After days of blood, sweat and tears, I completed & submitted my philosophical response to the question of whether Thomas Nagel would find Greta Christina's mutual masturbatory experience perverted or not. I have argued, reasonably well I hope, that he would not. You be the judge: following is my paper...
In this paper I will briefly recount Greta Christina’s masturbatory experience and interpret what Thomas Nagel would say about mutual masturbation with regard to sexual perversion. I will further argue, based on class notes and the readings, that Nagel would not call Christina’s account an instance of sexual perversion but a mere deviance of what is considered the norm. Finally, I will offer my own philosophical response by suggesting that Christina’s masturbatory experience would not be considered an instance of sexual perversion, and further, that had the circumstances of the experience been slightly different and Mr. Peep-Show were the only party participating in a masturbatory & exhibitionist practice, that Nagel would see this as a deviation of the norm but not necessarily full-fledged perversion.
Greta Christina begins her story by addressing her lifelong obsession with counting the number of people she has had sex (penis to vagina intercourse) with. Interestingly, as she explores her sexuality, she suddenly finds that the line between sex and not sex becomes blurred when she begins taking women as lovers. In fact, she spends a considerable amount of time thinking, pondering, and searching for a true definition of sex. According to her, “having sex could be seen as the consenting, mutual and physical manifestation of sexual pleasure between two (or more) people.” (27) At the end of her article she describes an incident of mutual masturbation between herself and a paying customer at a peep-show booth. Both parties were aware of the other’s masturbation, and both parties enjoyed the experience. In the end Christina wasn’t sure whether her act of mutual masturbation, separated only by a sheet of glass, was sex. She never mentions whether or not she would consider the act of masturbation (mutual or not) perversion, although I would suspect that she, like Nagel, would argue that it is not.
According to Nagel, in order to be able to define something as perverse, we have to look at the psychological implications and attachments of sexual desire, noting that not all desires are created equal. In order for sexual desire to turn into a sexual act there must be an object to which the desire is placed and further, that that object be psychologically in tune with the desire of the other person. Both parties need to be psychologically invested before desire can turn into an act of sex. In other words, there must be a psychologically mutual attraction for sexual desire to proceed beyond the desire into a sexual act, that the desire must be perceived by both parties in themselves and in the other person at the same time; that “sexual awareness of another involves considerable self-awareness to begin with.” (36) I would argue, based on Christina’s essay that the peep-show guy was the sexually attracted participant at the beginning of his masturbation experience, Christina herself became sexually aware of her own desire and then began masturbating herself which further increased the peep-show guy’s desire as well as her own until both parties reached climax and the event ended.
Nagel would argue that when each party becomes aware of their own sexual desire and further, becomes aware of the other’s desire there is a psychological and physiological connection that is generally understood by both parties. I think in the case of Christina, she understood and became aware of the sexual desire of the guy in the peep-show booth before he became aware of her sexual desire. The sexual desire then might lead them to a sexual act (mutual masturbation in this case), but because each person comes from a different place psychologically each participant may experience the sexual act in different ways, although for it to be mutually beneficial each party must be aware of their own self as well as their partner.
As far as Christina’s experience is concerned, each party did in fact experience the sexual act in different ways (one was paid, the other was the payee) but clearly each of them were mutually aware of their own, as well as the other’s experience. Christina’s experience with the peep-show guy is a clear example of this. Both parties sexual desire lead to involuntary bodily sexual responses which then lead to interactions with each other. Each member of the experience were also experiencing their own involuntary bodily sexual response which lead to the act of or a derivative of (masturbation, touching, fondling, kissing, etc.) the act of sex.
I think it’s important to consider what Nagel tells us in that "perversion isn't in the act performed (mutual masturbation) but in the psychology of the person(s) who performs it: because the perversion lies in the preference of such acts over "natural acts." (DS) I think it’s important to mention that Nagel states "A natural sexual encounter for humans results in the increasing mutual embodiment of both persons through reciprocal awareness of their emotional responses." (31) In other words, one must be aroused by a person wanting you just as much as you want them. Both parties must be on the same page so that each individual isn’t simply working on their own arousal alone. According to Nagel, solitary masturbatory experiences, voyeurism and exhibitionism would be considered deviations of the norm but not necessarily perversions.
