Have none of you scholors read his essay? I was of the opinion it was relitively famous amongst sex ethics. I must be wrong

Hey Alexander,

I find the topic quite interesting but posts of sexuality; around here, tend to get "oh my god you slovenly animals!" -or- "its private, don't talk about it"-type responses, so I kind of gave up on talking sexuality/sexual ethics (despite the pivotal role it plays in our lives).

It sounds like you might have a case, based upon the material you've presented and the points you give credence to. That last jump (that heterosexuality might then be construed as 'perverse' as well in accordance with the presented reason), I'll have to look into.

I've got your link up and plan on reading it thoroughly for a better response here soon.

Thanks

Thats great, thanks for expressing interest. It was part of the course I'm taking right now, and I thought I'd just share with you some arguements expressed from a man who is, currently, not seen the best of lights. I don't see why philosophers would dismiss sexuality so quicky because unless you're peter singer, then it does indeed need adressing, just as does anything from stem cell research to cultural predjudices.

Don't feel a rush to read it, it's long and complicated, but I would love to hear what people think.

Ok, digested it.. whew. For frame of reference; I'm heterosexual by orientation but have no compunctions against homosexuality (or bisexuality for that matter) at all. Sexuality, to me, is one of the most fundamentally fulfilling and important aspects of our lives and emotional well-being. As far as theology; I'm an atheist, but I've got a fairly solid background in theist-thought in its many iterations. That being said...

[INDENT] Yep, that's how I took it; but it's more than that. That an element of self honesty and 'fulfillment' are necessary within the sexual sphere in order to be fully experienced (to become that 'grace' of which he's speaking).
[/INDENT]
[INDENT] Within the context of what I read, I'd say that in THAT view homosexuality (1) breaks the bonds of traditional, societal and/or church imposed sexuality and therefore *could* be more "genuine" -and- (2) that homosexuality involves two of the same sex (aka "like me") which - on a gender level only - is a closer reflection of the self.
[/INDENT][INDENT]I, by the way, don't agree with this at all. It's a interesting theory, but the implication is this: Because homosexual relationships may break social and religious norms (which is not at all true across the board), they they are more genuine, more reflective of the 'self'. This is what I'd call a fallacy. I would say "They can be", not that they necessarily always are.
[/INDENT][INDENT] From what I read, he'd agree with you. I'd say "It could be"; but that's necessarily contingent on what is constraining <whomever> from free, unfettered and 'genuine' expressions of sexuality. Just because homosexuality may be repressed, doesn't mean heterosexuality is repression. A salient answer to this would also have to include knowledge of what you're referring to as, "... a great many cultural settings" (I tried to think of 1 but failed).
[/INDENT][INDENT] I don't think his quotations were intended to speak directly to placing homosexuality on a firmer footing, but they seem to. If I take his meaning right, the quoted biblical passages emphasize relationship content other than procreative; therefore, placing the one (need, loving, support, sharing) over the other (procreation) seems to suggest the shore up relationships that are more than baby-factories.
[/INDENT][INDENT]By these (and other similar interpretations); yes, you're right. But that's part of the problem of using the bible for anything other than a door-stop: The litany of possible interpretations for any passage or passages negate any substantive worth they might give. If 'X' means a thousand different possible things to a thousand different people, what worth is it on it's own? Obviously, this is just my opinion; your mileage may differ.
[/INDENT]

Sort of.

I find the subject fascinating, and would agree with many of the things he esteems as important (self discovery, freedom from imposed societal and/or religious bounds, etc). But like I suggested up top; I was, overall, disappointed. He makes several leaps in logic that are unfounded (which is sad, since I think he basic premise sound).

• I particularly liked the quote and conclusions of T. Nagel's; this "superimposed mutual perceptions" as part of the fulfilling/sharing experience.
  

• This was a doesn't-follow woopsie: "These "asymmetrical" sexual practices have some claim to be called perverse in that they leave one agent in effective control of the situation - one agent, that is, who doesn't have to wait upon the desire of the other...", followed by "(Incidentally, if this suggests that, in a great many cultural settings, the socially licensed norm of heterosexual intercourse is a "perversion" - well, that is a perfectly serious suggestion..)" doesn't work because it's basis is that heterosexual relationships are therefore asymmetrical. I could be wrong, like I said, much of the grammer is convoluted.
  

• Here's another one: "... conventional (heterosexual) morality simply absolves us from the difficulties we might meet in doing so...". While I respect the expressed opinions of honest folk, the impilcation here isn't supported. In fact, it condemns heterosexuality for precisely the same reasons (unsupported assertions) that he's claiming homosexuality is being condemned; somewhat hypocritical in my honest opinion.
  

• And another: "Nagel comes close to saying what I believe needs saying here, that sexual "perversion" is sexual activity without risk, without the dangerous acknowledgement that my joy depends on someone else's as theirs does on mine." The message (as I take it) here is good: That risk in the 'openness/sharing' with another - and it's accompanying vulnerabilities - is a healthy, fulfilling part of sexuality. But again the logic fails because of how he's stated it: Sexuality without risk - in this light alone - can be called perverse, but that's not to say that all "riskless" sexual activity therefore is perverse, even by his definition.
  

