SEXUALITY

Part 1 

Communicative Sexuality

In his paper, Pineau provide insight on the issue of communicative sexuality especially where the date rape arises. Date rape, as Pineau notes does not result to physical injury and fails to be recognized as sexual assault but seen as seduction. The proposal by Pineau provide a different angle from the women’s perspective on determining the reasonable form of the woman’s consent to engage in sex.

The common belief that has been even upheld by the court systems, that seduction comprises of male aggression and female reluctance (Pineau, 9). To uphold that belief, it undermines the role of communicative where sexuality where any attempts by a woman to resist the man’s approached will be regarded as part of the game. Pineau identifies how many women in date rape cases get assumed with the concept that, “She asked for it”, (Pineau, 10). Seduction tactical language involves eye contact, smiles, and blushes and gesture whose interpretation may be relative.

Pineau’s proposal on communicative sexuality attempts to address the problem of epistemic responsibility related to knowing how to promote sexual ends of each partner. His proposal aims at ensuring that both man and woman are sure of their sexual encounter as being mutually acceptable to eliminate the incidence where one party is forcing the other against their desires (Pineau, 18). The proposal provides an alternative of viewing sexual interaction from a contractual model to a communicative perspective (Pineau 19).

The proposal by Pineau indicates that communication should involve conversation. Proper conversation promotes cooperation between the parties. Communicative sexuality achieves more than mere coitus. The parties involved will be sensitive to the responses of their partners. Communicative sexuality is concerned with alertness in interpreting a woman’s response to prevent misconceptions. Communicative sexuality advocates for intimacy to be achieved through openness in emotional and personal ways, sharing personal knowledge and being receptive.

Moral Perception on Prostitution

Yolanda Este’s disapproves the liberalist view that prostitution, just like other service industry works, is not wrong.  Estes acknowledge that prostitution violates the Kantanian principle of humanity as it is disrespectful to use human body as a mere ways of achieving some goals.

Estes objects to the notion that prostitution should be compared to other needs fulfilled in the service industry such as acquiring food to in a restraunant. Such a perspective would mean that prostitution is used for sexual relief. Estes challenges this by stating that masturbation would be the most readily answer to sexual relief and thus prostitution cannot be categorized similar to other services (Estes, 2001, 4). 

Estes notes that men who pay sex have the capacity and ability to find a willing and unpaid sexual partner. It is not that prostitutes possess unique sex skills, otherwise they would be undergoing special training to improve on the same. Clients for prostitution are in pursuit of expedience but are not willing to pay the full price. To build a desirable sexual relationship, a client is required not only commit money but also time and obligations. Maintaining such an adorable sexual relationship is demanding to the client and they turn to prostitution in avoidance of such required responsibility.

Prostitutes require existing in a duality form arising from self-fragmentation. A prostitute engages as a willing slave which forces her to separate her sexual individuality for the sexual act. The sexual act between the client and prostitute requires that she address the desire of client but disengage from her own. It implies that she only engages in the sexual activity with no sensations and emotions engaged (Estes, 6). 

Prostitution only leaves the players entangled in a web of deception and contradiction. It is not comparable to other morally recognized service works. Prostitution downgrades morality to consent, contract and market price (Estes, 8)

Stein’s Main Reason for rejecting the “Born That Way” and “Not a Choice” Arguments as Bases for Advocating LGB Rights.

The advocates for the LGB right peg their reasoning on the “born that way” and “not a choice”. They argue that it would be wrong to discriminate against lesbians, gays and bisexuals since these sexual orientations are inborn and unchangeable. Stein rejects this argument as not being enough for LGB people to support their cases.

Sexual orientations, according to Stein, are embodied (Stein, 2). It is factor of a robust cognitive psychology system. In humans this is the brain. Stein observes that human behavior is influenced by nativism as well as environmental factors.

Stein observes that constructionism and essentialism fall under empirical theses whose claims cannot be determined by just observation or experimenting. Constructionism is based on essentialism which considers the historical and cultural contingences of sexual orientation.  This contradicts the scientific approach on the same.

