When I was writing my paper (on gandhi and nietzsche) I started skimming through gandhi and I found a part devoted to sex and I figured it was worth commenting on because he is famous for those opinions. He pretty much claims that sex is common and low and people should show restraint. He says that if love is pure then sex is unnecessary and to be avoided. He uses the example of his own marriage and says that although he used to lust after his wife, and she was hesitant and showed resistance but was willing, he learned to control himself completely.
He makes sex analogous to chocolate. He reasons that people eat chocolate, become unhealthy, and ask the doctor for a cure when they should just not eat chocolate. I think he's making big, and unwarranted leap. First off, with that analogy couldn't he just advocate moderation? Secondly, I think he's way off base when he lumps all pleasureful activities into one pile. His argument is so single-minded on the subject of sex that it barely deserves a counter-argument. The only thing that saves him at all is the fact that he admits that there is an argument for the spirituality of sexual union. However, the whole premise of his argument against sex (non-procreational) is closed-minded.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment