In PrimoratzÆ (YEAR) ôSex As Language,ö the author critiques Robert SolomonÆs view that sex is language, ôàbodily equivalent of a sentence,ö (p. 37). Primoratz maintains SolomonÆs view of sex as language is closer to the hedonistic view of sex rather than the procreation or love views. Even so, Primoratz critiques SolomonÆs theory on sex as language both because it is too ônarrowö and too ôinclusive,ö a theory that is also critiqued for the authorÆs presentation of it ôas a complete, exclusive account of sexualityö (Primoratz, YEAR, p. 39-40). This analysis will discuss PrimoratzÆ main points, offer objections for some and explanation for agreement with others. A conclusion will provide a personal opinion about sex.
Primoratz (YEAR) makes a number of points in the essay ôSex As Language,ö regarding the theories of Robert Solomon that sex is basically a language: ôàits grammar delineated by the body, the touch and the movement providing the phonetics, the gesture being the unit of meaningfulnessö (p. 37). Solomon argues that sex is a form of body language that represents interpersonal communication that is the primary goal of sex. He argues that sex is a body language in which ôàwe communicate to others our feelings and attitudes about them, and about ourselves tooö (Primoratz, YEAR, p. 36). Love plays no role in sex for it cannot be recognized from other feelings or attitudes being expressed through sexual language. I support SolomonÆs contention that sex is a form of body language, but I believe it is quite easy to recognize the expression of love through touch compared to other attitudes or emotions like lust or anger.
Primoratz harshly critiques SolomonÆs views on masturbation. Solomon argues masturbation is ôself-denialö because it represents ôtalking to yourselfö if sex is viewed as communication (Primoratz, YEAR, p. 38). However, I agree with Primoratz that this view of masturbation ...