Logical Impossibility: Sex Does Not Exist

[The Voice of Time]

Every time I think I find an encompassive definition of what sex is, that is supposed to unify several perspectives on the subject, especially those used by scientists, it never adds up, it always breaks down, and the only output my logical reasoning ever produce is "NULL", as in "Sex cannot exist", "Sex does not exist". It has been a problem that has stalked me for a long time as I drive to build up my own coherent philosophy of sex and its meanings and functions in society.

There are plenty of alternatives, but the problem is that every party has their special view on it. What exactly is it that makes something be sex and not something else?

Is it touch? But I touch my glass of water, and it's ridiculous to say I'm sex with it... the same argument seems to count for most things, is it high-intensive experience? I have high-intensive experiences pushing weights, I won't say it has much to do with sex directly. Is it the drop of love added to the touch experience? But what about people who has a different gain from intercourse or the likes? Is it aesthetic enjoyment of the flesh? So am I having sex every time I watch a pretty woman? Maybe it's interactive aesthetic enjoyment? But how does one define the relationship between stripping then and more direct sexual practices? Where does it stand? Not to mention that this would imply the mere hugging of a someone is an act of sex (perhaps your child?), or the mere smelling of somebody's body (and enjoying the smell, a random woman with a nice perfume... though you could argue you enjoy the perfume but the perfume is attached to her body so that is in turn a repellent argument).

The problem really starts becoming big when you try to write down exceptions, because the list can seemingly never end, maybe momentarily stop, but at some point it not only becomes too big to be any definition at all, at some point it becomes so big you just have to realize it may never stop. And then there's blank denial, that some things which obviously very closely resemble what we think of as sex is not sex, but then we have to ask: what is it? And why should we deny it as sex? Is masturbation not sex because you are alone (in reality, though your head can be quite populated)? Is necrophilia not sex? Is stripping just a dance that happens to get you aroused and is not really a part of sexual activity? Is kissing not sex? If you performed an orgasm without your genitals would it still be an orgasm, or perhaps it should be labelled a non-sexual orgasm? A lot of the problems with all these, is that if you say "no", you trample on things that mean a lot to many and makes so much more sense when you talk of them as sexual acts, as if they are "sex"...

So is "sex" perhaps an umbrella term without "nature" at all other than our loose categorical positioning? But then another problem arise, namely how do you group the remaining phenomena into groups that you can study as natural phenomena of similar nature? I mean without getting too narrow... oral sex can be quite a big category, but without also taking intercourse and anal sex into consideration you can miss out on a lot of similarities between the three and what the similarities mean. And not talking about normal intercourse when you try to understand necrophiliac intercourse can be disastrous as far as knowledge goes, as likely (to me) the object of sex is not simply a dead body but the idea of a living person preserved in the dead body for the necrophiliac individual recognizing the body.

So, how can sex exist? How can there be a nature of sex when there seems to be no possible derivative unified understanding of sex? Like a class hierarchy without a master-class that can explain the functions of the lower classes...