The Nature and Purpose of Human Sexuality

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Loddfafner
Just because reproduction is its prime end does not mean that everyone should be obliged to restrict it to that end.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but one shouldn’t forget that procreation is responsible for the urge and (protected or not) a possible outcome from sexual intercourse. I wouldn’t say don’t have sex unless you want children but I would advise being responsible with what you do with your body and don’t forget what sex is ultimately for.

Personally I would never sleep with a woman I wasn’t prepared to have carry my child.

[Lutiferre]

Those who insist that everyone should follow the most narrow guidelines of a constricted view of nature should live entirely as they preach and stop using technology to cheat in the struggle for existence. If they want to escape the charge of hypocrisy they must restrict their diet to what they can find in the wild and only use their fists, sticks, and stones to defend against predators, and allow any disease no matter how severe to take its course without medical treatment. They must ensure that their every sexual act leads to a birth and that the mother receives no medical assistance with that birth.

Which is of course, a complete non-sequitur given what I said. Acknowledging the generative end of the human reproductive system and sexuality, does not equal to limiting it to that (e.g. human sexuality is also interpersonal, and has a fundamental unitive aspect between man and woman, which is clear even in the anatomy of the sexual organs), and neither does it equal to accepting that "every sexual act must lead to birth", since we are speaking about the intent and the nature of the act, not the workings of nature out of our control (e.g. we may die from a heart attack in a second, or there may be a miscarriage, and so on - not in our control, and not determined by our act or intention, and hence, beyond moral culpability).

(e.g. human sexuality is also interpersonal, and has a fundamental unitive aspect between man and woman, which is clear even in the anatomy of the sexual organs)

In fact, I'd say the deeply embedded (inter)personal significance and meaning of human sexuality is exactly why there is such a thing as "sexual immorality". By intentionally denying it it's chief end, we are violating something that is embedded in all human persons, namely human nature, and even the very generative end from which we as human persons proceed (from our parents), since the chief end of human sexuality we are denying is a part of human nature, and hence, by disrespecting human nature, it is the very dignity of human nature in se and followingly the dignity of all human persons we are violating. We see how all such immorality is contrary to the good of the human person since, in it's disrespect of the dignity of the human person, it's psychologically dysgenic nature becomes apparent by preventing new life to come about.

The same would not be the case with the acts of animals, which are not persons, and do not have the moral culpability implied in the powers of reasoning and connection between intent/will and action that humans do.

And technology was itself something that was brought about by Man, for the good of Man, given the superior potential of human nature, in its integration between abstract intentionality and action, and powers of reasoning. Hence, using it contrary to the good of man (e.g. sexual immorality) is an intentional and immoral endeavour.

[Octothorpe]

Maybe in the case of extreme fetisches.

But it is overly reductionistic to pretend that this is valid for all cases; when it is something something that has a multitude of differentiated cases and potential causes.

If it isn't an extreme case of a fetisch, but more like a "preference", then it is more likely that the person has developed an aesthetic, a natural admiration of the given body part (like feet, or noses, or eyes, or any body part).

And even if it is extreme, the causes can be complex, but are often more emotional than purely neurological (e.g. also work on a higher level).

Again, pop-psychology and reductionism. Your explanation is not necessarily true, as there can be many complex causes.


It is not a coincidence that biologists call the faculties associated with it the reproductive system. Whatever the psychologically motivating factor, reproduction is certainly the prime end for which it developed.

Please notice that what I wrote said 'some.' And considering that I teach psychology, I'd say it isn't 'pop psychology.' This isn't a forum for professional sex counselors or therapists. It's a forum for the exchange of general knowledge, views, and opinions. I suggest a nice, long bath and a cool, frosty beverage.