The born that way and not a choice arguments face ethical problems. Where the LGB sexual orientation is inborn, they are still left with an option of making a choice.  The ethical relevance of the LGBs is neither innate nor determined. The existence of some people with same-sex sexual behavior but whose orientation are not innate or immutable makes the arguments raised for LGB rights to be impotent.  This problem is made worse by the scientific claim that women’s sexual orientation is more fluid (not innate, not mutable and somehow chosen) than men’s.

From the above discussion, it can be concluded that LGB is chosen. People have the ability to make choices and claiming that a behavior that one learnt while mature can never be changed is myopic and lame. The LGB community simply rides on expanded democratic space which they chose so as to be unique and help them attract public attention. 

Part 2

Nussbaum Analysis of Objectification and Morality of Pornography’s Depiction of Sex. 

Nussbaum starts by explaining where the aspect of objectification in pornography starts, admiration. She quotes Catherine MaCkinnon who observed that admiration of beauty (physical) is objectification (Nussbaum, 249) no matter how harmless it might be. Nussbaum interestingly agrees with Sunstein that the only bad thing in pornographic representation is the aspect of objectification of women by placing men in controlling positions (Nussbaum, 250), where they can use women. 

To cater for everyone, Nussbaum notes that different people have different tastes of sexual life. On this, she mentions that some forms of objectification can be problematic, good or bad, necessary and wonderful. To this effect, she gives scenarios that depict the mentioned stand. What she tries to say is that what the woman involved feels pleasurable, is the kind of objectification that is good for her, other peoples’ opinions notwithstanding. It can be noted however that she has not mentioned the aspect of morality up to the point where she gives the seven qualities of objectification. Is it an after-thought?

With the descriptive qualities of objectification, she has attempted to dissect objectification from the perspectives of child rearing, workers in a capitalist view and slavery. She finds that some of the qualities are morally wrong in all the comparisons. Pornography is questioned when the aspect of eroticism is concerned on the part of the women. It is what gives women the idea of how to get erotic and this is how they are turned into objects. 

Are some Forms of Pornography Less Problematic than Others?

It is clear that from Nussbaum’s text, some forms of pornography are good while others are good. Considers the case on page 274/5. The sexual scene described shows a man and a woman, each eager to get sexual. No one of them has regrets or is lamenting. Reason, both parties are willing to lose their indiduality for the moment and be identified by their sexual organs. Each sees the other in terms of the said organs. That’s the secret. Pornography will only be less problematic when the said parties are keen to compromise or lower their egos for the sake of the sexual act, no one considers themselves objectified. To refill the gap, they should focus on the sexual organs of the other partner. On the contrary, consider a sexual act described on page 252/3. In the act, the woman is described as feeling violent and resistant, but she gives in all the same. She (the woman having sex) changes and goes for the man full swing and ready to be consumed. Is the change of mind caused by the lack of options to escape the scene or she just accepts her fate as an object that can be objectified? It can be said that it is the woman who determines whether pornography will be problematic or not. 

How Nussbaum’s and Ann’s Perspectives Differ. 

Nussbaum is different from Ann in that Nussbaum argues for or against porn from the perspective of men against women giving special attention to objectification while Ann puts the issue of pornography as female philosophers against male law makers and men in general. Furthermore, Ann is of the opinion that pornography is by all means dehumanizing to the females involved, whether they enjoy it or not. Nussbaum on the other hand, is of the opinion that porn is less problematic if both parties are in consensus and are both enjoying.

Nussbaum seems rational and plausible. Ann is a feminist who is arguing form a point of view where women always point towards men for their all sorts of problems. Appearing in a porn video is a choice that people make individually just as they do when going shopping. I find it rather absurd that Ann looks at women like a special breed of people who should be affected differently from men by appearing naked and having sex in a publicly viewed graphic. Both infringe on the morals equally. 

References 

Estes, Y. (2001). Moral reflections on prostitution. Essays in Philosophy, 2(2), 10.

Garry Ann. Sex, Lies, and Pornography. 

Nussbaum C. Martha. Objectification

Pineau Lois. Date Rape: A Feminist Analysis