PHIL 3510: Philosophy of Sex and Love

Questions # 1 and # 3
Lecturer: Simeon Mohansingh

Tutor: Ava- Loi Forbes

Id #: 60-7005674

Name: Aisha Matthews

Faculty: Social Sciences

October 26, 2010

 1

1. Given the concept of a “sexual activity”, a definition cannot be proffered. Critically

discuss, and support your answer with the use of two (2) examples.

An arbitrary definition of sex or sexual activity usually takes the form of describing penile-

vaginal intercourse. As customary as it is, it is one definition of sex that has held ‘true’ over

time. However, as Robert Solomon questions ‘What is it that makes intercourse the paradigm of

sexual activity?’ Could it be its significant biological role in conception, its heterosexuality or its

convenience for mutual orgasm? (Soble, 2002) One can analyse this in terms of the natural law

phenomenon that postulates that it is natural for sex to occur between a man and woman who are

married, thus putting forth the paradigm of heterosexual coitus. How important is this view in

analysing the characteristics of any sexual activity? Does this definition then limit the acts or

behaviours that may be called or deemed sexual?

In light of the 21st century and taking into consideration the drastic shift in the paradigm of

the state of affairs, sex is normatively identified as only a penis penetrating a vagina. However, a

definition of this criterion would leave no room for lesbians, gay men and other forms of activity

that are typically extreme such as sadism and masochism. What other forms of activities could be

described as having sexual significance? Would the petting and rubbing of a partner’s body be

considered sexual? Can self-stimulation or masturbation be considered sex? Does sex typically

include two or more persons? Janice Moulton theorizes that we can distinguish behaviour that is

sexual from behaviour that is not (Soble, 2002). If so, what are the characteristics of a sexual

activity that defines it as sexual instead of something else? Thomas Nagel and Robert Solomon

both employ models of sexual behaviour that are characterized by flirtation and seduction (Soble,

2002). Moulton argues that while flirtation and seduction and traditional courtship involve sexual

60-7005674
 2

feelings, they are independent of the physical act. Not all sexual encounters involve flirtation and

seduction. There are cases where both participating individuals make an arrangement to only

have sex, that is, engage in sexual intercourse. If sex must involve some form of foreplay, would

sex as a business transaction, as is seen in prostitution, be defined differently than all other

occurrences of sex? It most certainly would not. From a normative perspective, all sexual

encounters typically involve contact with a sexual organ, whether it is penis-vagina, vagina-

vagina or penis-anus. However prominent that correlation may be, other activities cannot be

detracted from the sexual sphere. Those leading to the actual intercourse should also be classified

as sexual activities because they carry significance when performed in a sexual context. Kissing,

fore playing, rubbing, dry humping (frottage), sexual petting and simple acts such blowing on

body parts can carry sexual connotations once it is done within a sexual context. Why is it

important to define sex and to know when a sexual act has been performed? Greta Christina

notes that people have a need to qualify their sexual experiences as its occurrence has caused a

change in the nature of relationship they have with their now sexual partner. It is not the act in

and of itself which causes the change but rather the awareness of the sexual barrier which has

now been breached to create a sexual connection with one’s partner. For use as an example to

further reiterate the dimensions along which sexual activity can occur, the follow depiction

shows how little physical contact is needed to categorize an act as being innately sexual.

“Monday nights are slow. Could be because everybody has to work and it’s the first day of

the week so the work load from the previous week may be a lot to deal with. As I waited for a

customer to arrive I grew impatient. I didn’t mind my job, I saw the craziest things happen here

but some days, days like this, I just want to go home. A man entered the booth as that thought

ran through my mind and I flashed him a smile. I moved for him. He watched and began

60-7005674
 3

masturbating. ‘Hard day at work I presume, he really needed to let off the steam’. I walked over

to him and squatted and began masturbating. We grinned at each other and watched each other

until the final stroke. We both had a fabulous time. Nights like this I couldn’t believe I being paid

to masturbate…’ The excerpt, in my opinion is a clear account of sexual activity although there

was no direct physical contact by mutual parties they both engaged in mutual masturbation or

non-penetrative sex, which would be acceptable according to Christian’s definition of a sexual

act.

Alan Goldman (1977) in his paper “Plain Sex” attempts to define sex in its simplest form. He

theorizes that sexual desire is desire for contact with another person’s body and for the pleasure

which such contact produces. Sexual activity is activity which tends to fulfil the desire of the

agent. The definition of sex has to be expanded in order to become inclusive of all acts

underlined by sexual desire. As an individual experiences and takes part in various sexual

activities, which may include sex with men, sex with women or even sex with oneself, the lines

which separated what is sex and what is not has become hazy. A sexual feeling is usually

communicated to oneself through sexual feelings and physiological responses to sexual

stimulation. By becoming aware of one’s state of sexual arousal it can be communicated to

desired other(s) through the above mentioned actions. This desired other usually expresses

recursive intention and consents to the acts that may take place. Goldman’s theory seems to relay

that sexual desire is only the desire to have physical contact and without that desire in and for

itself, behaviours and actions that require or involve physical contact are not primarily sexual.

