College Sex - Philosophy for Everyone: Philosophers With Benefits (3 page)

ume in the
Philosophy for Everyone
series investigates contemporary sex- ual practices, behaviors, and mores of college students from a philosophical perspective. This introduction will highlight the features and history of the philosophy of sex as an area of research and then briefly introduce the essays and the organization of the book.

The philosophy of sex is a relatively new subfield. Although the works of some major philosophers in the history of philosophy have included important discussions of sexuality, often in relation to love and the family or broader social issues, only in the last forty years have professional phi- losophers recognized this subject as a significant focus of research in its own right. Many essays, books, and college courses have appeared since the publication of a seminal journal article by the noted philosopher Thomas Nagel in the early 1970s on the topic of sexual perversion.
1
Though widely criticized, and for good reason, in a series of subsequent

publications by other philosophers, Nagel’s use of the techniques of modern analytic philosophy to elucidate a controversial concept seldom addressed by his fellow philosophers working within the Anglo-American tradition was pathbreaking. Continental European philosophers such as Søren Kierkegaard (1813–55), Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860), and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), and later Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80) and Simone de Beauvoir (1908–86), had written about the nature of sexual desire and relations between the sexes, but English-speaking phi- losophers had done little during that period on the subject of human sexuality. Nagel’s “Sexual Perversion” was influenced by the insights of existentialist philosophers, particularly Sartre, but it had analytical rigor and clarity, advancing an argument for objective standards of sexual deviance and normality more liberal than one might find in orthodox Freudian accounts, for example, of homosexuality. His essay was thus an exercise in both conceptual clarification and applied moral philosophy.

Ethics, social-political philosophy, and philosophical psychology or the philosophy of mind are the main areas within the discipline of philosophy that contribute to the subfield of the philosophy of sex. Many of the questions falling within this subfield concern sexual morality – the ethics of premarital and extramarital sex, contraception and abortion, same-sex relations, and so forth. Some of the issues addressed by philosophers of sex are ethical but also involve social policy and the regulation of human practices and institutions, e.g., the sex industry. And there is a broad range of questions that concern the nature and aim of human sexuality itself, our desires and emotions, pleasure and pain, sexual identity, the normal and the abnormal, among other things. These are broadly psy- chological issues, yet philosophers approach them somewhat differently from the ways in which academic psychologists, clinicians, counselors, and psychiatrists do, and the matters of central concern are often not exactly the same. While the latter disciplines tend to involve theorizing about the causal origins of sexual behavior in our species and others, as well as effective treatment of sexual disorders or disturbances, philoso- phers – while usually interested in such empirical questions – are more likely to focus on the construction of conceptual frameworks for under- standing and also evaluating human sexual phenomena. These frame- works draw from other important developments in other areas of philosophy, such as the philosophy of mind and philosophy of science. Ideally, philosophers and social or behavioral scientists benefit from each other’s research, the conceptual and normative concerns of philosophers influencing the empirical research of scientists and in turn being informed

by that research. Historical and literary studies of human sexuality have also significantly guided philosophical thinking about sex in recent years, especially by philosophers working in the Continental tradition.

Sex in the setting of modern college and university campus life is an especially fertile subject for philosophical reflection. Why is this? In part it is because the institution brings together larger numbers of people at the start of their adult lives and places them in a situation of relatively little supervision, one which is to some extent insulated from the pres- sures of the working world. Often they live together in dorms or apart- ments or houses; new relationships of various kinds are formed of necessity. Moreover, they will need to have considerable contact with faculty and staff, some of whom will not be too much older than they. Mentoring relationships will typically have a personal aspect that can lead to different kinds of intimacy.The college environment, of course, is supposed to provide the conditions for reflection about life and the world, to help students learn about themselves and others, and to establish their place in society. Depending on what a student chooses to study, some of her courses might deal directly with issues of sexuality.

Freedom and the leisure to reflect in circumstances of intense intellec- tual stimulation and constant interaction with many other people – often attractive individuals within the same age group – present students with many important decisions about how to share their lives with others. The choices they make can be central to the formation of character and life plans with long-term effects on their futures comparable to the decisions they arrive at concerning majors or careers. Emotional needs and aspira- tions will be central in motivating all of these decisions as students seek to create desirable lives for themselves. Sexual opportunities will force them to decide what they value and what their limits are, in the process learning about themselves as individuals and defining themselves as persons.

Philosophy has shaped the university environment over the centuries, going back to its origins in the philosophical and theological climate of the Middle Ages in Europe. The ideas of Augustine (354–430), Thomas Aquinas (1225–74), and other important thinkers of the Roman Catholic tradition, strongly influenced by Greco-Roman philosophy, determined the structure and curriculum of the early institutions of higher education into the Renaissance and the early modern period. The rise of Protestantism and the educational philosophy of John Locke (1632– 1704) had considerable influence on the course of education in Western Europe and the United States. Today, American universities are domi- nated by a liberal political ideology that is secular and rooted in the

pragmatism and progressivism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, represented by William James (1842–1910), Charles Peirce (1839–1914), and especially John Dewey (1859–1952). The social and political radicalism of the 1960s, shaped in part by the theories of Jean- Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) and Karl Marx (1818–83), continues to dominate thinking in much of the American educational establishment. The “political correctness” of the late twentieth-century campus Left, now pervasive in our law, media, and educational institutions, has a dimension of sexual correctness defined by the radical feminism that developed out of the mid-1960s. A conception of women as a historically oppressed class, exploited and objectified by men, often collaborating in a state of “false consciousness” with male oppressors, has taken root in elite political thought and cultural criticism. Often it is tied to a critique of market capitalism, seen as the economic system most conducive to the treatment of female sexuality as a commodity. Pornography and other products and services of the sex industry are the most obvious form this sexual exploitation takes in our society, but from this radical feminist standpoint even conventional dating and marriage – indeed, perhaps het- erosexuality itself – are permeated with power imbalances between the

sexes and consequent subordination of the female.

