What constitutes sexual perversion? This question has certainly been addressed time and again throughout history. Each time the general social attitude toward sexuality changes so does the answer. Some who argue from an unchangeable, dogmatic position have maintained their views – but the question remains, and even these institutions have amended their views to some degree. The sexual liberation of the sixties and seventies brought with it a new line of questioning. Sex was free again, or so the argument went. Now the question of just what is acceptable sex was compelled to the forefront of public discussion. Religious and political pundits have offered their views, so have many Philosophers. I will be discussing the arguments of two such Philosophers who wrote in the midst of the sexual liberation. Thomas Nagel and Robert Solomon have closely related arguments with some points of agreement and some in contention. I feel that Robert Solomon makes better use of the “sex as communication” metaphor that is present in both their arguments. Solomon presents an argument that, to me, is a good place to start, though I do not feel that either Nagel or Solomon has created an indisputable view of what constitutes sexual perversion.
Thomas Nagel establishes the “sex as communication” metaphor when he presents his own argument for what constitutes sexual perversion. Before he makes his case he offers what he calls the “skeptical argument”. This argument contends that sex is an appetite like any other, with a number of ways of being sated. None of these ways, as odd or irregular as they may seem, should be considered unnatural. Therefore, once something has been established as sexual, the question of whether or not it is natural, or perverse, no longer applies. This argument looks something like this:
-Appetites are all normal
-Sex is an appetite
-(Conclusion) All sex is normal
Nagel’s counter to this argument is simply that we can think of some appetites we would consider as being not normal. With this objection out of the way, Nagel proceeds to describe a hypothetical situation with Romeo and Juliet in a bar. Through a rather complicated back and fourth exchange the participants realize they are being observed with obvious desire flowing between the two, until as Nagel describes it, they are “saturated” with sexual desire. From this point we are to believe that the next natural step is intercourse. This sets up Nagel’s argument, that sex is a complete conversation between two persons:
-Sex is fundamentally a relation between persons
-(Conclusion) Sex is normally reciprocal
-Some sexual practices cut short relations between persons
-(Conclusion) Some sexual practices do not meet the requirements for normal sex
-(Conclusion) Some sexual experiences are perverse
Nagel offers some examples to clarify this position. Voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism and masochism are, according to Nagel, incomplete forms of communication. Nagel addresses homosexuality, and concludes that using this argument one can hardly call homosexuality perverse, since two persons of the same sex can certainly have complete communication. But in this way he reinforces his early assertions about fetishism, bestiality, and sex with more than one pair of partners.
Nagel offers an interesting argument, and one that establishes fairly well what he considers to be perverse sexuality. However, certain questions are quickly raised in my mind. For one, Nagel makes no room for masturbation, unfortunately not addressing it at all. I say unfortunately because masturbation is so commonly called into question in the discussion of what constitutes sexual perversion. Nagel’s hypothetical situation is far too vague to truly establish an argument on. I wonder if there is any measure for how saturated with sexual desire one is? Also, as many have wondered, would any type of sexual expression between Romeo and Juliet have been acceptable. Nagel’s argument is critiqued more completely by Robert Solomon, who also offers an amended argument for what constitutes sexual perversion.
