Love and desire ass 1

Analyzing the Seven Views on the Philosophy Of Love and Sex and Understanding Personal Preferences Section A: (a) Explanation of The View I Endorse Thomas Nagel’s article “ Sexual Perversion” (published in 1960) was a path defining work because it acknowledged the topic of “ Philosophy of Sex and Love” from a view that was different in comparison to those presented by early anthology writers (Trevas, et. al. 1997). Considering the fact that moral and ethical concerns serve as major driving force behind the formulation of this specific discipline, that is, sexual philosophy, therefore, my chosen view is also influenced by these factors. I endorse the Neoconservative approach from the seven views on Love and Sex. Neoconservative view presents a more realistic approach towards the relativity of love and sex. It implies that after marriage all types of sexual activities are moral and ethical (Trevas, et. al. 1997). Although this view is considered a subcategory or an extension of the Conservative View, however, it supports a completely different outlook on love and sex. Unlike the Conservative approach in which procreation is highlighted as the basic (and only) motive behind sex, Neoconservative approach gives preference to personal pleasure and emphasizes on elements like affection and intimacy instead of procreation. It requires that the couple perform sex for the purpose of pleasure first and then it can lead to procreation, either way the sexual act is deemed ethical and moral. However, even for this approach the main thing is the marriage; if a couple is married only then intimacy in any way and to any extent will be considered morally permissible (Trevas, et. al. 1997). Neoconservative approach broadens the range of sexual act by allowing oral-genital sex and does not discourage the usage of contraceptives too. One of the vital reasons for choosing this approach is because I believe sex is meant to be followed after marriage since marriage is the only socially and ethically viable contract that allows the union of two persons. For existing respectfully in a society there is a definite set of rules and norms that needs to be followed just like the way people are required to dress properly before coming out in public. No one will have the courage to leave home completely naked, since it is both ethically and socially dismissed, then why should people disrespect the institution of marriage or show a casual attitude towards marital contract. I oppose sex before marriage not only for ethical/social concerns but also because it encourages many physical and emotional complexities such as STDs and unwanted pregnancy to name a few. Sex before marriage may result in the either the premature death (through abortion) or birth of an illegitimate baby, which will be inappropriate. Contraceptives are there but none of the gynecologists declare them as hundred percent reliable sources for preventing unwanted pregnancy. Moreover, in my view, sex is not just a ritual that needs to be fulfilled, it is a beautiful activity that a couple perform to strengthen their romantic bond and to give each other physical and emotional pleasure. Procreation is yet another way to further strengthen this bond and thus, Neoconservative approach fits perfectly in to my personally endorsed ideology of sex and love. Section B: Analyzing the pros and cons of a view that I neither agree nor disagree with Philosophy is one such discipline that presents multiple theories on one single question, which is also the case with philosophical views on love and sex (Trevas, et. al. 1997). There are seven views introduced so far on the philosophy of love and sex, and the beneficial aspect is that it opens up our mind to newer possibilities, ideas and theories (Trevas, et. al. 1997). We may or may not be convinced and feel related to each and every view but it surely improves our knowledge reserves and helps us “ gain a deeper understanding of that philosophy we already hold” (Trevas et. al. 1997, p. 2). One such view on philosophy of sex and love is named the “ Moderate Approach or Sex with Love”. According to this philosophy, sexual intercourse between adults is permissible but forcing someone for sex, providing sex unwillingly for material gains, engaging a child in sexual activity and taking sexual advantage of someone for sex, all these conditions are deemed impermissible (Trevas, et. al. 1997). I believe that in this approach, sex serves as an extension of the emotion of love and a warranty of commitment in a relationship. According to Moderate view, sex before marriage or after marriage is morally and ethically allowed but loveless or sex without feelings, such as prostitution or one-night stands, is unacceptable. I endorse, to some extent, the aspect of moderate approach that stresses on the involvement of feelings and love as the encouragers of sex. If a woman and a man are in love with each other, and they have sexual intercourse before marriage, it will not be an immoral act at all. Another good aspect is that it restricts sex to couples who are in love. If this approach is endorsed by people universally, then the society will be spared of various unethical and socially distressing issues like prostitution, rapes, and forced sexual encounters, and even eve teasing. The most prominent disadvantage of moderate approach is that the probability of frequently falling in and out of love cannot be overlooked. People having a shallow understanding of the real spirit of romantic love will use this emotion as a tool for extracting sexual pleasures from their partners and then dumping one partner after another will not be difficult for them at all. This will encourage emotionally distressful situation for those being used for sex in the name of love and commitment, and will also violate the sanctity of such a beautiful emotion that is love. Under the moderate view, a sacred institution like marriage will also lose its significance. Marriage is the only contract that legally warrants the element of commitment in a relationship, which allowing pre-marital sex will substantially discourage. Secondly, the probability of sexually transmitted diseases or STDs will increase if people are allowed pre-marital sex. Scientists agree on the fact that human nature is volatile, irrational and unpredictable, so, how can it be guaranteed that the couple who feel in love today and have sex before marriage will stay in love for the years to come? Thus, in my opinion, moderate view has some positive aspects and some negative ones too so it cannot be viewed as a flawless approach. References Trevas, R., Zucker, A., & Borchert, D. M. (1997). Introduction: The philosophy of sex and love. Philosophy of Sex and Love, A Reader, 66(1), 1-4.