6 Answers

  1. Both.

    As with all other human needs.

    Is food an art or a physiological need? You can limit yourself to satisfying your hunger, or you can delve into the art of cooking and / or serving the table with Bohemian glass. Clothing is a way for some to escape the cold and prevent passers-by from staring at your genitals, but for others it is a way of self-expression. The whole fashion industry is working.

  2. For me, this is not an art at all, I just get my orgasm in the most effective way and fall off to sleep. The spouse, thank God, does not object and does not arrange a performance out of everyday business. To engage in self-expression in sex seems absurd to me.

  3. I would say that sex is still an art, rather than a physiological process. Fertilization is a purely physiological process, without a doubt. I think that up to a certain point in the development of society, it was fertilization, not sex. Offhand, I would say that sex “appeared” when the process of copulation began to pay much more attention and study it (for example: the creation of the Kama Sutra, roughly speaking). In general: in order to inseminate a female, you don't need to be smart. This is already part of our basic set of human functions. But to make coitus truly bright and stunning is not given to everyone. Sex can be compared to playing a musical instrument: if you don't know how to handle it properly, the music will suck. It's an art to play an instrument in such a way that the sound is so bright and iridescent that you can run out of time.

  4. To call sex art, in my humble opinion, is completely wrong and even ignorant. Having arisen in direct connection with the process of fertilization, sex subsequently occupied an independent stable niche in a narrow range of opportunities for a person to receive satisfaction. And I do not argue about the most primitive sex with the advent of the Kama Sutra, increasing the variety of types, poses, etc., sex really “grew” and “developed” . But now porn sites are packed to the brim with very limited content. Whatever one may say, a person has a strictly limited number of “holes” and “bulges”, that is, parts of the body with which he can have sex. You can't think of anything else here (all the melodies are sung, all the poems are written…) Art never restricts a person. It calls for development, and develops itself, creates new things and goes beyond its own limits. Thus, I strongly advise against identifying sex as a strictly limited set of actions, and art, which is almost impossible to limit, because it is driven by imagination, thought, and probably even something more.

  5. at first, it is an instinct of reproduction that needs only a physiological process�
    but people have turned sex into art too-so each person has a free choice of what sex is for him personally�
    someone chooses the process, someone practices in art.

  6. I think it's something in between. With physiology, everything is clear. We can stop there, but we also express our feelings through sex. Aggression, gentleness, and fervor. And art is everything that can evoke emotions.

Leave a Reply