However, had the circumstances of Christina’s experience with the peep-show guy not been a mutually beneficial experience and only one of the parties (notably the guy) had been aroused by his desire, then Nagel would likely have considered the experience of Mr. Peep-Show a form of perversion. Had Mr. Peep-Show been the only party displaying narcissistic practices through his own exhibitionism, Nagel would argue that Mr. Peep-Show might be “stuck at some primitive version of the first stage of sexual feeling.” (40) Because Christina’s masturbation experience actually was mutual I would suggest that both parties were aroused and further, that both parties were aroused by the other’s arousal, which according to Nagel would be a mutually beneficial sexual experience and although possibly a deviation from the “norm” he would not consider it a perversion at all.
References:
Soble, Alan and Power Nicholas. The Philosophy of Sex, Contemporary Readings. Fifth Edition. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Maryland. 2008. Print.
Shapiro, Devora. Class Notes. St. Paul. 2011. Print.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
How consensual, non-coercive, non-criminal heterosexual transactions are harmful to women.
An old reflection I did that begs the question about How consensual, non-coercive, non-criminal heterosexual transactions are harmful to women. I'm not an expert, and I think my reflection is scattered at best, but I thought it would be interesting to share.
How consensual, non-coercive, non-criminal heterosexual transactions are harmful to women.
Injurious (Damaging to Self-Hood)
1. Injury to Capacity to be Self-Assertive
Why: Because the ability to act on our own pleasure is important-if not crucial-to finding our own place/path within life and the world we live in. Giving in to – Consenting to sex that does not deliver pleasure takes away from our ability to be self-assertive. This is a threat because while a woman’s assertion is taken away, the man still gets to assert himself in acquiring his own pleasure: this of course leads to the double standard. What’s worse is that from a historical perspective this is actually considered the norm: where the men take and the women give. This can be evidenced by looking at the historical context of sexuality between men and women.
During the mid to late 19th century white middle-class women had more opportunities to choose between a greater selection of available male counterparts, which began to create unions and marriages that were based on love and romance rather than simple practicality. The driving force behind romance, helped create new ideas about intimacy where love was the main factor when considering marriage. However, a persistent double-standard existed that assumed it was perfectly natural for a man to seek sexual gratification outside of marriage. In addition to the belief that men had natural sexual urges, conflict would occur in marriages because of their desire to have sex and women’s desire to limit family size for health reasons.
Puritans were concerned about the health of women, but their real point was that they believed women were using the medicine with criminal intent and, therefore all advertisements needed to be eradicated from print entirely for the sake of public morality and women's health. Free-lovers, knew their views were unpopular, but were so convinced in the fundamental right of a woman to be independent in her own right, were unafraid to be shocking & speak about what they believed in. They argued that by allowing women to choose lovers for themselves, society would actually benefit because if women were allowed to do as they wished, there would never be any reason for men to rape; they would have an abundance of willing participants at their disposal. They believed in women's freedom in life, love and sexuality. At the time, women were the property of their husbands. They didn't have their own autonomy and if a husband needed sexual gratification, he had every right to simply take it. This leads to the 2nd Injury to Self-Hood
2. Injury to Sense of Self-Possession
Compared to men, women in American society had little choice about their potential to be independent: women & girls were subject to the male dominated society in which they lived. Women were lower on the social ladder and because of their inferior social status (among men) they had to make choices about whether to marry, make a meager salary at a low-end job, or become prostitutes to obtain a more financially stable life than she could obtain on her own. Many young women, particularly in urban settings needed to leave home to make a living, but because their wages were often so low, they also looked to men to help supply their “fun.”
In addition, women’s rights advocates and social purity reformers wanted to bring sexuality into schools to teach girls about safe-sex practices so they wouldn’t have to rely on incorrect hearsay. They believed that romantic sexual union would help increase pleasure in marriage, but they also wanted their daughters to be educated as well. Changing ideas about sexuality influenced how American culture related to sex. As young men and women spent more time outside of the home, whether in school or at work, opportunities to fraternize were prevalent. Many young women wanted to be accepted by their peers and boys and would succumb to sexual advances in the form of petting, necking, kissing and touching to be accepted, despite fears of their own morality.
3. Injury to Sense of Autonomy
Because women historically have been dependent on men, they have found themselves in the position of consenting to sex even if they didn’t desire it. Knowing that by not providing the sex could bring about damages to their economic status or even social status, women simply perform sexual acts to “keep up with the Jones’s” i.e. they perform sexual acts so they can keep their status and not have to live in what society considers a shameful existence: that of the single mother or of being considered a harlot.
4. Injury to Integrity
When women engage in sex that is neither pleasurable nor desired, they do give up a sense of their own integrity especially when they claim that they enjoyed the experience at all. This, I think, is a common trait of most women. I know countless friends who engage in sex to please their partners but who don’t necessarily enjoy the experience. They tell their male partners that they are wonderful lovers and absolutely pleasing, but this is only to avoid injuring the pride of their partners. I think this too has a historical link.