Solomon questions Nagel’s Romeo and Juliet scenario in much the same way I do. He adds another dimension to this critique, however, by adding that he flaws the “liberal American sexual mythology,” which he claims Nagel relies heavily upon. According to Solomon the liberal American sexual mythology claims that the essential aim of sex is enjoyment (orgasm), that sexual activity is private, and that all forms of sexual activity are equally valid. This is the mythos born of the sexual liberation of the sixties and seventies in America. It seems clear that Nagel believes the sexual act between Romeo and Juliet to be private, since he never discusses it. Also, since he is never explicit about the act it can be inferred that the type of act that occurred would be fine as long as it ended with enjoyment – the essential aim of sex. Solomon contends that there is much more to sex than orgasm. Relating it to the metaphor of conversation, he places emphasis on content rather than form. The satisfaction that comes from sexual acts has more depth than simple satisfaction with pleasure. If the only aim of sexual acts were orgasm, then Solomon wonders why anyone would bother with anything other than masturbation: since according to his research it allows the most enjoyable and intense orgasms. Solomon is quick to remind us that masturbation frequently involves imagined partners, fantasies, pornography, etc. He quips, “no masturbation, without representation”. This further supports the claim that there is more to sex acts than simply arriving at a pleasurable outcome. There is something more, something significant, about the content of the act itself. This leads to Solomon’s conclusions about what constitutes perverse sex. The greatest violation of communication is a lie claims Solomon; its analogue in the sex act might be fantasizing about someone else while you are with your lover, or acting a certain way just to receive sex. This is a tenuous position to arrive at, as it still leaves many acts in a grey area. Solomon agrees with Nagel on the issue of bestiality as well as fetishism. However, after reading both arguments I fail to see how fetishism is linked with broken communication. If a fetish enhances the communication between two lovers, then how is it seen as a perversion? Solomon addresses masturbation, and dismisses it from the perverse by relating it to a conversation with one’s self – amusing. Homosexuality as well, according to Solomon, can hardly be considered perverse by this model. The voyeur and exhibitionist are still seen as entertaining broken forms of communication; however, Solomon defends the sadist and masochist as perfectly capable of complete communication, with which I agree. The metaphor of sex as communication has been revised. Nagel’s focus on form falls short of Solomon’s focus on content, which makes a clearer case for just what constitutes sexual perversion.
The sex as communication metaphor is useful in forming a basis for evaluating sexuality, though I think there are still certain things that fall into grey areas. Are the stars of pornographic films perverse? Is the act between them a broken form of communication? It is complicated to apply this model to all sexual acts and find convincing results. I think that Solomon’s revision of Nagel’s argument is an applicable standard, though it will be up to the individual to decide when it comes to situations that escape the sex as communication metaphor. The concept of creating a standard for what is and is not perverse sexuality is problematic to me, for a number of reasons. Foremost is the question of who decides; and beyond that, though just as important, who will the decision apply to? Is it realistic for one society, one culture, to decide universally what will be considered normal sexual practice? I do not intend to foster a relativistic position, which would be just as troublesome. I certainly think that bestiality is sexually perverse, as well as incest, rape, and child molestation of any form. I realize that this is partially because of the culture I am a part of, but I would be comfortable with people observing these as perverse universally. Kantian ethics aside, I understand that some cultures will have completely different views on some of these acts and I find it difficult to make moral evaluations in those cases. I think sex acts involving defecation or urination are perverse, but one must acknowledge that these acts are not perverse when judged by the sex as communication metaphor – if they enhance the content of the communication. I think a standard can be established for what is acceptable sex, but depending on who forms the standard different acts will be admissible. The difficulty arises in deciding who shall have the privileged view, which culture or society will decide for the rest of the world if it is to be a universal standard? Is it even realistic to think a standard would be adopted universally? I hardly think so. Solomon and Nagel address a question that will never go away. Within societies there will always be a diversity of views on what is acceptable sex. It seems obvious that as the question is applied through time it focuses on different acts. While once we pondered the acceptability of non-missionary position intercourse, we now question the acceptability of homosexuality, foot fetishes and sadism-masochism. The standard changes over time as well. We are in the midst of another, albeit smaller scale, sexual liberation. The public view of homosexuality is changing, if not at least being challenged. To me, this is evidence that even if we establish a standard it may be ephemeral; though this does not dissuade me, or a number of other philosophers, moralists, and ethicists from doing so.
– Quincy Faircloth
Citations:
Nagel, Thomas. From “Sexual Perversion.” Philosophy of Love and Sex.
Ed. Trevas, Zucker, and Borchert. NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997. 232-239.
Solomon, Robert. From “Sexual Paradigms.” Philosophy of Love and Sex.