[Lady L]

The purpose of sex to me is many things

I really don't think I truly understood them all and embraced them all until my marriage. The reason for that would be a couple of things. 1, I've never loved anyone like this before. 2, Being married makes it even more sexy to my brain

You know, they say the brain is the most sexual organ

To feel as close as you can to the person you love. < a purpose.
From a woman's perspective ( that's me ) to feel dominated and woman like when the man is making love ( to me ) < a purpose.
To feel beautiful and desired. < a purpose.
To truly connect. < a purpose.
To feel skin on skin. < a purpose.
To make one feel good. < a purpose.
To feel good myself. < a purpose.
To have orgasms. < a purpose.
To complete nature. < a purpose.

...

...

[Aemma]

Discuss.

I can just see it now. You'd be the type of Philosophy prof to set the PHI 101 Final Exam (which would be worth 100% of one's class mark mind you) as the following:

The scene: A university gymnasium replete with rows upon rows of brainiac angst-ridden young adults fidgeting in their seats, waiting with bated breath for Prof SuuT's infamous PHI 101 Final Exam.

The examiners, all harsh-looking and dowdy matrons (ya ya I know, you're looking for the babes in swimsuits. Ya well this is MY story right now don't forget ), stroll the aisles handing out the examination booklets which inside possess Prof SuuT's notorious examination questionnaire.

The matrons are now all standing at the head of each row and upon Prof SuuT's mark they will slap their yardsticks onto the first desk (luckily empty) as the Go mark. Prof SuuT gives the word, and WHACK!

Booklets are furiously being flipped open and only a collective gasp can be heard emanating from the once deafening silence......

The questionnaire finally reveals Prof SuuT's set examination which contains the following, and ONLY the following set in big bold black type against a very white page:

WHY?

Ohhh ya to answer this question now...a cursory answer in the interim: for pleasure and for pain.

[SuuT]

...

WHY?

LMAOx3.

You're bringing back memories, ma puce.

[Óttar]

WHY?

If that is the question, this is the answer.

[Lutiferre]

Those who insist that everyone should follow the most narrow guidelines of a constricted view of nature should live entirely as they preach and stop using technology to cheat in the struggle for existence. If they want to escape the charge of hypocrisy they must restrict their diet to what they can find in the wild and only use their fists, sticks, and stones to defend against predators, and allow any disease no matter how severe to take its course without medical treatment. They must ensure that their every sexual act leads to a birth and that the mother receives no medical assistance with that birth.

After reading something about Aristotelian ethics, I was reminded how much this attitude is contrary to human nature. Meditate shortly on these paragraphs.

Aristotle holds a teleological worldview: he sees the universe as inherently purposeful. Basically, Aristotle claims that potentiality exists for the sake of actuality. Thus, matter exists for the sake of receiving its form, and an organism has sight for the sake of seeing. Now, each thing has certain potentialities as a result of its form. Because of its form, a snake has the potential to slither. Hence, we can say that the snake ought to slither. The more a thing achieves its potential, the more it succeeds in achieving its purpose.

Aristotle bases his ethical theory on this teleological worldview. Because of his form, a human being has certain abilities. Hence, his purpose in life is to exercise those abilities as well and as fully as possible. Now, the most characteristic human ability, which is not included in the form of any other organism, is the ability to think. Therefore, the best human life is a life lived rationally

It's an ethics of self-realisation, in that way: we are to realize our full potential, and the more we succeed in doing so, the more we are good and content.

In the same way, we humans because of our form, have the very specified potential implicit in our form, to unite sexually man and woman, and for the same reason we can say that we ought to do actualise that potential if we are to use our sexual faculties sexually at all, while uniting man and man are contrary to the potential of our form which is inclined towards dimorphic sexual union.

