The question fundamental to the philosophy of sex is the question probing into the nature of sexual activity. What is sex? Many have postulated on the subject, but have only further clouded the waters surrounding the subject. There are a multitude of philosophical answers addressing the question of sex ranging from the natural to the phenomenological to everywhere in between. It is essential to the discussion that a proper definition of sex be established before addressing any other issues. I plan to establish a proper definition of sex with an account of sexual perversion and then continue on discussing the nature of cybersex, infidelity, and love.
Sex is generally defined the medical definition involving the sex organs, and participation by more than one party, but as humans are complicated beings this is insufficient to provide an account of sex. In Thomas Nagel’s essay “Sexual Perversion” he addresses the psychological account of sexuality with a phenomenological approach. Nagel describes a scenario of Romeo being aroused by Juliet, and Juliet being aroused by Romeo, and Romeo being aroused by Juliet’s arousal, and so on and so forth (Nagel 37). This progression of sexual arousal between two parties is the basis for which Nagel understands of sex. This progression eventuates in physical contact wherein the other becomes more and more “possesible” by physical contact, and the progression of arousal (Nagel 39). This progression of arousal in two parties, and the embodiment by physical contact is how Nagel describes sex. This definition provides Nagel with a basis for describing sexual perversion as anything that lacks the progression of arousal between two or more conscious individuals eventuating in physical contact that emb...
... middle of paper ...
...sophy of Sex”, describes Immanuel Kant as a “metaphysical sexual pessimist” as sexual activity for Kant shows the individual as an “object of appetite” (Soble 5). The fact that an act is sexual does not change the moral standards that it must adhere to, and thus allows acts regarded as perverted in the socio-cultural norms not to be regarded as immoral.
Works Cited
Collins, Louise. “Is Cybersex Sex?”. The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings. Ed. Alan Soble, Nicholas Power. New York: Rowman & Littlefield 2008. 117-131
Soble, Alan. “The Analytic Categories of the Philosophy of Sex”. The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings. Ed. Alan Soble, Nicholas Power. New York: Rowman & Littlefield 2008. 3-21.
Nagel, Thomas. “Sexual Perversion”. The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings. Ed. Alan Soble, Nicholas Power. New York: Rowman & Littlefield 2008. 31-43.
At the beginning of the 1900s, there was a “sexual revolution” in New York City. During this time, sexual acts and desires were not hidden, but instead they were openl...
He introduces basic conditions that an act must meet in order to be deemed a perversion. The sexual acts must be unnatural, a fetish or unnatural inclinations (Nagel, 1). Nagel goes further to discuss a basic definition of a normal sexual relationship and he claims that the general basis of that relationship is two people noticing each other. The relationship initiates through one person’s arousal and then the arousal of the other person. Mutual arousal must precede physical contact, these mutual perceptions establish a normal, natural sexual
Sternheimer, K. (2009, October 19). Everyday Sociology Blog. Everyday Sociology Blog. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/10/sex-its-not-what-it-used-to-be.html
Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” in Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. ed. Vance, Carole. Pandora: London, 1992.
...ing: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion." Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex." 121-156.New York: Routledge, 1993.
In The Introduction to the History of Sexuality, Foucault explains how during the 19th century with the raise of new societies, the discourse or knowledge about sex was not confronted with repulsion but it “put into operation an entire machinery for producing true discourses concerning sex” (Foucault 69). In fact, this spreading of discourse on sexuality itself gives a clear account of how sexuality has been controlled and confined because it was determined in a certain kind of knowledge that carries power within it. Foucault reflects on the general working hypothesis or “repressive hypothesis,” and how this has exercised power to suppress people’s sexuality. It has power on deciding what is normal or abnormal and ethical or unethical about sexuality. Through discourses of life and sexuality, power is exercised because humans learned how to behave in relation to sexuality, which method keep individuals controlled and regulated. This explains why people experience that sense of behaving inappropriate when we talk about sex in a different way than the whole society. Foucault points up how sexuality is not just treated in terms of morality, but it is a matter of knowledge and “truth.” However, these discourses, including sexual discourses are not true or false, but they are just understood to be the truth or falsehood to control society. As a result, sexuality begins to be explored in a scientific way, developing the “truth” science of sex (Foucault 69). For Foucault, he asserts that sexuality has developed as a form of science that keeps us all afraid of such phenomena, which people think to be true, thus this science helps society to discipline and control individuals’ behaviors.
