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.
No comments:
Post a Comment