Ed. Trevas, Zucker, and Borchert. NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997. 241-246.
what about “sex is a journey, continuing always. people who somehow develop a aversion to the road generally travelled by others or tire of its predictability due to their natural curiosity, need to venture to other roads as the journey cannot be stopped, and their perversion is more out of a need for exploration than a sexual appetite which gets rewarded after every such exploration” … wait a min, what am i talking about? 🙂
The question of perversion is inseparable from that of norms. That has to be the primary question otherwise one is working backwards. Norms however have at least three points of reference—a) what is ‘natural’, b) what approximates some ideal relative to ‘function’, and c) what approximates some stipulated ideal of perfection vis a vis it’s ‘kind’. There is no way to answer the question about what is perverse without answering the question about what is the norm, and no way to answer the question of the norm without introducing some tacit ontology that could ground these points of reference. “Communication” is only one possible function for normative sexuality, basically one that subordinates it to interpersonal action and ethics in general. Not a bad approach once we jetison more traditional ontological grounding, but clearly inadequate. If we choose the ‘natural’ as point of reference then we need to ask the thorny question what is natural for humans. We could look to other species as analogues. There procreation and the communication of hierarchical relations seem to be what we see. Pleasure is there more a result or point of motivation rather than the actual norm. We might expand this notion of the ‘natural’ in some neoaristotelian way to some human ideals of perfection– self-realization perhaps, community, —but we then re-join the notions of function as well as the ideals of perfection. Some psychological notions of ‘natural’ might serve as intermediary— notions of integration qua full genital sexuality [psychoanalysis] or psychological individuation [jung] — where there are ways of judging various sex acts and interests not based on cultural norms or ethics per se [supposedly] but based on how well these function vis a vis our personal development and overall functioning and happiness. The problem with any of these sorts of approach these days is that we tend not to believe in metaphysics and we start with our answers and try to work backwards to grounds. Who is really able to engage in the question about their own intuitions and assumptions about what is perverse and normal?
I am extremely suspicious of all of these accounts of perversion. Whenever philosophers draw normative boundaries based on suspect metaphysical categories, or weak analogies, one should be suspicious that what is really going on is this: these are the acts I like, and these are the ones I don’t. Someone doesnt like S&M or some other fetish, or bestiality, and so that can always make an argument that it does, or doesnt, count as “complete forms of communication.” Someone else thinks they are ok, so they count. Its clearly silly, and nothing more than a rationalization for matters of taste.
We neednt be entirely relativistic. There are surely some sex _acts_ which violate non-sexual norms. Rape, child abuse, possibly (depending on the moral status of animals) bestiality, exhibitionism, etc. But why be so sure that the sexual desires motivating these acts are “perverse”? Why entertain that thought, especially, in such a way that it requires a special metaphysics of perversity? Why not just say that such sexual desires are just plain ordinary sexual desires but that its their fulfillment that is wrong, and for external reasons?
We often think it a good thing to discover new purposes for things, rather than limiting them to their “normal function”. So here’s my question: what, if anything, is the difference between “perversion” and innovation?
Thanks all for the great comments!
Richard – I think your question refers to the potential quagmire of relativism that emerges so often in discussions of normative ethics. I think the difference between “perversion” and “innovation” will almost always lie in perspective (based on culture or religion, etc.).
Romeo – I think the “sex as communication” metaphor is intended to be more than a simple defense of tastes. I think that risk exists for any normative argument, though that doesn’t mean that they are not helpful tools in discussing important topics; especially when a topic is hard to engage more directly.
What you end up positing seems to sound a lot like the “skeptical argument” that Nagel presents prior to the “SaC” metaphor. If all tastes, or “sexual desires,” are, “just plain ordinary sexual desires,” don’t we end up in the same argument you condemned as “clearly silly?” Any normative distinction can be diminished to a simple defense of tastes, which is to say: I am not sure how your “non-sexual norms” would escape that and offer us further perspective on issues like “rape, child abuse,” etc.
It appears that you have simply replaced the “special metaphysics of perversity” with the already highly contested “metaphysics of normative ethics” as a whole.
I don’t have any special commitment to the “sex as communication” metaphor, I just think it offers an interesting take on a way to establish or discuss a highly contested and varied area of normative ethics.
Leslie – I think your final question is really wonderfully put and I am not sure that anyone can hope to be that objective.