Tension between permissiveness and repression set the stage for social protest in the 1960s as the changing roles of women, and resurgence in sexual expression also began to take shape. Sexual liberalism before and within marriage helped to create new ideas about gender roles, sexuality and birth control but as the 1960’s approached, a burgeoning Women's Movement and later, Feminist Movement helped create new social ideas about inherent female freedoms. Women wanted equality to, and independence from, men; economically, educationally and sexually.
Overall, I would say that West is onto something here. I don’t think women or men really realize that having undesired or unpleasurable sex can in fact be damaging to a person (woman’s) sense of self-personhood. Countless women I know certainly have sex they don’t want just to avoid the hassle of what would happen if they didn’t have the sex. Each one of these points I personally have experienced and never gave it a second thought. Now, having read this article, I am re-thinking how I can approach sexual situations that I am either not interested in or have no desire for. This is going to be a battle I’m not sure a relationship can survive. Looks like a gigantic can of worms has been opened: it’s like the Pandora’s Box of sex.
How consensual, non-coercive, non-criminal heterosexual transactions are harmful to women.
Injurious (Damaging to Self-Hood)
1. Injury to Capacity to be Self-Assertive
Why: Because the ability to act on our own pleasure is important-if not crucial-to finding our own place/path within life and the world we live in. Giving in to – Consenting to sex that does not deliver pleasure takes away from our ability to be self-assertive. This is a threat because while a woman’s assertion is taken away, the man still gets to assert himself in acquiring his own pleasure: this of course leads to the double standard. What’s worse is that from a historical perspective this is actually considered the norm: where the men take and the women give. This can be evidenced by looking at the historical context of sexuality between men and women.
During the mid to late 19th century white middle-class women had more opportunities to choose between a greater selection of available male counterparts, which began to create unions and marriages that were based on love and romance rather than simple practicality. The driving force behind romance, helped create new ideas about intimacy where love was the main factor when considering marriage. However, a persistent double-standard existed that assumed it was perfectly natural for a man to seek sexual gratification outside of marriage. In addition to the belief that men had natural sexual urges, conflict would occur in marriages because of their desire to have sex and women’s desire to limit family size for health reasons.
Puritans were concerned about the health of women, but their real point was that they believed women were using the medicine with criminal intent and, therefore all advertisements needed to be eradicated from print entirely for the sake of public morality and women's health. Free-lovers, knew their views were unpopular, but were so convinced in the fundamental right of a woman to be independent in her own right, were unafraid to be shocking & speak about what they believed in. They argued that by allowing women to choose lovers for themselves, society would actually benefit because if women were allowed to do as they wished, there would never be any reason for men to rape; they would have an abundance of willing participants at their disposal. They believed in women's freedom in life, love and sexuality. At the time, women were the property of their husbands. They didn't have their own autonomy and if a husband needed sexual gratification, he had every right to simply take it. This leads to the 2nd Injury to Self-Hood
2. Injury to Sense of Self-Possession
Compared to men, women in American society had little choice about their potential to be independent: women & girls were subject to the male dominated society in which they lived. Women were lower on the social ladder and because of their inferior social status (among men) they had to make choices about whether to marry, make a meager salary at a low-end job, or become prostitutes to obtain a more financially stable life than she could obtain on her own. Many young women, particularly in urban settings needed to leave home to make a living, but because their wages were often so low, they also looked to men to help supply their “fun.”
In addition, women’s rights advocates and social purity reformers wanted to bring sexuality into schools to teach girls about safe-sex practices so they wouldn’t have to rely on incorrect hearsay. They believed that romantic sexual union would help increase pleasure in marriage, but they also wanted their daughters to be educated as well. Changing ideas about sexuality influenced how American culture related to sex. As young men and women spent more time outside of the home, whether in school or at work, opportunities to fraternize were prevalent. Many young women wanted to be accepted by their peers and boys and would succumb to sexual advances in the form of petting, necking, kissing and touching to be accepted, despite fears of their own morality.
3. Injury to Sense of Autonomy
Because women historically have been dependent on men, they have found themselves in the position of consenting to sex even if they didn’t desire it. Knowing that by not providing the sex could bring about damages to their economic status or even social status, women simply perform sexual acts to “keep up with the Jones’s” i.e. they perform sexual acts so they can keep their status and not have to live in what society considers a shameful existence: that of the single mother or of being considered a harlot.
