Sex!

"There's a difference between sexism and sexuality"
Refusing to be a Man by Prophagandhi

For anyone who has an idea about the status of my love-life, it might come as a surprise that I have something to say about sex.

I was rooting around the bowels of my harddrive not long ago, and came across some of my philosophy writings from my first year at university. Among some of the other things I found, there was an essay for a course entitled "Gender Issues" (Philosophy 202 for any interested UW students). Unfortunately the essay is too long, boring, and poorly written to warrant being put up in its entirety, but one part was quite interesting. I talk about an article by Janice Moulton, entitled "Sex and Reference". The main thrust of the article was that there is a strange disconnect between the way we talk about heterosexual sex in polite conversation and the reality behind it.

It is often considered implied by the definition of sexual intercourse that it brings about orgasms in both males and females equally (and if it doesn't, we make jokes at the expense of the male). This is at odds with the fact that most women don't orgasm during sexual intercourse due to the small amount of clitoral stimulation during sex. Our definition of sexual intercourse revolves around the male's arousal and satisfaction - it starts with an erect penis and ends with an ejaculation of semen. Yet the way we talk about sex implies that this is not the case - that it is an equal activity. We falsely expect women to be satisfied by sex (Note: I'm not implying that there aren't women that are completely satisfied by sex - just that this is likely an unwarranted expectation given how male-centered sexual intercourse is).

Moulton suggests that instead of talking about sexual intercourse as the chief means of sexual satisfaction for both parties, we talk about sexual activity - a much more broad label meaning whatever it is that satisfies both sexual partners.

What's in a name?

So I've finally done it. I've created a blog. I haven't decided if this is a new low, or if it is just the next logical step for a bored boy who seems to be the only one without a blog nowadays.

As the title asks: What's in a name? Hopefully everyone is familiar with the principle of Occam's razor (if not, read this). I have my friend Anatoly to thank for this blog's name, but what the heck does it mean and what am I going to be blogging about? The name serves to highlight one of the themes that is likely going to be prevalent in this blog: my skepticism. Occam's razor is often in the arsenal of skeptics, whether they be skeptical about gods, miracles, parapsychology, etc. Simply put, there are simpler explanations for most things without invoking the magic of gods, spirits, or super-mind-powers, and anything we lack an explanation for isn't helped by positing some supernatural cause to fill the gap. I should mention I am the president of The Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers of Waterloo, a university club which aims to create a community for non-theists and create acceptance of non-theists in the greater community.

What else can you expect from this blog? I should briefly introduce myself, which should give a better idea of what I will be blogging about. I am a university student studying computer science at the University of Waterloo. I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with my major, and hope to get into a graduate program for either philosophy or cognitive science (or both) when I graduate. My major interests rest in philosophy. I have become increasingly interested in philosophy of mind in recent years, though my philosophical interests are fairly diverse.

Other interests of mine: issues pertaining to gender and sexuality, vegetarianism and animal rights, health, punk rock, science, and occasionally politics.

Random labels that can be applied to me: Atheist (or freethinker or bright or skeptic or... etc.), vegetarian (boarder-line vegan), straight-edge (I don't do drugs, alcohol included, medical drugs excluded).