In reading your comment another, albeit similar, problem arose in my thoughts: it seems to me that we are discussing proscriptive normative claims as though they were prescriptive. I think we are so deeply involved in our perspective and the discussion and so far removed from an originating point that it seems absurdly difficult to attempt a genuinely prescriptive normative ethics of perversion. When we do attempt to make prescriptive claims it is all too easy to run into the kind of relativism that Romeo and others are not comfortable with (reasonably so). I think in some ways this problem can be extended to norms in general, further compounding the issues you discussed.
Thanks again.
~Q
i think that what has not been brought up is that, apart from appetitie, sex is mechanism thru which we express the soul.
case and point that the pedophile continues to seek out children to reenact his own childhood violation.
we marry our mothers or fathers……sometime for positive reasons sometime for negative.
isnt it said that when two people engage in sex they are actually in bed with 4 others beside themselves…………….their parents.
was the book lady chatterly’s lover merely about expressing an appetite but also about the way she expressed it. that made it an expose on embracing freedom of expressing oneself.
foreplay is meaningful because it turns on all the necessary switches so that we can be fully invovled in the act of sex. the way that those switches have to be turned on gives the act of sex its own individualized context.
its interesting that anal sex was not brought up or the the progression of the acceptability of oral sex in the last thirty years.
as much as pornography may still be considered a perversion. i think it is indispensable monitor what is on the edge of acceptablity.
its interesting that today that every heterosexual cd has to have at least one display of anal sex.
it seems that this culture is on the edge of completely accepting the anus as an errogenous zone, and that there are such things as anal orgasms.
this in no uncertain terms, is assisting in the complete acceptability of homosexuality.
and this is probably the first step to, for, if not enabling a wider existence of bisexuality, certainly a larger participation of engaging in bisexual acts.
the thing i find the most interesting is. that now after 4000 years of civilized existence, we are just starting to be able to embrace and discover what sex and sexuality are all about.
Thanks for you comment John. I just have one remark for you:
I think that many times in civilization sexuality has been far more open and accepted than it is today. It seems that what is occurring is more of a re-awakening. I think this includes the progression towards acceptance of homosexuality, though this is hotly contested (as evidenced elsewhere).
I’m not terribly familiar with Freud, so I can’t comment much on some of your other points.
Thanks Again,
~Q
Dear John,
I am reading your post and wondering if perhaps it may not be a little culturally biased? I find that you are accurate in some of your reflections, but only as they pertain to this country.
Sex is hardly taboo in most parts of the rest of the world. I know, for a fact, that a lot of the hot topic issues that you speak of have long since been resolved both in Asia and in Western Europe, even parts of the Middle East. Pederasty is certainly still the norm in areas of Northern Africa, and further north in Turkey. And how about these writers of yesteryear: Anais Nin, The Marquis De Sade, The Karma Sutra = Lots and lots of oral and anal sex [upside down and any other way for that matter..lol…]. Sex has been addressed..and then some. Except in America.
Hmmm…yup…I am thinking….sex is looked at from a very unique perspective over here.
Why is that?
The Puritans perpaps?
Hey Quincy,
Great work on Nagel and Solomon. Wanted to add that Nagel also fails to define what is natural. This, I think is important. For what is natural?And I have to say, I agree, to a great degree with both you and Solomon.
And then few thoughts on perversion:
Perversion. According to the dictionary (Webster) it is more than just something that has to do with sexual gratification that is largely considered abnormal. To be perverse can also mean to go counter to what is expected. What constitutes sexual perversion is, if there has ever been one, a grey area. What one considers revolting and perverse can be considered a virtue by another.
Perversion, I think, for most, brings out thoughts of sexual behaviors and as such, I think that most can agree that certain behaviors are generally seen as perverse by most of the western world. Sex with children is considered such a perversion. Sex with close family-members [incest] is also considered perverse. While many see old men having sex with younger women as somewhat intriguing, for some reason, most of the west agree for some reason that old women having sex with young men is perverse. Some feel that sex between members of the same sex is perverse. Most also find group sex to be abnormal. While these distinctions don’t include the opinion of all people, they tend to probably cover the thoughts of most and while this does not in itself classify perversion it does give a general guideline. People find those things perverted that is taboo or…go counter to the expected.
