The part of the question that I find interesting is the claim that "there is no real consent between an animal and a human because the two are essentially contemplating a different act" (italics added). The question assumes that animals can contemplate. We grant that, for the sake of discussion. Animals contemplate sex biologically, while humans contemplate sex emotionally, according to the question. Suppose two people, X and Y, meet in a bar or club, and drink wine, talk, and dance together intimately. After an hour or so, X says to Y: "shall we go to my place"? Y says "sure," and off they go. As soon as they get inside X's flat [crib, pad], they eagerly embrace, kiss, undress each other, and eventually end up entwined [perhaps coitally] on the sofa, floor, or bed. The consent of X and Y to this sexual act is implicit, not explicit, but that's not the issue here. The claim I quoted assumes that all is well with implicit consent. I will assume that, too, for the sake of discussion. The...

In my reply to Tom's reply, I asked for argument, reasons, what philosophers are supposed to do as philosophers, if not duty-bound to do. And, finally, he did it. Thank you, Tom. Maybe I am thick and hence couldn't read the argument(s) that really did exist between or amongst those three short sentences of the original reply. But if I couldn't see it, did SteveB?

The claim, that "Chances are you are both happier together as things are now," seems to me to be an empirical issue, not a philosophical one. Further, I can imagine many scenarios in which it is false. Much depends on what is meant by "happier." But whether "happier" means "the relationship as whole will be better/happier" or, instead, "your sexual experiences together will be better/happier," it would seem not to be a question that philosophical expertise could answer. I hope that our answers to sex questions do not come to mimic the pop psychology and psychobabble we hear sufficiently on the Jerry Springer and similar shows. Finally, the heart and soul of philosophy is argument, providing reasons for claims, including claims about morality and duties. In the answer to the question above, I cannot find a shred of argument. We should also avoid, that is, pastoral or friendly counseling. Without rigor, philosophy is nothing.

The idea -- "I would hazard a guess that most such relationships pair much older men with much younger women--while again acknowledging that there are exceptions to this generality. Given the prevalence of sexism, such relationships seem to raise reasonable suspicions that they are embodiments of widespread sexist attitudes towards women, who suffer disproportionately from discrimination as they age, and for whom standards of attractiveness (including youthful appearance) are especially oppressive" -- ignores the mountain of evolutionary biological, sociobiological, and evolutionary psychological work done in this area that suggests that the pattern older man-younger woman is to be expected. This work might very well be false or full of oversimplifications, of course, in which case the charges of "oppression" and "sexism" in the pattern might be rightfully made. But the idea quoted too cavalierly writes off the evolutionary/biological underpinnings of such a pattern.

Would you prefer to be the one who is good but everything thinks is bad, or the one who is bad but everyone thinks is good? Would you prefer to be the one who loves (but is not loved in return as much or at all), or the one who is loved (but does not return the love as much or at all)? Both questions are hard to answer--which is to say that it is not obvious that it is preferable to be the one who is loved but does not love in return.

Nicholas is right that there are good reasons to think that rape should not be defined as "unwanted" sex. Although Stephen Schulhofer titled his book on rape Unwanted Sex , he makes it clear that rape, on his view, is to be understood as sex that is not consensual. There has been, of course, debate among rape theorists over the "right" definition of "rape." The law has long employed a "use of force" definition of rape. Recently, the law (in various US jurisdictions) has been moving toward a disjunctive definition of rape: sexual activity either with the use of force or in the absence of consent. (Some jurisidictions make the latter a less serious crime.) It is not difficult to use the philosophical method of counterexamples to argue (more or less convincingly, depending on one's political leanings) that "unwanted," "forced," and "nonconsensual" sex are not identical. Eric Reitan has written a provocative essay in which he argues that rape is an "essentially contested concept" (in the sense of Gallie);...

The question begins: "Do you think it is ethical to have romantic desires for people with good looks?" The questioner then constructs a syllogism that concludes: "it is unethical to grant people ANY advantage based on their looks." Perhaps this particular conclusion is right, i.e., the syllogism is both valid and sound. However, that doesn't get us very far in answering the original question at the very top, for we would still have to add the premise/assumption: "my having romantic desires for a physically attractive person grants an advantage to that person." That is very doubtful! (Except for the megalomaniac.) By the way, I cover this territory in depth in my Sexual Investigations (Yale, 1996), chapter 5, "Beauty."

Most fans of the New Orleans Saints (football team) remained loyal to 'dem Saints even though the Saints were almost always a losing team. Loyalty in The Big Easy for the Saints was fierce. But now that Katrina has destroyed much of New Orleans, the team's owner, car franchise hot shot Benson has decided to move the team to San Antonio or California permanently -- at precsiely the time when New Orleans dramatically needs the team to stay, for both financial and spiritual reasons. For all the loyalty shown to the Saints by the N.O. community, Benson returns a kick in the testicles. Update February 14, 2006: Benson seems to have come around. But the Hornets -- who have been playing in Oklahoma City (Oklahoma????), except for 3 games in New Orleans this season -- are now the culprits. They plan to play all of six games in N.O. next season, and N.O. might get the NBA all-star game as compensation. Big deal.

Here are some standard replies (some worse than others): (1) to reduce your chances of contracting an STD. (2) because you barely have enough time and energy and money for one relationship, let alone two. (3) because God said so, and you shouldn't tamper with Him. (4) because your mama said so, and you shouldn't tamper with Her. (5) because your significant other (SO) said "no way, jose" to your group sex proposal. (6) because you promised to be monogamous and it is wrong to break promises, ceteris paribus . can you think of a situation that would permit the breaking? maybe: your SO already broke it. (7) because it is the best arrangement for the rearing of children. (8) because from 4 to 8 years of monogamy is built into us genetically and we shouldn't tamper with Nature. (9) because monogamy (even if not followed by 50-80% of those who claim to follow it) supports the economy better than does polygamy. (Part of my problem is that I'm not sure whether your "why" asks for causes or reasons.)

Your intelligent questions are disturbing and difficult ones, both theoretically and practically. I'd like to proceed by dividing your message into pieces. (I) "Say I'm in a romantic relationship and I'm trying to decide whether I'd be happier remaining in it, or leaving it [period]." Many people ask themselves whether the relationship they are in makes them as happy (or content, or satisfied) as they could be. The question often arises because the person we are with is human, has failings, does annoying things--is not perfect (naturally), at least from our perspective. Relationships come with tensions, and baggage, and problems, and we wonder whether the bad side and parts are offset by the good side and parts. (Despite the powerfully romantic vision of much music [Whitney Houston's song, for one], there are very few perfectly matched couples. And, as Iris Murdoch once wrote [ The Black Prince ], even the outwardly-appearing best of marriages has its secrets. "Marriage is a very private...

You write both: "This area belongs to me" and "I am not a bossy person who believes he owns his girlfriend." There's no contradiction if (1) you meant the first as a joke [even if a suspicious one], or if (2) one can own another's genitals yet not own the (whole) person. Kant thought not, but his sexual metaphysics are odd. We might put the problem this way, as a conflict between Roger Scruton ( Sexual Desire ), a sexual conservative, and Betty Dodson, the guru of female masturbation-as-liberation. Scruton thinks that any woman who plays with herself (be it digitally or mechanically) while with her man (her husband, ideally), commits an obscene display that destroys the unitive meaning of the sexual act--even if (if I read him properly) the woman's engaging in some digitalizing helps them achieve orgasm together or nearly together (unification). Scruton doesn't consider that some men might get turned on watching their companions fool around with themselves down there. Or if he would, the men,...