Thomas Nagel's Perspective On Sexual Perversions

Thomas Nagel’s paper Sexual Perversion details his perspective on sexual desires and perversions, in which deems to be very specific. Nagel continuously specifics what is considered perverse through pre skeptical arguments, a Romeo and Juliet bar interaction and examples of deviant relations. Other philosophers such as Robert Solomon contribute counter arguments towards Nagel’s philosophies on the basis of what love is and sex is. Though Nagel does specify many attributes and cases of perverse circumstances, he as well does not reflect on other contradicting scenarios.

Nagel establishes the ‘sex as communication’ metaphor when he presents his own argument of what composes as sexual perversion. Though, before he makes his own dispute Nagel

Sexual perversions will have to be unnatural sexual activities, which requires a concept of sexuality. The concept of perversion should encompass the most obvious perversions, an example being foot fetishes. Finally, perversions will reflect unnatural psycho/ sexual preferences, not just simply unnatural practices (Nagel, 5). Nagel goes on to explain that perversion is not connected to reproduction, but about the psychological state of the agent and not physiological. Perversion is also not connected to the societal norms. There are lots of sexual acts of which society does or has disapproved (adultery) but are not considered perversions. He offers examples to the elucidate his position. Voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism and masochism are, according to Nagel, incomplete forms of communication. Nagel also talks about homosexuality, and settles that using this quarrel one can hardly call homosexuality perverse, since two persons of the same sex can certainly have complete communication (Nagel, 16). Though in this way he emphasizes his prior declarations about fetishism, bestiality, and sex with more than one pair of partners. Conversely, Nagel makes no room for masturbation, regrettably not addressing it at all. Regrettably because masturbation is so normally called into question in the dialogue of what constitutes sexual perversion. Nagel’s

Solomon adds another aspect to this analysis of Romeo and Juliet. Adding that he flaws the “liberal American sexual mythology,” which he claims Nagel relies heavily upon (Solomon, 338). According to Solomon, the liberal American sexual mythology titles that the vital aim of sex is orgasm, and that intercourse is a private matter. Its evident that Nagel believes the sexual act between Romeo and Juliet to be private, since he never examines it. Also, since he is never open about the act it can be deemed that the type of act would be acceptable if it ends in orgasm. Solomon contends that there is much more to sex than orgasm. Linking it to the metaphor of conversation, focusing on content not form. The contentment that comes from sexual acts has more intensity than simple gratification with pleasure (Solomon, 341). If the only aim of sexual acts were to orgasm, then Solomon questions why society would trouble with other choices than masturbation. Solomon sends a reminder that masturbation frequently involves imagined partners, pornography and imaginations. Eluding that there is more to sex than orgasm, but also pleasure. Solomon approves with Nagel on the matter of bestiality and fetishism. Though, after reading both opinions I fail to see how fetishism is connected with fragmented communication if fetishism enhances communication between two