Final Exam

Shawn Totaram

Humber College

Philosophy of Love and Sex - PHIL- 225-909

Laila Andreucci

17-August-2021
 Final Exam

Compare (similarities) and contrast (differences) the way that “natural” is discussed

in two different contexts:

The notion of sex and sexuality is natural in its very essence. Somewhere in the human

deep skin, there exist desires that arise from inner instinct rather than socially constructed

tendencies. There is plethora of school of thoughts that build the theories around sex, sexual

tendencies and orientation. The features such as kissing, romance and sexual intercourse

complete the sexual process in human. Moreover, the completion of such features with differing

genders is also variant in human society. On the one hand, some theorists, like Plato and Kant,

suggest that acts like kissing and homosexuality are rather unnecessary or unnatural. On the

other hand, there are critics, such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, that regard every act

that sustain pleasure and affection as part of sexual process (Ruse 264). In the forthcoming

sections, two such critics, namely, Leonore Tiefer and Michael Ruse, will be discussed through

highlighting their respective similarities and differences regarding kissing and homosexuality.

Comparison:

Tiefer presents a detailed yet comprehensive background and analysis regarding kissing

and its role in ancient and contemporary human affairs. He states that kissing as a romantic and

erotic tendency remained an alien act for the various tribes and cultures of America and Eurasia.

Involvement of kissing in commencing a sexual act was introduced by European culture and

tradition. He has classified kissing in various classes that differ from relation to relation. Some

kisses carry motherly affection while some contain erotic and romantic emotions. Interestingly,

hehas termed kissing as an act that has been evolved through certain cultural processes. Its
meaning and essence has been transformed from a taboo or disgust to a primary element in

sexual ecstasies (Tiefer 81).

Similarly, Ruse has justified the homosexual orientation through various ground realities

and arguments. He has argued that it is unnecessary to assemble homosexuality with natural

tendencies because there is nothing unnatural that shrouds the homosexual behavior. Moreover,

he argues that human being has been evolved through various processes. Human culture,

tradition and societies have been evolved through the lapse of time. The unnatural taboos of past

have been transformed into normal and natural through evolutionary processes. As far as

morality is considered, Ruse has disregarded the indulgence of morality and homosexuality. He

sustains his argument that both morality and biological features and tendencies are different

elements that should not be dealt equally and simultaneously (Ruse 263).

In short, for both Ruse and Tiefer sexual acts like kissing and homosexuality are naturally

evolved orientations that develop in human through natural evolution and processes.

Contrast:

Speaking of contrasting elements, Michael Ruse has presented a rather vague analysis

and empirical data that fail to prove homosexuality as a purely moral and natural act. His

analysis differs in mechanism, for it frequently fluctuate in order of historical and contemporary

proofs. His ambiguous argument on reproduction and its relation with kin selection theory fails

to identify and address the real conflict of homosexuality with nature (Ruse 263). Moreover, he

unsuccessfully tried to prove homosexual behavior in animals. This attempt of Ruse not merely

weakens his stance but also proves his argument as a shot in the dark. Moreover, he has tried to

link homosexuality with unpervert tendencies. He claims that despite its rebellious entity,

homosexuality is not perversion and should be accepted by all nook and cranny including
philosophers and theorists. This very notion portrays Ruse’s inability to prove his argument

efficiently (Ruse 266).

On the other hand, Tiefer’s analysis on kissing and its variant relationship with human

stands strong both as an argument and theory. He depicts a clear picture of kissing as a natural

act in terms of affection, love and ecstasy. Through presenting empirical data of tribes that dwell

in various regions of the globe, Tiefer has proved that kissing is not merely a natural act but is

also widely prevalent in every part of the world. He has taken American society as a case study

in which kissing and its intensity vary from culture to culture and classes to classes. He proves

through his argument that the tradition of kissing has been transformed cultural processes and

human nature. This biological phenomenon has been further highlighted and endorsed through

the lapse of ages (Tiefer 81).