I attempt to follow a value rule that is based on “utilitarianism” (Rathus, et al., 2005, p. 6), in which my values reflect concern for the greater good of society’s majority, rather than my own. As with my value system, my critical thinking skills in making decisions about sex have long been set. I remain skeptical of the beliefs and biases of others, preferring to come to my own conclusions concerning sex and what I find sexually stimulating. However, I fervently condemn many behaviors as immoral, such as rape, unethical as in the case of adultery, or against nature as with practicing bestiality. Other sexual behaviors, whether I agree with them, or not, such as sodomy, sexual preference, and any other sexual choices that does not harm another, are not mine to judge.
Joseph Fletcher in ‘situation ethics’ when approaches to sex and relationships became freer because of contraceptive pill. Situation ethics seeks equal treatment of everyone and acts out of love. Sex is a genuine expression of love. Situation ethics rejects free love like natural law and Kantian ethics. Rejecting one-night stands, having many partners etc.
Like hunger and thirst, sex is also an appetite and it can be satisfied in a number of ways (even those seen as irregular). Whether they are natural or not is no longer an issue because once something is established as sexual, it is sexual. The basic structure of the argument is: appetites are all normal; sex is an appetite; therefore, all sex is normal. Nagel then argues back that even appetite can be perverse by giving examples of how one could be seen as gastronomically perverted; sexual desire has its own characteristics and more complicated which allows perversions to occur. Furthermore, an individual which one desires are called objects and they consist of properties that attract the person.
Not all states of character are virtuous. For example lustfulness is a state of character, however this state of character is not a virtuous one. Lust is not a virtue because it is a tendency to feel too much sexual desire and to respond to it too indiscriminately. Lust lies at the extreme of excess. Sexual virtue will lie at the mean between extremes on Aristotle's view.
However it is the foundation of debates regarding the moral status of a large number of sexual acts – the latent stigma still attached to homosexuality is a prime example of the influence of the theological standpoint on sexual desires. Despite retaining some influence on the way we think about certain sexual practices the traditional theist conception of sexual desires is often widely ignored in modern times. A primary objection to the viewpoint is that it is an almost empirically observable fact that sexual desires do not necessarily aim at procreation. The massive use of contraceptives throughout the modern world is evidence
Foucault’s theory of social construction of sexual identity is not merely restricted to homosexuality, but it is within the discussion of homosexuality that it holds its greatest sway. Foucault underlines this belief by pointing out that sexuality in eras bygone was more judged by the sexual acts themselves, rather than the ‘orientation’ of the individual. Acts were judged as perverse based on the action or the individual; a separate subgroup of the ‘perverse’ did not exist as a category. Sodomy was seen as a personal vice, rather than a deep-seated identity or aspect of personality/identity. Sodomy was something one did, not something one was.
HOW ARE OUR SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS OF MASCULINITY CHANGING? To understand how the social expectations of masculinity are changing in today’s society, it is necessary to look in-depth at the concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ (Connell 2000), its impact on men and how this concept appears to be changing for some men, yet appears to be still embedded within masculinity in some sections of contemporary society today. In sociological terms, masculinity is taken for granted, it is a ‘norm’ and it is not associated with gender or compared to women (Van Krieken, Habibis, Smith, Hutchins, Haralambos and Holborn 2006). The social construction of masculinity was studied in depth by Connell (1995). Connell looked at gender and the human body in three ways, firstly, the biological difference between men and women, secondly sociologically and lastly where there is a ‘compromise’, where the previous two are somewhat combined.
It includes what affection means and the reasons behind our gestures and emotions. That’s why although there may be intimate physical contact, without personal intimacy there can be no real physical intimacy” (McCarty 67). As the text states, there are different aspects of intimacy, and even as one may promote another at certain times, at other times there is nothing that can hurt the relationship worse. Analysis of the quote above shows how “without personal intimacy there can be no real physical intimacy” (McCarty 67). In this kind of relationship, “physical intimacy”, or at least what the people in the relationship is physical intimacy is just sex.
Sexual Harassment It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general. Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.
the power to construct reality. Those who name the world have the privilege of highlighting their own experiences--and thereby identify what they consider important. Thus, groups that have a marginal status are denied the vocabulary to define (and express) their own experiences. A good example is the recognition of sexual harassment, a term which was not used prior to the 1970's (see pp. 324-25).