> Saying that > cybersex is a kind of sex > is similar to saying > phone sex is a kind of sex > oral sex is a kind of sex > anal sex is a kind of sex > group sex is a kind of sex > or > penguin is a kind of bird > > It seems pretty uncontroversial... > > It's true that cybersex is a kind of sex, albeit that it has > certain exceptional characteristics. Just like a penguin is > a bird with special properties. > > So I think the trouble is in step 4.
I disagree. I think your classifications are inaccurate. Just because they include the same word, doesn't mean they're the same category. Cybersex and phone sex are activities of a completely different character to oral, anal and group sex. There are things that you might want to say about sex: it increases the risk of STIs, it involves physical genital stimulation, that "virgin" is a term to describe one who has not engaged in it. These do not apply to simulated sex. In fact, there isn't much in common between the two. Cybersex would seem to me to be closer to reading an erotic novel than it is to sexual intercourse. I would say something like: Simulated sex is a kind of erotic activity Phone sex is a kind of simulated sex Cybersex is a kind of simulated sex Talking dirty is a kind of erotic activity Sex is a kind of erotic activity Oral sex is a kind of sex Anal sex is a kind of sex Group sex is a kind of sex If things are classified in this way, then it is meaningful to say that unprotected sex can result in STIs. (Actually, I think this still needs a little more care: sex is a collection of sexual activities - group sex is of a different character to the actual activity of oral sex) There are things that you can say about birds: they've got wings, a beak, feathers, two legs, they lay eggs, they're warm blooded. There are properties of birds that you should expect in common across all kinds of birds. The relationship between cybersex and sex is of a completely different character to the relationship between penguins and birds. If you start introducing heuristics/defaults like 'most birds can fly', or you interpret 'kind of' very informally as 'in some respects, similar to' or if you just use linguistic categories then it is going to be inevitable that you'll get some invalid inferences. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using heuristics... but it's just something to be accepted when you're using them in the face of limited information. -Benjamin Johnston ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
