Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually. This involves biological, psychological, physical, erotic, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors. Because it is a broad term, which has varied with historical contexts over time, it lacks a precise definition. The biological and physical aspects of sexuality largely concern the human reproductive functions, including the human sexual response cycle.

Someone’s sexual orientation is their pattern of sexual interest in the opposite and/or same sex. Physical and emotional aspects of sexuality include bonds between individuals that are expressed through profound feelings or physical manifestations of love, trust, and care. Social aspects deal with the effects of human society on one’s sexuality, while spirituality concerns an individual’s spiritual connection with others. Sexuality also affects and is affected by cultural, political, legal, philosophical, moral, ethical, and religious aspects of life.

For something as imperative as sex it is a wonder that conversation about the topic has been discredited or seemingly maligned for centuries (though I naturally cannot speak of the prehistoric accounting). My immediate take on the matter is that a good deal of the camaflouge surrounding the subject has arisen from two sources in particular; one, the obvious credential of privacy; and two, a purist angle deriving from unfathomable intellectual deceit (imagine for example if it were considered improper by any stretch to talk about eating food or the preference for any particular taste).

There is currently a huge amount of attention paid to sexuality.  Entire political races appear to spring from the pros and cons of adopting sexual identity. Discussion of sexuality has become a yardstick for both liberal and conservative thinkers. The parley concerns both children and adults. The underlying format generally advanced is that the sexuality of human beings is strictly biological. Contradicting this putatively scientific observation is the assertion by some that they are convinced from birth that they are otherwise than how they were born. I cannot possibly add to that dialogue; I will not attempt to see into the mind of another. A more transparent averment is that homosexuality is native born. Given the plethora of those who are openly homosexual and those who have “come out” later in life, I confess an inclination to accept that the anomaly is not entirely fabricated.

Anyone with the least familiarity with the internet knows what a vast resource it is for pornographic sex. Pornography has enjoyed far more tolerance in human history than the current agenda of human sexuality.  Pornography is frequently fashioned as artistic.  In more popular instances I suspect pornography has reduced to a form of intoxication without having to digest or smoke the inebriating element. Apart possibly from the gymnastics involved pornography has little attraction to those humans who are beyond having a sexual appetite.  The creative appeal is I find more a question of curiosity than art per se. Granted there are those who seek to embellish their intellectual self-esteem by hanging pornographic art; but frankly I seldom consider it otherwise especially fetching.

The Indian Sanskrit text Kama Sutra (3rd century CE) contained prose, poetry, andillustrations regarding sexual behavior, and the book was celebrated; while the British English text Fanny Hill (1748), considered “the first original English prose pornography,” has been one of the most prosecuted and banned books. In the late 19th century, a film by Thomas Edison that depicted a kiss was denounced as obscene in the United States, whereas Eugène Pirou’s 1896 film Bedtime for the Bride was received very favorably in France.

Sex – unlike apple pie – is not something most people willingly discuss freely or openly. I won’t insult the topic by suggesting it is as rude a consideration as the evacuation of one’s bowels but it is low on the pole of winning polite chat. Where the topic is understandably offensive is when it involves illegal advances. Even erotica is spared condemnation if it were practiced by consenting adults (qualified by a limitation of extent). These overriding boundaries are I believe collectively viewed as mandatory.

Sexuality is predominantly voiced as a “private” matter not only for publication purposes but also for the limitation upon its scope of involvement. Most often sex is between two people only; but once again the limitation strikes at sensualities which border on Victorian lines of demarcation where the offence is technically not far different from group dining.

Anyone who abhors discussion of sex is instantly challenged by the acknowledgement of children and grandchildren. Yet for some it constitutes an immense but certain leap from one to the other. Maintenance of a sterilized condition either mentally or physically is in my opinion never a fruitful option. Not that I promote a libidinous posture; rather I see one’s table manners as both natural and entertaining. Not everyone holds their knife or fork similarly. And the drunken state of some is a small compliment to either their voracity or veracity.