I think that my idea of what is perverted is fluent in a way and I wonder if that is not the case for most? My morals change with the tides of life and personal experience. I think they do for many others as well. The thought of what is perverse change as we change as people. This is why a homophobic mother can still love her son and why a wife can remain happily married to a man who likes to wear her underwear.
Take for instance the “on the blog recently discussed” hot topic of gay unions. The first time such a law passed in the US, the country was in uproar. The news stations went wild and religious and political leaders everywhere predicted the end of the world. As time went by, however, and people grew more accustomed to the very idea of same sex unions, the topic became less taboo and less problematic. Last month a same sex union law passed in New England and it barely made the 30 second news brief on CNN. I caught it on the ‘ticker-tape’ and could not believe that it was not covered more closely. This shows a significant change in the last few years. People’s concept of what is perverse, at least in this case, has clearly changed.
It would seem then that perversions become less so by mere exposure. The more we become accustomed to an idea, the more acceptable it becomes. Granted, there are certain things that most all, universally, will agree is perverted, such as the before mentioned child sex or incest, as you also pointed out. Still, I wonder if perhaps by enough exposure, what once seemed foreign and grotesque can become normalized in the eyes of even the most uptight person?
Ultimately, I think the decision about what is natural and what is perverse comes down to a very individual feeling. Does the specific act ‘feel’ right? Does it harm others? Or does the act violate some deep sense of virtue?
As we grow as humans, the ideas of what constitutes virtuousness change. Therefore the decision about what constitutes perversion cannot [and I would argue, should not] be narrowed down to specifics. It has to be something that is constantly evaluated in the eyes of the individual and in the eyes of the greater community.
[Job security, my friend. Job security! lol]
very good. +639061929805
why is it ,if its their daughter,that promises virginity(abstinence),she can date, and NOT be a sodomite,but if two men/women date, they cant possibly without becoming sodomites
(Anal oral animal sex)-[leaving out animal and anal, what hubby didn’t get or try to get some oral sex from his wife?even if he failed, is attempted sodomy a crime?probably in Georgia.]
my point is ,, why can they arrest a “gay person” without proof of sex?
“straight” folks “virgins” are believed when then they say “”they didn’t do it “. but two men/women living together are automatically thought to be liars when asked if they had sex, and answered “no” we “know THEY are SODOMITES.
it seems to me the only filth is ,,,,as always in the mind of the beholder.
Roystr
AT hotmale dotkom
Exuse my English, I’m from Romania I would like to make everyone a question about sexual perversions.
what do you think about pornography, I mean, pornographic movies exist, there are explicit sex scenes between males and females generally, but also between females and females or between males and males, in your opinion, what drives a beautiful girl or a boy to take part in a porn movie?, I have recently seen a site “sexocasting” where you can perform a on line casting, you can create your own profile and then expect that wait some movie productor will contact you, the site is currently under maintenance but through google you can go and read all the sections of the site, you think it is normal to want to participate in a porn movie?, so normal that there is even a site created to reach this purpose?, hello to all .
Hi everyone, it’s my first visit at this website, and post is really fruitful designed for me, keep up posting these articles or reviews.
Today, while I was at work, my cousin stole my iPad and
tested to see if it can survive a 25 foot drop, just so she can
be a youtube sensation. My apple ipad is now broken and she has 83 views.
I know this is totally off topic but I had to share it with someone!
You should take part in a contest for one of the most useful sites
on the net. I will highly recommend this website!
I drop a leave a response whenever I appreciate a
post on a website or I have something to contribute to the discussion.
Usually it is a result of the passion communicated in the post I looked at.
And on this post Sexual Perversion | Florida Student Philosophy
Blog. I was actually moved enough to post a commenta response 😛 I actually do have a
couple of questions for you if you don’t mind. Could it be just me or do some of these remarks look like coming from brain dead people? 😛 And, if you are posting at other social sites, I’d like to follow everything
fresh you have to post. Would you make a list all of your communal pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?