4. Injury to Integrity
When women engage in sex that is neither pleasurable nor desired, they do give up a sense of their own integrity especially when they claim that they enjoyed the experience at all. This, I think, is a common trait of most women. I know countless friends who engage in sex to please their partners but who don’t necessarily enjoy the experience. They tell their male partners that they are wonderful lovers and absolutely pleasing, but this is only to avoid injuring the pride of their partners. I think this too has a historical link.
Tension between permissiveness and repression set the stage for social protest in the 1960s as the changing roles of women, and resurgence in sexual expression also began to take shape. Sexual liberalism before and within marriage helped to create new ideas about gender roles, sexuality and birth control but as the 1960’s approached, a burgeoning Women's Movement and later, Feminist Movement helped create new social ideas about inherent female freedoms. Women wanted equality to, and independence from, men; economically, educationally and sexually.
Overall, I would say that West is onto something here. I don’t think women or men really realize that having undesired or unpleasurable sex can in fact be damaging to a person (woman’s) sense of self-personhood. Countless women I know certainly have sex they don’t want just to avoid the hassle of what would happen if they didn’t have the sex. Each one of these points I personally have experienced and never gave it a second thought. Now, having read this article, I am re-thinking how I can approach sexual situations that I am either not interested in or have no desire for. This is going to be a battle I’m not sure a relationship can survive. Looks like a gigantic can of worms has been opened: it’s like the Pandora’s Box of sex.
The Biology of Belief: Article Review by Kah Shepard
This is an old article I wrote while taking Biology of Women last semester. As I finish up my Capstone class, I am reviewing some of the old stuff I have written that I think is interesting or thought provoking. Enjoy.
Growing scientific evidence suggests faith may bring us health. Humans pray – for peace or they meditate for calm, but what most people pray for is health: themselves or others. Dr. Gail Ironson, professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Miami says, “Spirituality predicts for better disease control.”
Skeptics however, like Professor Richard Slone and author of Blind Faith says, “Science doesn’t deal in supernatural explanations. Religion and science address different concerns.” He goes on to say that attempting to find a link between the prayer and healing is a “fool’s errand” because, “It is impossible to know how much prayer is received and since you don’t know that, you can’t determine dose.”
That’s true – somewhat. “A large body of science shows a positive impact of religion on health” says Dr. Andrew Newburg, professor of radiology, psychology and religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Newburg is author of 4 books and has spent considerable time looking at how our spiritual data works in the brain; by scanning brains in different meditative/prayer states. According to Newburg, “When people engage in prayer, it’s the frontal lobes that take the lead because they govern focus and concentration. During very deep prayer however, the parietal lobe powers down, which is what allows us to experience a sense of having loosed our earthy moorings.” The parietal lobe is on the top of the head and acts as the brains “spiritual center.” It is responsible for processing sensory input. Interestingly, prayer and meditation over a long period of time can actually change the brain permanently; by showing an increased thickness in their frontal lobes, which when working well help boost memory.
Other ways faith and health overlap include fasting, aspects of which can be found in all major religions and when done properly can lead to a state of clarity or even euphoria. Because the brain requires mass quantities of energy to work properly, it requires calories to maintain homeostasis. When you take away food, the liver produces glucose throughout the body, but makes sure the brain gets the biggest doses. However, because the liver’s reserves only last about 24 hours, cells begin to break down fats and proteins, which changes the composition of the blood. Dr. Catherine Gordon, endocrinologist at Children’s Hospital in Boston says, “There are very real changes that occur in the body very rapidly that might explain the clarity during fasting. The brain is in a different state even during a short-term fast. Biologically, that’s not good, but the light-headed sense of peace, albeit brief, that comes with it reinforces the fast and rewards you for engaging in it all the same.”
Prayer, on the other hand, is the one element of religious devotion that is consistent across all levels of faith. There is a belief that prayer can cure ailments and disease, and although some studies show that “patients who were prayed for fared better than those who were not,” in scientific studies the placebo effect needs to be considered. According to the article, “when you’re setting up your study, it matters a great deal whether subjects know they’re being prayed for.” The best way to test whether belief in God or a Higher Power an effective predictor of health is to study the health of people who regularly go to church. Some results point to longer life-spans and better overall health, however, other factors need to be considered. According to Ted Kaptchuk, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, “Religious belief is not just a mind question but involves the commitment of one’s body as well. The sensory organs, tastes, smells, sounds, music and architecture of religious buildings are involved.” In addition to the sensory input received while in church, there is also a sense of community and social support, as well as philanthropy and increased gratitude among parishioners, which could also be considered predictors of health.
