Critical summary

CRITICAL SUMMARY Critical Summary This article presents a summary of the discussion, which seeks to demystify some of the assumptions that have been made in establishing the intetionalist and reductionist theories of sex. According to the article, the truth of the reductionist theory is based on the presumption of sexual pleasure being uniform across different sexual encounters and is based on the philosophy of the mind. These are premised on the understanding that human beings experience intense physical sensations, which are extremely pleasurable and which elicit common sense views, through sexual activity. Experiencing the pleasure associated with the sexual activity results in satisfaction of the human sexual desire. The reductionist account of sex is based on the premise of sexual desires being satisfied through sexual activity.
The intetionalist account of sex has been developed from the knowledge of interpersonal intetionalist which results in people engaging in sexual activity. As a theory opposing the reductionist account, this account is a result of the physical pleasure which occurs through contact with another person’s body. This commonly causes physical arousal, which is a normal occurrence when individuals have the intention of engaging in physical activity (Morgan, 2003). The intetionalist account commonly focuses on cases where pleasures are derived for the nature and appearances of the sexual partners. The existence of different perceptions regarding sexual pleasure remains the fundamental causes of the differences in sexual accounts. The intetionalist accounts to sex as mainly based on the assumption that individuals are driven by a desire to achieve physical satisfaction from sexual pleasure.
The Aristotelian understanding of the human mind has been utilised in seeking to understand the different accounts of sex. According to this understanding human desire are the causes of human actions, hence satisfaction of certain desires encourages individuals to engage in sexual activity. There is an existing marginal connection between the two accounts described within the article. The theory developed by Aristotle seeks to explain the moral psychology behind sexual activities by humans. The psychological element becomes the platform upon which the mental and physical elements meet, consequently presenting the connection between the two accounts, where intetionalist is mental while the reductionist is physical. The individuality and independence of individuals, however, results in the existence of a discrepancy in the experience of pleasure.
Despite the existing discrepancies in the way sexual accounts portray sex the common element in sex remains sexual desires and pleasure achieved form engaging in sexual activity, for different reasons. Within the context of the reductionist account, the pleasure experienced during sexual activity becomes the motivating factors towards engaging in sex. The article focuses on the aspect of the different accounts trying to offer explanations to the nature of sexual desire as experienced by humans. The interpersonal aspects of humans, however, become fundamental elements which complicate the understanding of how sexual desires are achieved. The element of sexual morality remains based on the establishment of the desires and the means through which these desires are achieved. While it is difficult to prove that sexual pleasure is only based on physical satisfaction, it is evident that satisfaction in sexual activity comes from these desires.
References
Morgan, S. (2003). Sex in the Head. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 20(1), 1–16.