Mappes Theories of Sexual Morality

Mappes Theories of informal Morality most feminists pose been acc utilize of providing a negative stance of conjure, suggesting that altogether sex is rape and that males be the negative g terminationer. Yet, what Dworkin and MacKin nary(prenominal) were really talking ab let on was that the difference been consensual sex and rape is ane of distri furtheror point and non of kind (Kinloch Grebowicz 2004). In otherwise words, the same sex profess occurs in rape or consensual relationships, and sometimes it is difficult to notify when a rape has occurred or the sex was desired. When examining sex, there are some(prenominal) points of view. Thomas A. Mappes writes about the idea of using some other soul for informal gratification. Are people really world used? What is coercive and what is consensual? These questions loom when one examines the subject of sex.Mappes begins a piece entitled informal Morality and the Concept of Using Another Person with the notion that i f in fact the nonmarital sex is not disgraceful, and that sex without love is not im honourable either, indeed it stands to reason that there are no substantive moral restrictions on any acts of sex. This is a different concept to fathom. It would mean that an anything goes military position would prevail and that orgies in the street would be permissible much equal animals gather to mate. Yet, the reality is that hu adult male beings are modest. They hide their sex lives from their acquaintances. Some engage in relationships behind closed doors like Jesse James and tiger Woods, but even when such clandestine affairs are out in the open, individuals explain it away as an addiction.It is difficult to pinpoint precisely what sexual morality is. Mappes employs Kantian ethics to make his points, noting that it is wrong to use A to get to point B if in fact the provided reason to use A is to get to that B position. In other words, a man may date a woman and have sexual intercourse with her and derive satisfaction. Yet, the sex act should take localise in the context of love, for congresswoman, and not just to derive pleasure. If however the man uses the woman to get from point A to point B and for his make uses alone, then he is using her. He talks about intended informed consent however (Mappes). When Mappes talks about using other person, he does not imply that the use is immoral. It merely exists.When lying is involved, then the sexual act is deceptive (Mappes). Depending on the circumstances, holding back breeding may be considered a form of deception (Mappes). one and only(a) faecal matter imagine that if a woman is dating a man and does not know that the man is married, then she is being duped. Consent is tricky however. someone may be used by another but twain individuals really know what is going on. The rape victim who is forced at knife point is obviously someone who is not consenting to sex (Mappes). That is coerced. However, someone who consents to sex under unusual circumstances, is not necessary being forced, even if there is some coercion or unsavory expectations in the mix.It seems as if coercion and deception are important elements when it comes to using another human being sexually (Mappes). The author concludes that using another person can only occur when someone either deceives, coerces, or takes favor of someones desperate situation (Mappes). Many things get to the picture. Is there a terror involved, or an quip? In other words, is there coercion? An example is that in the film Indecent proposition, a rich man mountain passs a needy couple one million dollars for one night of sex. When they agree, their lives change. The married woman does not realize how difficult living will be by and by essentially prostituting herself. There was no coercion. She was lured into it, but arguably she was used because a very rich man would take advantage of a pitiful couple. One can use the same logic to explain why women become prostitutes. Many say they are just paying the bills. Yet, one has to wonder if the situation is truly one where there is coercion or an exercise of free will.A similar storyline to Indecent Proposal comes from a recent episode of Gossip Girl where in an multiform plot Blair is willing to sleep with her boyfriends cousin in order to winnings an empire back. She does it for the boyfriend, but in the end, it appears that she has not done the right thing. She was tricked into heavy(p) herself to someone she despises in order to change her circumstances. How does one know what an offer is really a threat? What question might be asked to charm whether a statement is an offer or a threat? One may ask what the end point would be if one says yes or no. In the case of the film or television program mentioned, the event would result in a reduced amount of money and secular goods. No harm would come to either woman or man. Yet, if the outcome would be loss of life or to rture or something along those lines, then the offer would be construed as a threat. Coercion thusly is not always equated with a threat.The author makes the point at the end that using another person occurs only when someone either deceives, coerces, or takes advantage of someones desperate situation (Mappes, 2007). This is true in that in all of these instances, one may use another sexually, but there are other situations where one may be used. For example, someone may enter into a relationship where a man is rather superficial. Perhaps he has narcissistic personality disorder and cannot love anyone in a qabalistic sense. A woman enters a relationship with him and adores him. She does not realize he cannot love to the depths that she can. She falls in love with him but the problem is that he really cannot love her back. They have sex and she olfactions close to him, but he does not feel the same way even though he says I love you. He is not lying. For him, he loves her, but it is not in the same way she loves him. When he breaks up with her because he is bored of the relationship, and then starts a sexual relationship with a younger, more lovely woman, the woman who was dumped feels used.In respect to Mappes position, the author makes a good case, but there may be times when a coercive offer is part of the equation and there is an obvious use of another, or when there is no explicit sense of using another, someone will feel used. In the case of the narcissist, is the significant other really being used? Much depends on the mind of the reader. There is no coercive offer. If the woman feels used, that does not mean she was. There was no coercion or threat, so on some level, this case that appears to oppose the author really helps to throw his point.