While there has been some noteworthy criticism of these assumptions about the relative power of men and women in our society, as well as the need for greater institutional regulation to rectify the alleged imbalances and protect vulnerable females, these ideas are still widely accepted in American education at all levels.
2
Post-boomer generation women are less sympathetic to radical feminist ideology than were many of their parents, especially those who were college educated. Still, college stu- dents of both sexes today are sometimes confused and uncertain about what is appropriate behavior in many social situations having a sexual aspect. Institutional rules and policies intended to provide them with guidance are often ideologically motivated and overly instructive, even to the point of being ludicrous. A notorious sexual conduct code that was established at now-defunct Antioch College, an institution with a long history of progressive thinking since its founding in 1852, defined a series of sexual advances and required explicit competent consent before a stu- dent would be permitted to go on to the next stage. Attempts by liberal college administrators and faculty to regulate, for ideological or legal reasons, what most of us consider private behavior can be seen as heavy- handed and reminiscent of the conservative mores that supported the earlier doctrine of
in loco parentis
.

Religious beliefs may have once given some guidance to most students in previous times, but the present generation, shaped by decades of secu- larism and liberalism, is no longer as influenced by strict Judeo-Christian teaching about sexuality, even at many religious educational institutions.
3
Faced with tempting opportunities among a range of sexual possibilities in the permissive, generally tolerant setting of a typical American college campus, with a male-female ratio favorable to men (especially those of high status, e.g., fraternity members and athletes), and the easy availabil- ity of alcohol and drugs, young students of both sexes and different sex- ual orientations have serious choices to make. How can philosophical reflection be of help in arriving at intelligent decisions that can be defended ethically and not regretted in retrospect?

Philosophy, for most of its history in the West, has been primarily concerned with the definition, clarification, and critical analysis of basic concepts and theoretical frameworks that are fundamental to our under- standing of the natural and social world.To live rationally, we must come to know ourselves. We are not merely thinking beings but also sensing, feeling, emotional, appetitive creatures with needs, desires, and aspira- tions for our lives. Our capacity for pleasure and pain, as with many other animals, is central to our existence. And among the chief sources of human pleasure (and pain) is our sexual experience and the emotional, social, and moral consequences that follow from the choices we make with regard to our sexual activities and relationships.

Having a clear conception of what sexuality is and what it means to us as individuals is essential for most of us to live a good life. Confusions, ambiguities, and contradictions in our ideas and beliefs lead to painful dilemmas, conflicts, and generally bad decisions; this is particularly true in sexual matters. Human beings typically live with others in often com- plex networks of different sorts of relationships. Normal sexual gratifica- tion, if it is anything more than masturbation, involves relating to other people, if only temporarily. What counts as normal sexuality and what kinds of obligations define intimate relationships are, at least in part, philosophical questions, i.e., they are not merely psychological, but call for
normative
standards. Arriving at acceptable standards means going beyond an uncritical acceptance of existing norms, reflecting on them, and perhaps rejecting or modifying them in light of what one learns from experience, scientific research, and the rational consideration of other points of view.

How we are to think of sexual desire, its connections to the various forms of love, marriage, and friendship, and its relations to our identity

and sense of ourselves are basic philosophical questions about life. What is the aim of sexual desire? Should it always be expressive of love or even be restricted further to those who are engaged or married? Are friendships to be kept free of sexual complications? Does our sexual orientation define us as individuals? What about unusual sexual inclinations or practices – can some objectively be classified as deviant, perverse, or unhealthy? What kinds of experimentation might be reasonable and acceptable as a way of finding out what we want and who we are? These are some of the questions young adults of a college age should be asking themselves. The tools and techniques of philosophical inquiry, along with the ethical wis- dom of centuries of profound reflection by philosophers, can help us find thoughtful answers.

Many of the questions we have, or should consider, about sexuality are essentially moral ones, concerning not just our personal goals but our relations to others as well. When is consent to sexual activity given com- petently? What constitutes rape? How can we not use others in sexual relationships, but always treat them with respect and consideration? What does self-respect demand of us in sexual situations, and is it a moral issue? Is the preservation of virginity until marriage a moral matter, or just one of personal preference? What are the reasons to marry in today’s society, and what responsibilities does it entail? Do non-marital sexual relationships involve the same obligations as a typical monogamous mar- riage, e.g., sexual exclusivity? Is promiscuity wrong even if one has no duty to be sexually faithful? What about possible bad consequences of intercourse such as disease and pregnancy – how is responsibility to be attributed? These are the kinds of questions that most college students need to face early in their lives, and they need considered answers to them – something for which philosophy can be very helpful.
4

There are also questions about professionals’ relations within the col- lege community, e.g., between students and their instructors. Are faculty- student sexual relationships wrong either morally or from the standpoint of institutional ethics? Do differences of age or gender have a bearing on this, or is it mainly an issue of whether the student is currently enrolled in that professor’s class, or might be in the future? Some feminist commenta- tors insist that such relations are necessarily exploitive, given the power imbalances, especially if the faculty member is a male and the student female, but others disagree.
5
And what about students who work outside the academic community in the sex industry, e.g., on computer websites or in strip clubs? Is this morally objectionable, even if it is done to pay for tuition, fees, and other expenses incurred as part of getting one’s education?