 |
 |
Well, with Jason's goading... I think to equate sex with other urges/drives is a kind of naturalistic fallacy (in its non-Moore sense) -- or at least a false equation/analogy. I know a whole lot of people who are quite caught up in food and its pleasures, but I would never suggest that their desire for food possesses the same complexity and depth of emotion involved in their sex lives. As perhaps the most intimate point of contact (physically, of course, but also metaphorically) between two humans, sex seems as if it can never be "casual" in that term's connotative sense, that is as being inconsequential, brief and not fully engaged. I don't deny that there are some gradings within sexual encounters between people (e.g. one may be, in a sense, alienated from sex because one's heart remains/is with another partner), but I don't think it can ever be "casual" in that term's pejorative sense. To say that it can be seems wishful thinking on one hand (as seen in the philanderer's glib excuse) and dangerously close to the worst kind of Social Darwinism on the other. Ben, Second-Rate Philosopher On 11/18/05, Dr Jason Jacobs <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Why don't you make a comment since you obviously disagree? Or do you? What > do *you* think? > > Dr Jason Jacobs > Senior Lecturer > School of Arts, Media and Culture > Griffith University > Nathan Campus > Queensland 4111 > Australia > Phone: (07) 3875 5164 > Fax: (07) 3875 7730 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Friday, 18 November 2005 6:24 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Casual sex? > > Comments? The way Carlo used 'gay culture' not once but twice to describe > deviation and difference but not similarity or sameness. > > On 18/11/05 6:11 am, "Carlo C. Adorno" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > have, like food or sleep (this is seem particularly in gay culture which, > in > > part, views sex as .... > > > sexual encounters. In gay culture, she thought a lot of it way about > > performance, which actually.... > > > Does anyone > > know any films that directly address this debate? Or if you just have > comments > > on the argument, please feel free... > > * > * > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are > replying to. > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: > [log in to unmask] > For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. > ** > > * > * > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] > For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. > ** > * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **