Introduction

The main aim of this essay is to explain what make a sexual act to be perverse in relation to

two philosophical responses, before I proceed in answering this question : Firstly, I want to

define what a sexual activity is, for one to know if a sexual act is perverse, one have to

understand the concept of sexual activity. Secondly, I will explain what makes a sexual act

perverse; what is the concept of sexual perversion; Thirdly, I will examine two philosophical

responses, which are based on Thomas Nagel (psychological account) and Alan Goldman

(biological and anatomical account of sexual perversion; Lastly; I will determine which of the

two responses has a philosophical impact.

Definition of sexual Activity

Sexual activity is sometimes defined lexically as the act of involving in sexual intercourse,

but this term ‘sexual intercourse’ itself has become even complicated that it is very difficult to

define what sexual activity is, because the concept has become entangled in the cultural values of

any society in the world, the way a society engages in the act of sexual intercourse may be

different from how another society seek to engage in sexual intercourse. Not only this,

philosophers have been divided on this view of sexual activity; some argue that when someone

engages in the act of masturbation one engages in a sexual activity and other sees the act of

masturbation has been sexually perverse or unnatural.

A conceptual analysis is carried out in the philosophy of sex to clarify the notion of

sexual activity, because the definitions of sexual activity may be different due to our views on

sexual pleasure or sexual desire and normative analysis is embarked upon to determine what a

sexual activity is. Thus in the philosophy of sex, there is a divide on the definitions of sexual

1
activity between philosophers regarded as the metaphysical pessimist and optimist and also

according to (Levision, 2003) there is a middle ground between the minimalist and maximist

account on the definition of sexual activity. Metaphysical pessimist like Immanuel Kant sees

the act of sexual activity as bad because they are used as a means to an end rather than as an ends

to a means. According to Kant (1977):”Sexuality is not an inclination which one human being has

for another as such, but is an inclination for the sex of another. . . . Only her sex is the object of

his desires”. (p. 62). This is further supported by philosophers like Thomas Aquinas who

proposes the doctrine of natural law. On the other hand, Metaphysical optimists like Plato and

Irving Singer do not see anything bad or good in relation to any sexual activity, because a sexual

activity is important for a strong relationship between a man and woman which is aimed for the

purpose of procreation.

According to Singer(1996), “sexual activity is seen as a sexual interest which resembles an

appetite in some respects, it differs from hunger or thirst in being an interpersonal sensitivity,

one that enables us to delight in the mind and character of other persons as well as in their flesh”(

vol 2: p.20) . A definition of a sexual activity may be defined if we consider the act as non-

morally good or bad – or morally good or bad, it actually depends on the way it is performed or

it’s after effects, be it positive or negative. Sometimes we derive little or no pleasure from a

sexual act, (say) we are primarily giving pleasure to another person, or we are even selling it to

the other person, and we think that even though the other person had a sexual experience, he or

she didn’t.

But with all this restriction, any of us, if any, may still be able to provide a definition of

sexual activity in relation to norms dictated by his or her society or his or her personal view. But

with all this disagreements about the definition of the sexual activity, we will find out that

2
Even the concept of sexual perversion is problematic. But philosophy seeks not only to solve

problems but at least attempts to answer them, since there is no harm in trying ones best as

deemed fit, thus let us begin first by understanding what sexual perversion is before focusing on

the philosophical responses.

Understanding the concept of “Sexual Perversion”

Most accounts of perversion before the twentieth century assumed with little argument that

reproduction is the natural function of sexual activity and that non reproductive acts are therefore

unnatural. Reproduction cannot be only the function of human sexuality -except in the sense that

all adaptive behaviours enhance reproduction; according to Soble (2008, p.67): pleasure is also

an adaptive function of sex; in so far as sexual experiences help maintain the pair bond. Thus

cases in which people who engaged in masturbation and other sexual acts are known to be

psychological defective. In inquiring about sexual activities, we ask whether the act or type is

natural or unnatural, what is been refereed to here is the term called ‘sexual ‘perversion’

Natural sexual acts- are acts that flow naturally from human sexual nature and do not

frustrate, counteract, or interfere with sexual tendencies that follow natural sexual desire.

Evaluating a particular sexual activity as been natural or unnatural can be distinct from

evaluating the act or type either as been morally good or bad or as been non-morally good or

bad. Suppose we assume, that homosexuality is a natural human sexual activity, and

heterosexuality as a non-natural sexual activity; from my judgment, it does not follow that all

heterosexual acts is morally good in the instances of rape. It does not also follow that all

homosexual act is thought to be morally bad or wrong- if it is permissible through consenting

adults. However, both homosexual acts can be medically or psychological dangerous. Thus, it

3
follows that there is no reason therefore to assume that natural or unnatural sexual acts-for

example, unprotected intercourse is more dangerous than mutual homosexual masturbation.

From this viewpoint, the links between naturalness and unnaturalness of sexual activity is

nonexistent, therefore many philosophers recommend that we abandon the term “Perversion”

when we are talking about sexuality.

The reason why there is an continuance of discussion on sexual perversion are due to three

main reasons: The first is because of our understanding what is sexually natural and unnatural

helps us to paint a complete picture of human nature in general, and this allow us to understand

how human beings relate. The second is because of the difference between the natural and

unnatural in human sexuality might be useful for the discipline of psychology, if we assume that

a desire or tendency to engage in unnatural sexual activity is a sign or symptom of mental

disease. The third and last reason is because natural sexual activity is not alone known as

morally bad or wrong, and the unnatural sexual activity is not necessarily morally bad or wrong.

In analyzing sexual perversion we need an account of both ‘perversion’ and of ‘sexual’ that

is which makes a sexual act or sexual desire sexual. An account of what makes a sexual act

perverted must be logically independent of the account of what makes it sexual. For example, if

what is defined as sexual is that the act is procreative; then acts that are not procreative might be

perverted, but not sexually perverted; since they are already eliminated from the class of sexual

acts. Thus, the term perversion is often used normatively not purely descriptively.

4
 But, my main is to explore at least two main responses to the concept of sexual perversion.

The responses to this issue are diverse, but I have decided to narrow it down to two notable

responses on the concept of sexual perversion; this is issued from the philosophy of Alain

Goldman and Thomas Nagel. Thomas Nagel response on sexual perversion is based on the

comparison of the sexualities of humans and lower animals; on the other hand, Alan Goldman

attempts to disprove the wrong conceptual analysis of sexual perversion. For this reason, I want

to delve into Alan Goldman’s response to sexual perversion, before progressing to Thomas

Nagel’s response.

Alan Goldman Response to Sexual Perversion

There are many responses to sexual perversion, but particular I find Alan Goldman’s article

on Plain Sex to be very interesting. He argues that conceptual analysis of sex is needed to define

what sexual perversion is, as it is also necessary that a normative analysis of sexual acts needs to

be employed; this is because our conceptual and normative belief about of sex will determine our

view of what is known to be sexual perversion.

According to Goldman (1977) for a sexual act to be regarded as abnormalities; proper

formulation of the concept of sexual perversion has to be a “Reflective Equilibrium - that is a

goal not achieved by traditional and recent analyses based on moral implications. The reason for

this equilibrium is because sexual activities like other natural functions such as eating or

exercising has become imbedded in layers of cultural, moral and superstitions, which makes it

difficult to define.

5
 He continues to suggest that sex continues to be misrepresented in philosophical writings

due to the means end analysis which conceptions about a necessary external goal or purpose of

sexual activity such as reproduction has been the ideal end. This mean end analysis are a set of

false views on sexual perversion by implying that sex does not fulfil its function of procreation;

because the purpose of procreation is rendered useless due to the development of contraceptives,

such as the use of condoms, abstinence. For instance, methods of contraception are now so

familiar and widely used that it is now not all necessary to dwell upon the changes of the concept

of sex itself. Furthermore, questions are irrelevant in regard to the morality of sex and its

potential social regulation; because the categories of morality and “naturalness” or normality are

not to be identified with each other, and neither is it applicable to its mean end of reproduction.

In exception to his above idea of false conceptual analysis of sexual perversion, as suggested

by Goldman (1997, p.19):” the concept of perversion is itself a sexual concept, since it will be

always defined relative to some definition of ‘Normal sex; and any conception of the norm will

imply an opposite forms of sexual perversion”. He argues that perversion does not represent a

deviation from the reproductive function nor kissing, hugging and other similar acts , but he

acknowledges that it is a deviation, but this deviation is ‘merely statistical’. For example, not all

sexual acts which are unusual are perverted; having sex throughout the day is not perverted

because many persons will recognised it as a deviation from the normal way of having sex, in

the requisite sense. The abnormality been referred to must relate to the form of desire itself in

order to be constituted as abnormal or unnatural: For example, desire which are not for contact,

but for merely looking, for harming and been harmed.

6
 He reiterates that not all desires which are strange can be qualified as perversions, but the

physical effects upon the individual who satisfies them; effects such as erection in males are not

identified in the definition of ‘sex’ because they do not always occur in activities which are

properly characterized as sexual, for in instances of kissing for the pleasure of seeking erection,

which seems to bear closer relations to the definition of sexual activities are known to be

‘perverted’. Thus, perversed sex is simply abnormal sex and if the norms are not to an end or

purpose; it is known as statistically abnormal and it is not necessarily incapacitating in other way

to abnormal desires with sexual effects on their subjects, which do count as perverted to the

degree to which their objects deviate from the unusual ones.

Furthermore, the connotations of the concept of perversion beyond those connected with

abnormalities or statically deviations are derived from the attitudes of those likely to call certain

acts perverted from specifiable features of the acts themselves, these connotations according to

Goldman add to the concept of abnormality to sub normality, but there is no norm against which

the latter can be measured as perverted. The only proper way to evaluate the mode of norm of

sex is that which relates to degrees of pleasure in a sexual act in relation to individuals, because

perverted sex may be more or less enjoyable to particular individuals than normal sex, and more

or less moral , depending upon the particular relations involved. For example, raping a Goat may

be more perverted than raping a woman, but not more condemnable morally. It is thus, not true

that evaluative connotations attached to the term’ Perversion’ is derived from what most people

considered as perverted sex is deemed to be highly immoral.

7
 In addition, sexual acts in relation to taboos in cultures are sometimes difficult to be

distinughed from what is forbidden and from what is immoral or known as abnormal, the

principles behind taboos would equally condemn them as if they were common and non sexual,

and it is not true that we could continue to consider acts perverted which are found to be very

common across societies. For, if such acts are harmful, we might continue to condemn those

acts as been labelled as immoral, but taboos shown that the immorality of an act does not vary

with its degree of perversion. Even though it might continue to be called perverted for a time by

the moralistic minority, in suspense; when this term is applied to such cases not known, it would

only retain only its emotive negative connotation without a consistent criteria for application, it

would only seek to represent a prejudiced moral judgements.

Finally, Goldman (1997) seeks to explain why there is a tendency to condemn perverted

acts, it would require anyone to delve into psychology for clarification, this is due to the tradition

of repressive ethics and also false conceptions of sexuality; for whatever the psychological

explanation deemed to be, it suffices to point out here that the conceptual connection between

perversion and genuine moral evaluation is ‘spurious’ and it is a misleading idealization

conception of sex.

The next stage of this essay is now going to focus on Thomas Nagel response which is quite

not very definitive, but at least he proceed by offering his own prescriptive view on what sexual

perversion is and he seeks to correct the conceptual bad analysis of sexual perversion.

8
Thomas Nagel Response to Sexual Perversion

Thomas Nagel first suggested that there is something to be learned about sex from the fact

that we possess a concept of sexual perversion. He wishes to examine the concept of sexual

perversion by defending it against the charge of ‘unintelligibility’ and trying to say exactly what

about human sexuality seems to qualify has been sexually perverse. According to Nagel (1977,

p.5): some people do not believe that the notion of sexual perversion itself is nonsensical, for the

concept to be viable; it must meet three general conditions:

Firstly, if there are any sexual perversion, they will have to be a sexual desire or practices that

can be plausible described as unnatural; Secondly, certain practices will never be perversions if

anything is , such as shoe fetishism, bestiality, sadism; other practices such as unadorned sexual

intercourse , will not be pervasive; Thirdly and Lastly, if perversions are deviations; they will be

unnatural sexual inclinations ,rather than merely unnatural practices adopted not from inclination

but for some other motives.

Nagel proceed in his response by suggesting that sex and reproduction in no way has no

bearing on sexual perversion; for perversion itself is a psychological concept, which is not a

physiological interest, because it is a concept that we do not apply to the lower animals, let alone

to plants, all of which has reproductive capabilities- for example: (seedless oranges).

In addition to this point, if we are to regard higher animals as perverted, it is because of

their physiological similarities to animals; nevertheless perversion cannot be regarded as a

deviation from the reproductive function of sex. Not only this, the concept of sexual perversion

has no bearing on social customs; some societies who have frowned upon adultery and

9
fornications do not regard these acts as unnatural practices and what is regarded as ‘unnatural’

varies from culture to culture, but their classifications is not a subject of distaste or disapproval.

Because of the difficulties in determining what is sexually perversed, he attempt to use the

physiological account of sexual perversion, which will depend on a psychological theory of

sexual desire and human sexual interactions. He used the example of the famous romantic play

of Romeo and Juliet in explaining is view on sexual desire, which in summary explains various

ways in which Romeo relates to Juliet when he desires her and in the other way round, how

Juliet sexually desires Romeo; according to Nagel (1977, p.5):”this sexual desire is simply one of

the appetite, like hunger and thirst”. In relation to this quote, if we can imagine perversions of an

appetite like hunger, it should be possible to make sense of the concept of perversion itself.

Thomas Nagel now began to focus his attention on sexual perversion by stating that

various forms of perversions are often truncated or considered incomplete, since they identified

the central impulses as its main cause.