But the ways in which we actualize our potential is always in tension with the context, the outside world, and our other potentialities and our happiness and health in general, so the chief virtue in our self-realisation must be moderation in how we act and behave so our self-realisation is harmonious. Moderation is the ground of all other virtues; For example courage, a virtue, if taken to excess would manifest as recklessness and if deficient as cowardice. In the same way, in actualising the potential of our mouthes and digestive system whose utility is motivated by the appetite, whose end is the growth and subsistence and reparation of the body, along with the motivation of good tastes and the feeling of well-being, we must moderate our actualisation, and keep the end in mind, so we don't become either too skinny or too fat, both cases being contrary to the end of the appetite. In the exact same way the appetite for the sexual act needs moderation, so in actualising our potential for sexual union, we must keep the end in mind, so the union between man and woman is fulfilled in an appropriate way and neither too often or seldom, and so we don't bring too many or too few children into the world.

Obviously, it is the case that technology is a fruit of human rationality and of our form in general, such as our ability to use our hands to create tools, and hence, the creation and utility of technology is even fulfilling something that is in itself a potentiality of our form that ought to be actualised according to a teleological ethics. But that technology should not be used contrary to ethics in general, but rather only when it is protagonistic to be ethically fulfilling, that is, ethically positive, not ethically negative. Chemical weapons, for that reason, are not a good technology, because their end is not to reach a good or virtuous thing, or fulfill the human potential, but to induce in cheap ways painful mass deaths, which is an evil which is contrary to justice when there are more responsible (moderate) means of war, and especially considering the unnecessary suffering and pollution and destruction of the natural environment and biosphere they bring, which hinders the subsistence and health of the many, all of which is contrary to justice and good and the purpose of any justifiable means of war, which is not to inflict such damage, but to resolve conflicts as a necessary evil and reduce the suffering and damage to innocents as much as possible.

Contraceptive technology would be a better example of a technology which is ethically negative as well, because it is connected to a human act unlike the aforementioned example. It hinders the actualisation and fulfillment of the implicit potential and inclination of our form toward dimorphic sexual union, whose end includes reproduction, which is never fulfilled when such technology is applied.

And so, the same teleological argument against perverted use of the sexual faculties, is the argument in favour of rational thinking and it's fruits such as the (ethically responsible) use of technology.

[SuuT]

Aristotle bases his ethical theory on this teleological worldview. Because of his form, a human being has certain abilities. Hence, his purpose in life is to exercise those abilities as well and as fully as possible. Now, the most characteristic human ability, which is not included in the form of any other organism, is the ability to think. Therefore, the best human life is a life lived rationally

...
In the same way, we humans because of our form, have the very specified potential implicit in our form, to unite sexually man and woman, and for the same reason we can say that we ought to do actualise that potential if we are to use our sexual faculties sexually at all, while uniting man and man are contrary to the potential of our form which is inclined towards dimorphic sexual union.

But the ways in which we actualize our potential is always in tension with the context, the outside world, and our other potentialities and our happiness and health in general, so the chief virtue in our self-realisation must be moderation in how we act and behave so our self-realisation is harmonious. Moderation is the ground of all other virtues; For example courage, a virtue, if taken to excess would manifest as recklessness and if deficient as cowardice. In the same way, in actualising the potential of our mouthes and digestive system whose utility is motivated by the appetite, whose end is the growth and subsistence and reparation of the body, along with the motivation of good tastes and the feeling of well-being, we must moderate our actualisation, and keep the end in mind, so we don't become either too skinny or too fat, both cases being contrary to the end of the appetite. In the exact same way the appetite for the sexual act needs moderation, so in actualising our potential for sexual union, we must keep the end in mind, so the union between man and woman is fulfilled in an appropriate way and neither too often or seldom, and so we don't bring too many or too few children into the world.

...

Careful: Aristotle's gripe was not/would not be with per se homosexuality; but with the self-tyranny of sensuality and immoderate indulgence. Also, be careful with Greek teleolgy - for you would be charged with immoderacy (cf. The Politics: Book II, chapter XII; Book V, chapters X and XI).

[Poltergeist]

Reproduction. That is all.

No fun.

No playing.

There is nothing spiritual about it.

I think there is. To varying degrees in various cases.