Anthy the wise wrote:Your most important sexual organs are your brain and your heart. The rest of your body depends on decisions made upstairs
(I know, it's terrible when people try to sound wise by agreeing with those who actually
are - shameless self-promotion here
)
But no, seriously, I have a point. I completely agree with that sentiment. But....I am also a woman. Do men see things differently? I ask, because I know that my father (the poor dear) sees "phone sex" and "internet sex" as oxymorons. After all, how can it be sex if you can't even see each other, let alone touch each other? I mean, he's my dad, so I don't ask him about his sex life, but I think it safe to say that that sort of thing isn't part of it. Telephones and computers are for doing work, not playing games. (I know that it's men who call 900 numbers - I'm not saying men in general don't 'get' phone sex!) Just, there probably is a school of thought that sees sex as (primarily) physical contact, and other things secondarily.
I'm sorry I went with the knee-jerk reaction,
nel. I know it's not really fair to say "it just
is." But when dealing with something so fundamental to being human and human society, I think that is a good starting point.
Being naked is not necessarily erotic. Nakedness is a regular part of medical care, and most medical professionals do a good job of treating their work as no different than if they were touching any other part of your body. We the patients can (usually) submit to that treatment without feeling violated. Though I do know many unmarried women prefer to go to a female gynecologist....so it's not a non-issue! And as Anthy's story illustrates, there are times when that line does get blurred. (We know it's not
supposed to be erotic, but....)
Clearly, there are cultures where more or less clothing is the norm. A topless woman on a topless beach attracts little notice. A woman in shorts in (say) Iran attracts a
lot of notice. If the same woman left the topless beach and walked down the street to a restaurant, someone would call the cops on her
. For an American example: if I walk around in a tube top and skirt, that's okay (well, I don't have any tube tops, but just say). But if I used the tube top and skirt as leg warmers and walked around just dressed like that....that doesn't go over so well
.
To explain all of this,
why it is different, and
why it matters would take a lot of effort. So much easier to just say "it just
is different." But, in this case, it might be worth the effort to figure out why. Sex is too broad a word - it incorporates a lot. But it is also too narrow a word, easily being reduced to physical acts without any reference to emotional, moral or spiritual realities. So, to explore what is meant by "sex" (and why it is different from generic "physical contact") it is important to employ lots of other vocabulary: erotic, intimacy, lovemaking, two become one flesh, arousal, sexual tension, etc. There is something
different about touching someone sexually, even if it is just to hold hands. And both people who engage in the action
know this.
Feeding someone grapes could be sexual - or it could be non-sexual. Who is doing it, and it what way, makes all the difference. If it's a couple, and there is a nibbling of fingers going along with the feeding thing - that is clearly sexual in nature. And yet, if it's a parent or sibling feeding grapes to a kid, it's not. Or if it is a passenger feeding the driver, it's not. Or if it's two people who are not romantically involved but are just playing at the whole ancient world feed-me-grapes thing...what then?
A swordfight could be very erotic. Or, it could have not the least touch of eroticism to it. I mean, depends on who's fighting and why. (The only erotic one on film that comes to mind is from
Mask of Zorro.)
Being carried piggyback is generally not sexual. And yet, to do that, one person must wrap their body around another person's. So, plenty of physical contact, but low on the arousal scale.
For a massage to be taken as sexual, it would have to serve as foreplay, I think.
I know I haven't articulated any of my philosophy yet, but I hope that by giving examples of what is (and what isn't) sexual, I'm pointing in that direction.
Edit: If you are asking "is casual sex immoral?" (with the caveats that
a) adultery is immoral,
b) spreading STDs is not a very nice thing to do, and
c) bringing a child into the world irresponsibly is, well, irresponsible), your answer will depend very much on how you view human sexuality - ie, your world view.
Legally, I can tolerate the "consenting adults" idea, cause I don't think police need to be bursting into people's bedrooms. But morally? No, I don't think that is an appropriate gauge at all. Well, yes, the two people need to be adults. And yes, they do need to consent! But, there also needs to an element of commitment involved - the consent needs to be public, or else...what have they consented to? A one-night stand? That's very...odd.
I think casual sex (if that is what both partners seek) presumes that the two people engaging in the act are completely free to define what it means. That strikes me as... naive. Sex has been around for a very long time - I didn't invent it, and I probably should not pretend to be able to arbitrarily dictate what it "says" (or means). Interpret, yes. But not define. If it is truly "casual," this presupposes that sex is almost entirely disconected from emotions - it's a purely physical activity that is enjoyable, yes, but does nothing to bind the two people together.
Codswallop.
That isn't reality. Sex
does do something to us beyond releasing sexual tension and feeling good. ("Pleasurable" sounds too weak a word to describe sex...as if sex were just a really yummy chocolate pudding, or something). We
are saying something to each other with our bodies when we engage in it. And yes, we can lie. We can say one thing with our bodies and another with our words. But lying tends to be immoral.
In theory, two people could come together, have sex, and then go their separate ways. And not get hurt by it. But I'm not sure of that last part. I think there
is a hurt there, and sometimes it is more obvious than others. Particularly if one person finds out they were interested in a relationship, not a, um, sex-buddy/playmate. Sure, they might have
agreed to a casual non-relationship, but that doesn't mean they won't get hurt because they
really wanted something else. We can fool ourselves.
Let's face it - people use each other all the time. Sometimes it's not as blatant as prostitution, but other times? Well.... people get hurt an awful lot by being taken advantage of sexually. And using someone is
always immoral. Casual sex tends to treat someone as a convenient plaything, not a real live person with thoughts and feelings....and dignity.
(and no,
nel, you are not the only woman who feels that way. My ex-bf once asked out a girl who turned him down, but offered him make-out sessions whenever he wanted. Pretty clearly, she had no interest in a relationship with him....but wouldn't have minded the sex. He turned her down, because he thought that would have been....pointless. [And no, he wouldn't have told me the story if he took her up on it!]
Also, female American college students studying in Europe have a certain...reputation...for being interested in casual sex with European men.)
) with someone I know, like, and trust at some level, without needing or desiring any deeper expression of union. It is well-known that many men, and at least some women, can do the same. Is our enjoyment "immoral"?