• I loved this statement, by the way: "I can only fully discover the body's grace in taking time, the time needed for a mutual recognition that my partner and I are not simply passive instruments to each other." Very nice <clap><clap>
  

So yea, there's good and bad in there. And to your core questions: He doesn't seem to be specifically defending or supporting homosexuality specifically, but that the tenants he holds 'high' could support it.

Good stuff, and thanks for posting it.

You're quite welcome. I'm not sure you'll like my "Yays" and "Nays" on what he's said. Much of it has definite and quantifiable worth. But I fear that the manner in which he's expressing it isn't doing justice to the core-messages he's extolling. If I'm at all right in this, it might explain why he's not viewed in such the good light.

Good luck!

Maybe, but the most recent reason was him wanting to take on Sharia Law in Britain, and obviously as his position as Arch Bishop of England, that's not exactly going to please a load of people. I'm just gonna read your response now . Say more in a bit.

I would just like to say by the way, that I don't actually support all the views expressed in this essay, and of course do not believe that Heterosexuality is truely perverse, for that is what keeps the world turning. I argued this case, although I like to see it as a regurgitation of the text with a slight analytical angle, simply to expand my own understanding of the text because like I said it's part of my course. So thanks for offering counter arguements and such.



Yes, that is of course how you can have homosexual bishops and so on in the Church and still retain your fundamental beliefs in Christianity.



so did I, whatever kind of "perception" that may be, since it makes you feel some worth in your inner self.


I think in terms of arguing that heterosexuality is not perverse is that you can have all sorts of bias in homosexual perception as well. One man might be more dominant personality wise, as well as the more obvious one, and likewise in the hetero the woman might express her self more, thus counterbalancing the perversion in that. I do also believe that we can clump "sex" into more distinctive categories for this, since I don't really think dominence in a loving and functional relationship actually affects the balance of equality.

These categories may be something like this "Functional sexual relationship" - I.E both participants are mentally stable with each other and feel ease around each other.

"Disfunctional Sexual Relationships" - One person is more dominant and unease is felt, often results in divorce/split. In this situation one probably isn't finding "grace" in their sexual actions or in their perceptions of each other. It's a shame when people get to this stage because they either feel obliged to stick it out, resulting in an unhappy unity, or they split/divorce and this affects people around them. Kids, friends. ?Nothing we can do about that though.

"Rape" - self explanitory, certainly no grace in that, completely peverse.

"Masterbation" - Nagul would argue you don't find completeness in that, and is more of an interim sexual desire. You are not getting the perception back. I don't disagree that it should be done, but it's definately not fullfilling in the sense of being a partner is, and so really I don't think we really need talk about that in the sense that "sex ethics" is concerned, unless we support some religious dogma.

" Prostitution" - Is peverse in the sense that one person is getting more out of it than the other, and the other is not recieving the same amount if interest back, very "asymetrical".

So within these categories we can find most examples of relationships today. And so long as one finds themself within the first, I personally see no problem with it.

Thanks Khetil for you time, and insight to this.


p.s out of interest, I "thanked you" for your post, based on the fact that it was of good quality. I don't really know what that thing is, so I hope it was appropriately done.

First) as long as its not erotica sharing, I really don't see why sexual ethics, culture, and sociological issues aren't discussed here.

Second) Now i'm interested in the essay and will have to read it lol.

lol enjoy, it took me the better part of 4 hours to read and write about it. I guess I wanted to take in as much as I can.

What did you think Goshisdead?

I'm still contemplating, Its well written and a very stylistic argument, but what should one expect from the leader of the Anglican Church. I'm having issues with the term grace, albeit well employed I think its a little too angled towards a shamless emotional ploy, equating a sexual communion grace with the standardized Jesus' Mercy grace, but then again I may be wrong as I am quite ignorant of prevailing Anglican verbiage.

The argument of celibacy and those who are celibate not speaking out against the role of homosexuials in christianity seems to be missing the possibility that there may be an elevated number of homosexuals in the the celebate clergy. They may have joined as a way to be productive in their faith without being contrary to prevailing traditions concerning their sexual desires.

This paragraph struck me as funny, in a dark and sarcastic way considering the setup of sex in a marriage being culturally akin to spousal rape.



First thing I and this may be too much of an insight into my mind, "so Hosea needed to constantly f*** just like the lord always F***s Israel"?

I'm also not truely seeing the correlation between mutual sexual acceptance and mutual marital acceptance. Sex is treated like a tool until the new testement. An sociologically I understand why religions in general use sex as such.

But as I said I'm still assimilating it, In general though I don't find it a very convincing argument mostly because it takes what I consider a single, albeit important, component of a successful as close to the entire relationship.