Sex gives us a standard of pleasure, but not a basis of worth. For most of us it is not only a needed vent for desire but also the most pleasurable form of regeneration we know. Its worth is nonetheless definitely erroneous by being muddled with that of love, when it is taken as fundamentally a manifestation of that sentiment. Though passionate, the desires of sex are fleeting and monotonous rather than accumulative. They give worth to the precise acts which produce them, but not the long-lasting kind of worth which augments one's whole existence (Goldman, 283).
Sexual desire is yearning for connection with another person's body and for the desire which such connection creates. Sexual activity is an activity which inclines to satisfy such yearning of the agent (Goldman, 268).
Sexual desire is the state of stimulation, in which the body of one person rouses to the presence or thought of another. Arousal provides the essential incident of sexual enjoyment, and it contains the sources of all that is characteristic in the sexuality of the normal being (Scruton, 16).
Sexual desire is the desire for connection with another person’s body and for the pleasure that such contact yields. Sexual desire is contented when that pleasure is experienced and unsatisfied when it is not, and is most effectively satisfied when pleasure reaches its maximum intensity, usually in orgasm. Sex is good as sex on those occasions and with those partners that provide us with the most pleasure, best when that pleasure is maximized. For this reason it is also known as the hedonistic account of sexual desire (Morgan, 1).
Sexual activity is an exceptionally multifaceted matter in terms of the body and its aptitude to experience satisfying physical feelings, which we cannot comprehend without making indispensable reference to complex cognitive capabilities and deliberate awareness, which often reach out to cultural and personal denotations connected with individuals, objects and situations (Morgan, 7).
Sexual desire is basically one of the cravings, like hunger and thirst. As such it may have several objects, some more collective than others perhaps, but none in any sense natural (Nagel, 1). It also has as its characteristic object a certain relation with something in the external world (Nagel, 8).
Greater difficulties of classification are presented by three other categories of sexual activity: elaborations of the sexual act; intercourse of more than two persons; and homosexuality (Nagel, 14).
In my personal view, I think sexual desire is the same as arousals, a yearning to physically connect with someone you admire, yearn for or find attracted to so as to achieve a certain kind of physical release herein achieving an orgasm. Sexual activity on the other hand refers to the goings on that happen during sex like kissing, fondling and exploration of each other’s bodies.
I tend to agree with Morgan, Scruton and Goldman more since they encompass the arousal and physical connection with another body to achieve a certain physical satisfaction or release kind of approach. I find Nagel’s definitions vague and not settling on anything considered physical. He just echoes sexual desire or sexual activity as something natural.
For the reason that sexual activity, like any other natural activity such as eating or working out, has become entrenched in stratums of cultural, moral, and superstitious super structures, it is hard to consider sexual activity in its simplest terms. Nonetheless moderately for this motive, it is only by thinking about plain sex that we can begin to achieve this conceptual balance. The notion of sexual perversion is the social condemnation or norm. Anyone tending to think that in each community the perversions are those carnal practices, of which the public disapproves, should contemplate on all the cultures that have scowled upon adultery, prostitution and fornication as offensive in other ways (Nagel, 5).
Adultery which solely applies to married couples having sexual relations outside of their respective unions whilst prostitution refers to the activity of having sex in exchange of money, this goes against what most society and religions preach. They are considered as unacceptable and ill doings.
What is considered as abnormal certainly differs from culture to culture, but the classification is not an unadulterated manifestation of condemnation or aversion. In fact it is habitually considered as a ground for condemnation, and that proposes that the classification has a liberated content (Nagel, 6).
If there are any sexual travesties, they will have to be sexual desires or practices that can be reasonably termed as in some logic strange, though the elucidation of this normal or abnormal difference is of course the core problem. Subsequently, various practices will be travesties if anything is, such as shoe fetishism, bestiality, and sadism; other practices, such as unembellished sexual interaction, will not be, but there is controversy over such opinions. Also, if there are travesties, they will be abnormal sexual preferences rather than simply abnormal practices, espoused not from preference but for other causes (Nagel, 6).
I opine that this is at disagreement with the opinions preached and upheld by some Roman Catholics, Protestants and other religions, that contraception is a sexual travesty. But though contraception may qualify as a considered travesty of the sexual and procreative purposes, it cannot be pointedly termed as a sexual travesty. A sexual travesty must expose itself in conduct that articulates an abnormal sexual inclination (Nagel, 5).
What is considered as abnormal definitely contrasts from culture to culture, but the classification is not a unadulterated expression of disapproval or distaste. In fact it is often considered as a ground for disapproval, and that proposes that the classification has an independent content (Nagel, 6).
In contrast, a notion of sexual travesty, since the notion of perversion is itself a sexual notion, it will continually be defined as comparative to some meaning of usual sex or sexual activity and any start of the standard act will infer a conflicting idea of perverse customs (Goldman, 284).
Perversion does not epitomize a nonconformity from the procreative purpose or activities like kissing would be considered as perverted in an affectionate correlation, or most sexual desires and most heterosexual deeds would also be considered as perverted, or from competence in communicating or ineffective seduction efforts would also be considered as being perverted (Goldman, 2840.
It is nonconformity from a standard considered normal or acceptable. But the norm in query is simply statistical. Of course, not all erotic deeds that are statistically unfamiliar are perverted such as a three-hour uninterrupted sexual action would be unusual but not certainly abnormal in the necessary logic. The aberration in query must relate to the form of the desire in itself in order to establish sexual perversion for instance, desire, not for interaction with another, but for simply looking for harm or being harmed, for contact with articles of clothing. Deviant sex is basically abnormal sex, and if the standard is not to be an ideal or sentimentalized superfluous end or resolve, it must show the way human sexual desires usually manifest themselves (Goldman, 285).
Bibliography
Morgan, Seiriol. (2003). Sex in the Head.
Scruton, R. (1994). Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation. Phoenix: London.
Goldman, A. H. (1977). Plain Sex. Philosophy & Public Affairs: Wiley.
Nagel, Thomas. (1969). Sexual Perversion. The Journal of Philosophy: Journal of Philosophy Inc,.