In relation to sexual perversity, narcissist practices, and intercourse with animals, infants,

inanimate objects seems to be stuck at some primitive versions of perversions due to the absence

of reciprocity when engaging in these sexual practices. In addition: sadism concentrates on the

evocation of passive self awareness in others, but the sadist’s engagement in is itself considered

as sexually perversed, because of the inability to summons one’s technique at a particular point

in time. On the other hand, a masochist imposes the same disability on his partner as the sadist,

but the masochist cannot find a satisfactory embodiment as the object of a sexual desire, but only

as his object of control.

10
 However, greater difficulties are encountered when Nagel’s psychological account is

applied to three categories of sexual activity: homosexuality, heterosexuality, intercourse with

two or more persons. Thomas Nagel approach to the three categories mentioned may not be

considered as sexual perversions because of the liberal view about sexual orientations in the

society. For Nagel, it is not clear whether homosexuality is a perversion if it is measured by the

standard of sexual configurations at birth or how persons are nurtured; for if homosexuality is a

perversion, it is different from the situation in which shoe fetishism is a perversion because of

the full range of interpersonal perceptions between two persons of the same gender, but even if

this is evidently true, it remains implausible to describe as perverted every deviation from the

norm of sexual activity which even cannot be considered .

Finally, Thomas Nagel conclude his response; by relating sexual perversion to morality-

he argues that the concept of perversion cannot be evaluative , because it appears to involve the

notion of an ideal or at least adequate sexuality which cannot be considered as unnatural-since

evaluation implies better ‘sex’. Nevertheless, whether sexual perversion is a moral evaluation is

another quizzed question- which would require us to understand morality and perversion

extrinsically , for it is not clear that unperverted sex is necessary preferable to the perversions

which he suggested in my preliminary analysis of his response.

In addition, it is not clear that unperverted sex is necessary preferable to perversions-it may

be that some sex is less enjoyable than others which raises questions between the evaluative

content of judgements of perversions, and the distinctions between good and bad sex - which

according to Nagel (1977) seems to suggest: “That homosexuality as a perversion could admit a

distinction between better and worse homosexual sex, than not very good unperverted sex”.

(p.17). If this statement is correct, then it supports the position that if judgements of perversions

11
are viable at all they represent only one aspect of the possible evaluation of human sexuality.

In conclusion, Nagel illustrates that even if perverted sex to an extent is not as good as it might

be, and then bad sex is generally not better than none at all- for one, has to choose among the

alternatives, or opt for nothing at all.

My Brief critical analysis of Thomas Nagel and Alan Goldman Response

Alan Goldman response to sexual perversion seems far fetched because of the way he views

sexual perversion in relation to his background; this is seen also in the philosophy of Thomas

Aquinas ‘Natural law’ which unfortunately is not included in this essay, but one has to admire

Goldman on the way he seeks to correct our bad conceptual analysis of sexual perversion and

one has to admire the way he seeks to argue that societies are sensitive on the issue.

On the other hand, Thomas Nagel account on the anatomical responses is also credited

because of the way he embarks on the issue, by relating it to the ‘human condition and sexual

desire, according to Levinson (2003, p.4): Nagel seems to classify sexual perversion in a counter

intuitive manner, but can also be criticised for elevating animal sexual behaviour to human. But,

in relation to both responses, they are considered to be valuable since they seek to clarify the

notion of sexual perversion.

However, my own view on sexual perversion is different from both, since what is known to

be ‘bad sex’ are sometimes even worse than what is known to be sexually perversed, For

example: A woman who likes to be chained down when engaging in the act of coitus may prefer

it than another woman who is not ‘turned on’ in coitus and this also applies to ‘Men’. My final

say on this matter is that, the inability itself to define what sexual activity is, has in return

overshadowed our concept of sexual perversion; but a universal definition can be employed to

12
clear this shadow of doubt, this explains why there are many responses out there and what we

can only do is be amused if in the nearest future, if what are considered as sexual perversion are

considered ‘Normal’.

Conclusion

In this essay, I have examined the definition of sexual activity and I have embarked upon the

clarification of what sexual perversion is. More Importantly, I have examined the two responses

of sexual perversion. In summary, we have seen that what sexual perversion, sexual activity is

difficult to define and hence one must be careful in passing any ethical moral judgements about

sexual perversion, and sometimes one could not even measure what is sexual perversion because

human being has preferential capabilities, thus what we can only do is to choose one of the

alternatives nature has predestined upon us.

13
 REFRENCES

1. Alan H. Goldman.”Plain Sex” Philosophy and Public Affairs, No.3 (Spring 1977):267-287:

Princeton University Press, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265133.

2. Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

3. Irving Singer. Nature of Love. United Kingdom: MIT Press, 1996.

4. Jerrod Levision. The Monist: Volume 86, issue 1, 2003.

5. Soble, Alan. The Philosophy of Sex and Love: An Introduction.St Paul, MN, Pragon House,

2008.

6. Thomas Nagel.”Sexual Perversion”. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol 66, and No 1(Jan 16,

1969): pp, 5-17.

14