For example, a child who regresses through sucking their finger has an erogenous zone in their

mouth but usually some other activity accompanies this. The child might ‘feel their parents

body’ (for example arms) only for the purpose of completing the satisfaction that is felt in their

60-7005674
 4

mouth on a psychological level but, this activity whilst it involves physical contact would not be

deemed a sexual act as the desire comes from sucking the finger but is amplified through

touching another person’s or even their own body. An example of sexual behaviours underlined

by sexual desire for physical contact would be visible between two people who are in a

relationship and have sexual intercourse and participate in sexual activities for the purpose of

satisfying a need for sexual physical contact. This is not the state however, that this need can

only be fulfilled within a relationship. Kissing may be described as the act of touching with the

lip as a mark of affection or greeting (Schreibman, 2000). The actual kissing that may occur

within a relationship would be inherently different from kissing that occurs between friends.

While the contact is still made the desire that is ought is predominantly different. This is the

same for the act of fellatio (oral sex), using the mouth to ‘kiss’ a sexual organ. The contact which

occurs for both parties would be as a result of sexual desire for mutual physical contact.

However, sexual desire by itself cannot be sufficient, as Goldman states, to qualify an act of

physical contact as sexual. Greta Christiana (Soble, 2002) speculates that ‘having sex with

someone may be the conscious, consenting, mutually acknowledged pursuit of shared sexual

pleasure’. Her definition is wide enough to include many sexual acts transcending genital contact

or orgasm and definitive enough to not include every instance of sexual awareness or arousal.

However, what does this mean for those encounters that are consented but not sexually

gratifying? Personally, they are still considered sexual as the intent was to gain pleasure through

sexual means. For those cases, where the sex act is forced upon an individual, meaning without

their mutual consent, it may not be defined as sexual as the basis of sexual desire, intention or

pleasure but rather on the basis of the physical contact that usually defines a sexual act.

60-7005674
 5

3. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the sole reason for sexual intercourse is procreation.

Do you agree or disagree with Aquinas? Provide justification for your response.

I disagree with the notion that the only valid purpose of sex is its procreative potential.

Much like other sexual optimists, I believe that sex, in and of itself carries more weight on the

human existence than just the continuity of generations.

“Every emission of semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow is contrary to the

good for man. And if this is to be done deliberately, it must be a sin.”

St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles

The motion was put forth by Doctor of the Church St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). His

writings, mostly a commentary on the philosophies conveyed by Aristotle, postulated that sex is

only a legitimate act when it occurs within the correct institutional context of marriage and is

geared towards the procreation and continuation of the human species (Soble, 1998). Aquinas’

works on the matter of human sexuality are largely reliant on his theory of natural law. Natural

law proposes that each person should “do good, avoid evil” and “…harm no man”. Aquinas

holds that these precepts are imprinted in the minds of man by God since creation. With regards

to sexual ethics, his theory was formulated by comparing the sexuality of humans to that of

lower animals, mammals in particular. It puts forward that what is natural in human sexuality

occurs only between a man and woman who have voluntarily entered a committed relationship

which is only possible within the boundaries of a monogamous marriage. Sexual activity is to be

understood as a function of sexual organs, designed for the purpose of procreation, not pleasure

or any other purpose. For this reason, any act of sex which leads to the unwarranted emission of

semen not for the purpose of carrying on the generation is contrary to nature or a sin. His beliefs

60-7005674
 6

are centered on what he calls God’s design of man. This plan for man ensures the preservation

and continuity of the human species which is noted in the first book of the bible “Be fruitful and

multiply” (Genesis 1:28). The act between a man and a woman is a natural expression of human

sexuality and depositing semen in any other place but within the vagina is unnatural. Aquinas

also discreetly discussed his stance on other sexual acts which are described as being unnatural

and indecent and otherwise defined as mortal sins. These include homosexuality, masturbation,

fellatio (oral sex), and sexual petting. In his defence, he quotes the bible by highlighting the

punishment received by persons found guilty of committing these acts. He postulates that these

acts are impermissible as they upset the natural order of things in God’s design.