In terms of the medical community there is a growing trend, supported by scientists and theologians, to offer whole body care, which includes prayer or conversations about belief. Psychologist Jean Kristeller, of Indiana State University, developed a five-to-seven minute conversation for doctors to engage their patients to talk about religion or belief. According to the article, there seems to be some correlation between “patient-centered conversations and reduced depression, increased quality of life, and a greater sense that their doctors cared about them.” In fact, many hospitals now have chaplains on site to visit patients who are recovering from illness or who are coping with end-of-life decisions. Even patients who say they are not particularly religious can benefit.
Clearly people are not going to stop visiting the doctor when they are sick, or start eating all the junk food they can because “prayer” will save them, but when faced with illness or disease, they do put their faith not only in medicine, but in belief as well.
The Article:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1879016,00.html
Growing scientific evidence suggests faith may bring us health. Humans pray – for peace or they meditate for calm, but what most people pray for is health: themselves or others. Dr. Gail Ironson, professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Miami says, “Spirituality predicts for better disease control.”
Skeptics however, like Professor Richard Slone and author of Blind Faith says, “Science doesn’t deal in supernatural explanations. Religion and science address different concerns.” He goes on to say that attempting to find a link between the prayer and healing is a “fool’s errand” because, “It is impossible to know how much prayer is received and since you don’t know that, you can’t determine dose.”
That’s true – somewhat. “A large body of science shows a positive impact of religion on health” says Dr. Andrew Newburg, professor of radiology, psychology and religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Newburg is author of 4 books and has spent considerable time looking at how our spiritual data works in the brain; by scanning brains in different meditative/prayer states. According to Newburg, “When people engage in prayer, it’s the frontal lobes that take the lead because they govern focus and concentration. During very deep prayer however, the parietal lobe powers down, which is what allows us to experience a sense of having loosed our earthy moorings.” The parietal lobe is on the top of the head and acts as the brains “spiritual center.” It is responsible for processing sensory input. Interestingly, prayer and meditation over a long period of time can actually change the brain permanently; by showing an increased thickness in their frontal lobes, which when working well help boost memory.
Other ways faith and health overlap include fasting, aspects of which can be found in all major religions and when done properly can lead to a state of clarity or even euphoria. Because the brain requires mass quantities of energy to work properly, it requires calories to maintain homeostasis. When you take away food, the liver produces glucose throughout the body, but makes sure the brain gets the biggest doses. However, because the liver’s reserves only last about 24 hours, cells begin to break down fats and proteins, which changes the composition of the blood. Dr. Catherine Gordon, endocrinologist at Children’s Hospital in Boston says, “There are very real changes that occur in the body very rapidly that might explain the clarity during fasting. The brain is in a different state even during a short-term fast. Biologically, that’s not good, but the light-headed sense of peace, albeit brief, that comes with it reinforces the fast and rewards you for engaging in it all the same.”
Prayer, on the other hand, is the one element of religious devotion that is consistent across all levels of faith. There is a belief that prayer can cure ailments and disease, and although some studies show that “patients who were prayed for fared better than those who were not,” in scientific studies the placebo effect needs to be considered. According to the article, “when you’re setting up your study, it matters a great deal whether subjects know they’re being prayed for.” The best way to test whether belief in God or a Higher Power an effective predictor of health is to study the health of people who regularly go to church. Some results point to longer life-spans and better overall health, however, other factors need to be considered. According to Ted Kaptchuk, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, “Religious belief is not just a mind question but involves the commitment of one’s body as well. The sensory organs, tastes, smells, sounds, music and architecture of religious buildings are involved.” In addition to the sensory input received while in church, there is also a sense of community and social support, as well as philanthropy and increased gratitude among parishioners, which could also be considered predictors of health.
In terms of the medical community there is a growing trend, supported by scientists and theologians, to offer whole body care, which includes prayer or conversations about belief. Psychologist Jean Kristeller, of Indiana State University, developed a five-to-seven minute conversation for doctors to engage their patients to talk about religion or belief. According to the article, there seems to be some correlation between “patient-centered conversations and reduced depression, increased quality of life, and a greater sense that their doctors cared about them.” In fact, many hospitals now have chaplains on site to visit patients who are recovering from illness or who are coping with end-of-life decisions. Even patients who say they are not particularly religious can benefit.
Clearly people are not going to stop visiting the doctor when they are sick, or start eating all the junk food they can because “prayer” will save them, but when faced with illness or disease, they do put their faith not only in medicine, but in belief as well.
The Article:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1879016,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)