Perversion

Dermott O'Flanagan

Sexual Ethics Paper

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)

I will begin first with the idea that sexual behavior should not be granted its own moral code. Sexual ethics only makes sense if sexuality plays a unique role in human life. If procreation has significance precisely because it is a contribution to God's ongoing work of creation, sexuality is supremely important and must be governed by restrictive rules, which would therefore prohibit sexual acts that are not for procreative purposes. This justification of sexuality as a unique aspect of human life, however, is dependent on a theological claim that there exists a God who micro manages the sexual lives of individuals. Without the presence of such a God, there can exist no separate restrictive rules on the nature of sexual acts. Even if we grant that there is a God, most people will agree that sex is more often used as a way to intensify the bond between two people and therefor sex is the ultimate trust and intimacy that you can share with a person. The church defines perverse acts as sexual behaviors that are not both unitive and procreative. This theological argument "exemplifies a profound disregard for the realities of human life. Our starting point will be that human sexuality has its own "natural purposes", its own "nature," apart from any further purposes attributed to our creator, and apart from any biological function of increasing the numbers of an already too numerous natural kind." (Solomon 271) In a similar light to Solomon, I feel the church is unjustified in claiming that acts are perverted if they are contrary to the churches teachings which are "founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine revelation." (Pope Paul VI 168) Not only does this claim not qualify as an argument from reason, it is simultaneously unenlightening to those who do not believe in God the Creator.

In Kant's essay Duties Towards the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse he supports the opinion that sexual love by itself "is nothing more than an appetite... it is a degradation of human nature; for as soon as a person becomes an object of appetite for another, all motives of moral relationship cease to function." In believe that this conclusion is not necessarily valid and that the use of sexual activity for moral purposes and desire fulfillment is a maxim that can be universalized. Sexual pleasure is a sought after result of sex as it fulfills basic needs of touch and intimacy (Nozick). In some sense Kant is right that when sexual love is combined with human love the experience is more fulfilling to both individuals but this is not necessarily lead to a conclusion that without the bond of human love sex is perverse. I do agree with Kant that sexual relations are in fact a part of a human appetite.

A sexual perversion according to Nagel "must reveal itself in conduct that expresses an unnatural sexual preference." (Nagel 105) Sexual desire however is simply one of the appetites that the majority of animals possess. As such I contend that the significance of sexual activity is little different from the need to satisfy other desires that we encounter including Mill's higher and lower desires. Since humans and animals share the same lower level desires for food, shelter and sex, no separate human sexual ethical values should be conceived. Behaviors such as eating and breathing all arise from the needs of the body. The desire for sexual pleasure is little different from the desire for food; sexual behavior is to be constrained by moral principles that apply to behavior in general. The ethics of sex is no more important than the ethics of anything else. "An appetite is identified as sexual by means of the organs and erogenous zones in which its satisfaction can be to some extent localized, and the special sensory pleasures that form the core of the satisfaction." (Nagel 106) Therefore any act that produces sexual pleasure can not be called unnatural. We can use our sexuality in creative, consensual, safe, and loving ways, or in destructive, coercive, unsafe, and unloving ones. If it is creative, consensual, safe, and loving, then it is moral. If it is destructive, coercive, unsafe, or unloving, then it is immoral. Most counter arguments against sex as an appetite arise from the idea that sexual relations are a special form of bonding and interaction. Although society seems to have endorsed this claim, and as such looks disrespectfully on those with numerous sexual partners, it is a cultural creation with no moral basis. In an analysis of sexual behavior it is difficult to separate the emotional bond from the physical act. "One view holds that sex should be separated from love and affection. Sex is basically an intensive, exciting sensuous activity that can be enjoyed in a variety of suitable settings with a variety of suitable partners. The situation in regard to sexual pleasure is no different from that of the person who knows and appreciates fine food." (Wasserstrom 163) All morality deals with is the act or intention of the act and as such this "unique bond" that appears to be created through a sexual relationship is irrelevant to the morality of sexual behavior.

As sexual activity does not deserve its own set of ethics