Since the dawn of man, sex has played a crucial role in society. Before they learned to read or write humans were engaging in sex and without it none of us would be here. In today’s society, sex has grown to become much more complicated. If I were to ask a group of people on the street what they believed sex was? I bet they would have a hard time answering. The question puzzling society today is how do we define sex? Can we define sex? These are questions raised in Tracy Steele’s article “Doing it: The Social Construction of S-E-X”. This article is about the current questions and issues that have been raised about sex within today’s society. In this paper I will summarize the key points of the article, while sharing my own thoughts and opinions of Steele’s findings.
Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books.
Halperin, David. "Is There a History of Sexuality?." The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry
Thomas Nagel’s (birth and death date) article on Sexual Perversion questions the ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ sexual behaviours and boundaries of it. Natural and unnatural sexual behaviours are dependent on the society, culture, and time. Something natural in one’s society and culture might change with respect to time. Nagel explains the ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ behaviours by using “sceptical argument” of appetite, just as appetite can be satisfied in a number of ways can sexual desire. Hunger is interaction with the food to satisfy one’s needs; however, with sexual desire one needs to interact with other person who is dependent on reactions and impulses person by oneself and the other person.
Milstein, Susan A. Taking Sides Clashing Views in Human Sexuality. Ed. William J. Taverner and Ryan W. McKee. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
Stewart, Robert C. "Shattering the Myths about Sexual Morality." Evolutionary Metaphysics - Science, Philosophy, Politics, Religion. 2005. Web. 21 Feb. 2010. .
Shmoop Editorial Team. "Brave New World Theme of Sex" Shmoop.com. Shmoop University, Inc., 11 Nov. 2008.
Gayle Rubin’s “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” focused on the history of sexuality and sexual persecution. Gayle Rubin recognizes the idea of sex as a natural force that exists prior to social life and which shapes institutions and society. First, Rubin, emphasizes the idea of negative sex, by showcasing views by other scholars. Rubin notes Foucault in his 1978 publication “The History of Sexuality”, as “sex as the natural libedo wearing to break free of social constraint” (Rubin, 149). This leads Rubin to her understanding of sex negativity. Sex, as Rubin depicts, is dangerous, destructive and a negative force and sex negativity is any negative sexual behaviour other than married or reproductive sex. Many Western religious believe that sex should only be for reproductive reasons and that pleasure and anything outside of martial sex should not be experienced. Third, Rubin goes on to construct the charmed circle, distinguishing good and bad sex. Resulting from sex negativity, Rubin develops an illustration of good and bas sex, better known as the charmed circle. Instances of bad sex include; casual,
The issues of sexual ethics in relation to morality and perversion have been addressed in depth by each of the gentleman at this table. Sexual activity as described by Solomon and Nagle is comprised of a moral standard and ‘naturalness’ aspect. So, in claiming an act is perverted we must first examine it through a moral framework and understand how this interacts with the ‘naturalness’ of a particular act. Solomon makes the distinction as follows “Perversion is an insidious concept…To describe an activity as perverse is not yet a full blown moral condemnation, for it need not entail that one ought not to indulge in such activities.” Along with the examination of the nature of an act, there must be clear justification as to why sexual acts deserve special separate ethical principles. The question arises: does an act simply due to its sexual nature deserve a separate form of moral inquisition than other acts that occur in nature? In this essay I shall argue that perversion and immorality are not mutually exclusive. By this I mean that a sexual act that is, by my definition, immoral must also be perverted. It is also my contention that if an act is perverted we must also define it as immoral. This second part of the argument is contrary to what many of you have claimed. At the outset of this paper I would also like to state my support of Thomas Nagel’s argument holding that the connection between sex and reproduction has no bearing on sexual perversion. (Nagel 105)