natural is heterosexual coitus designed by Christian God for preservation of human species. Each part of the body is designed to carry out specific functions e.g. the penis is to be inserted into the vagina. If sperm is deposited elsewhere it is unnatural and is a violation of God’s design. In Aquinas view, such activities are immoral. He considers bestiality, homosexuality, and masturbation as unnatural also and immoral.
I do not agree with Aquinas at all when I try to conceptualize sexual ethics. In fact, he goes against almost everything that I currently believe. For instance, I do not think homosexuality is unnatural or immoral; it has become such a regular thing in society today, that I do not see the harm in it. I find in much more harmful and unnatural for a person who is deep down homosexual, to not practice on that. It is much more harmful for them psychologically to go against what they really feel. I also do not believe that sperm is only moral if it is inserted into the vagina for procreative purposes. I think that sperm deposited morally in a number of ways, i.e. masturbation, fellatio, anal sex, etc. I don’t necessarily practice these acts; however I know that other people do. I do agree with Aquinas that bestiality is unnatural and immoral, I don’t believe in cross species, sexual relations. That is something I think is wrong personally and is not influenced by anything other than I think it’s disgusting.
My conceptualization so far really goes along the lines of Nagel’s secular philosophy. Nigel’s view contrasts that of Aquinas in which he believes that to discover what is distinctive about natural human sexuality, and hence what is unnatural or perverted for humans, we should focus on what humans and lower animals do not have in common. Thus Nagel argues that sexual perversion in humans should be understood as a psychological phenomenon rather than, as in Aquinas’ argument, as an anatomical and psychological phenomenon. Nagel thinks that mutual recognition of arousal in natural. This is also part of my belief about sexual ethics. I think that if the sexual act is mutual that it is ethical. There has to be consent between each partner (I will talk more about consent later on). I also agree with Nagel when he say’s that perverted sexual encounters are those in which this mutual recognition of arousal is absent and hence in which a person remains fully a subject or fully an object of the sexual interaction. I do not think that either partner should be a subject or an object. It must be equally and 100% mutual. If it is not that there is the possibility that someone gets hurt either physically and psychologically.
There are also things I find unnatural but not morally wrong such as a show fetish where someone masturbates to it. I find this extremely unnatural, perhaps because it is not a main stream thing to do in our society, however if someone enjoys that and it is not hurting anyone I think it is perfectly moral. Throughout this course I believe that I will judge things as ethical or not based on their moral properties and whether I consider them natural or unnatural.
Love and Sex with Robots
We were introduced to the concept of love and sex with Robots, and I was initially very shocked. I did not know what to think of this, and I really felt scared by the idea. This is something I find completely unnatural but moral. I consider in unnatural in the sense that a person would want to have sex with a machine, which is not a human. I guess than I consider many things unnatural if it is not with a human. Where I really get confused with my thinking is that I think it is natural to use sex toys. I feel this way because sex toys are sex toys; they have no ability to resemble a human, whereas a robot is so human like, but is not a human. I have a hard time thinking about lifelike robots for many reasons, and the biggest reason is that I fear them, so perhaps that is why I think sex with robots is so unnatural. Perhaps my view will change, but I’ll stick to it for now.
With all of tonight’s topics under consideration the main thing I have pulled from it all in my conceptualization of sexual ethics, is that any acts of sex between people must involve consent. It is not only unnatural to consent, but also immoral. I know this view of sexual ethics will never change for me, because at no point is non-consenting sex ok. I will continue to look at different sexual topics as moral and immoral /natural and unnatural in the following weeks. Right now that is my framework for how I conceptualize sexual ethics.
Links:
Consent video shown to us by tracy...made me laugh a little!
