brian, you seem to be confusing the terms "sexual" and "physical." sure, some sex (even a majority) is as purely physical and objectifying as you describe. but describing all non-procreative sex as such is as silly, in my mind, as suggesting that such sex "disarms [one's] intuition for not causing harm." i think even the barest of anecdotal evidence could dismantle that assumption.
in that vein, i agree that there are "degrees of sexual expression." but what you are describing is degrees of physical expression. not all physical contact between two bodies is sexual, just as not all physical activity is masturbation. i believe there is a fundamental difference between the two, just as there is a difference between intellect and emotion.

a question. almost all of us argued this summer that the aesthetic value of an object or performance of art can be separated from that object or performance's function (or even is dependent on it's not having one), but several of you seem to believe that the value of sexual intimacy is based wholly on its purpose. is that a contradiction?

posted by Kelsey   [7:53 PM]

[ website ] :: [ contact ] :: [ home ]

XML