Based on the foundations of Aquinas’ theory, it is obvious that sexual acts which occur

outside of the precincts of a monogamous marriage would be immoral. But can this be the only

way to look at the morality of human sexuality? In essence Aquinas’ view will only hold for

those persons who believe in the existence of a superior divine being. Furthermore, Aquinas

accepted the sexual act between unmarried couples if and only if commanded by God. But how

can one be truly sure of this? The assessment of Aquinas’ theory brings forth the nature of sex.

Sex while it may described as the physical act of intercourse cannot only be seen as the insertion

of a penis into a vagina for the purpose of ejaculation. One must consider the

psychophysiological conditions of the act. The feelings and drives associated with the act,

before, during and after, make it much more than a natural function or task of sexual organs.

These feelings cannot be ignored as they are a natural part of the act, just as natural as an

orgasm. Immanuel Kant supports Aquinas’ view by positing that sex and all instances of sex

objectify one person or both persons involved in the act. He postulates that ‘to allow oneself to

be used is to make an object of oneself and making an object of anyone is morally wrong”

60-7005674
 7

(Soble, 1998) From his perspective, sex is seen as an appetite which requires one person or both

to become the substance that is devoured or relinquished for the pleasure of another. The sexual

desire is unnatural and immoral. He makes his claims aims firstly at the nature of the sexual act.

He further reinforces his claim by stating that some form of manipulation or deception is out into

play and seems a requirement prior to engaging in sexual activity with another. Thirdly, he

claims the act itself is peculiar, characterized by uncontrollable drives and impulses, involuntary

jerkings and most importantly its yearning to master and consume the other person’s body parts

(Soble, 2002). This is all amalgamated to create an unnatural encounter whereby a person

objectifies themselves for the pleasure of another, or in other words, ‘makes of themselves a

tool’ and as such reduces themselves to an animalistic level. Furthermore, the insistent nature of

the sexual impulse is hard to stop. Once the ball begins to roll there usually is no turning back.

Soble (2002) states that sexual desire is powerfully inelastic; it challenges reason, compelling

persons to seek gratification even in the presence of physical and, or psychological danger. The

sexual pessimists’ metaphysics on the nature of sexuality therefore only reinforces its procreative

function and disregards all other elements of the act.

The sexual liberal or optimists of sexuality perceive nothing especially obnoxious in the

sexual impulse. In all fairness, human sexuality is just another and most innocuous dimension of

our existence in the same way that there is a need for food and shelter. According to Soble

(2002) sexual liberals judge that sexuality cannot be but conducive to our well-being without

detracting from our intellectual propensities. This argument refutes the claim made by theorists

such as Immanuel Kant, St Thomas Aquinas and others against the expression of sexuality,

which states that sexuality is a severe threat not only to our proper relations with, and normal

treatment of, other persons but also to our own humanity. The apostle St. Paul, in his teachings

60-7005674
 8

advises by concession that while abstinence is the ideal spiritual state, for those who cannot

exercise self-control, should marry, so as to not be found guilty of fornication since marriage was

created and is ordained by God. “.. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion”. The

lack of self-control, or rather the presence of a sexual drive and desire, is not unnatural nor does

it come from the need to procreate as Aquinas states, but rather from a natural urge that was

given by God. St Paul called on marriage as a solution in controlling the sexual urge, because it

is believed that God created that institution for the free expression of sexuality. ‘The bed is

undefiled’. Alan Goldman (1977) believes that sex is continuously misconstrued in relation to its

cause and purpose, whether it is reproduction (Aquinas), expression of love, communication

(Nagle) or interpersonal awareness. He describes sexuality simply as the desire for physical

contact. He does not overemphasize orgasms as the goal of any sexual desire or genital sex to be

the only norm of sexual activity. He stipulates that the goal of sexual desire and activity is the

physical contact itself, rather that something else that this contact might express. Primoratz,

Ethics and Sex (1999) gives a good counter argument to Aquinas’ claim that ‘the’ purpose of sex

is strictly procreative by putting forward that while persons may engage in sexual activity for the

purpose of procreating others may have sex although they do not or cannot intend it to result in

procreation. He argues that a purpose is subjective and as such ‘a purpose is always somebody’s

purpose’ hence, ‘there is nobody to whom this purpose can plausibly be ascribed as the purpose

concerning sex’.

60-7005674
 9

References

Aquinas, T. (1975). Summa Contra Gentiles, trans V.J. Bourke, Notre Dame, Notre Dame

University Press, bk III, pt II, ch. 122, p. 144

Goldman, A. (1977). Plain Sex. Philosophy and Public Affiars. Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 267-287

Primoratz, I. (1999). Ethics and Sex: Sex and Procreation. London, Routledge.

Soble, A. (1998). The Philosophy of Sex and Love, An Introduction. Paragon House.

Soble, A. (2002). The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings ( 4th Ed.). Maryland, Rowman

& Littlefield Publishers Inc.

60-7005674