Sex and the Mind Part II

I’ll begin with a letter. Some objections:

In your column, you state that you will explore the “Philosophy of Sex.” Needless to say, you fail to define what is the philosophy of sex. The statement can be viewed as patently absurd, since, generically, the term “philosophy” is the antithesis of sexuality—or, for the most part, the physical preoccupation of sex as we understand it.

The fulfillment of sex, for many, because of social conditioning and moral imprinting of which no one is totally devoid, is a goal in itself. The gratification of physical needs. It inevitably reduces, as the oft-coined phrase “the emperor without clothes,” everyone to a common denominative state. There is no individuality involved in gratifying one’s sexual desires.

There are, however, levels of sexuality, only recently being explored—but we have become fixated in a primary and secondary level due to media, church, government, advertising and the Master’s & Johnson cocktail circuit. It may be quite true that the full expression of one’s sexuality provides personal satisfaction. Yet, until we resign ourselves to pure physical enjoyment (in which case, sex would be undifferentiated from any other physical pleasure) or the acknowledgement of tertiary levels in the development of sexuality, the machismo temperament will persist in our culture. The gay movement, the feminist movement, the human development movement are saying, in effect, that sexuality without sensitivity and a humanistic understanding is about as rewarding as overindulging in ephemeral fantasy.

In contemporary terms, sexuality is a definition of a physical need—even though the way by which that need is satisfied originates in the mind—at which point it begins to explore the mystical world of eroticism. In fact, if one were to explore the sexual question on a philosophical level we would have to admit that none exists. The idea, however, of sexuality can be viewed in a different milieu—since the idea of sexuality is a qualitative judgement.

In that case, the idea of sexuality can be interpreted never as fact but as opinion, to one’s condition. The expression of sexuality, then, can be motivated through a variety of sex-related indices (interpretations) and preoccupations. However, for many, there is only one socially accepted action: the act of sex itself.

This, of course, is not only immature but inconsiderate of the needs, the individual needs, of others. If one were to study the philosophical idea of sexuality one would have to refer to a history of “sexual” thought, dating to Agamemnon, Jean Genet and Jill Johnston, and also how individual cultures express their sexuality.

Sexuality, per se, is not the sine qua non of our human existence—we exist as a result of sex. It is a universal constant which, as questioning humans, we have woven into a mysterious and problematic example of our inability to communicate.

Until some time in the future, which seems very far, when we cannot only shed our clothes as a final act of individuality, but also express our fears, inhibitions, feelings, and emotions through a variety of modes without the anachronistic sexist labels, there is little prospect of improving our attitudes on the relation of sex to the human condition. Rather than wholistic, we shall be living on two levels, each conflicting, each fighting for supremacy, each self-defeating.

Harry Krol         

To the first objection, I will just say that a definition of philosophy of sex will be developed gradually in this series of articles. The Oxford English Dictionary defines philosophy as: “(In the original and widest sense.) The love, study, or pursuit of wisdom, or of knowledge of things and their causes, whether theoretical or practical.” As such one can conceive of a philosophy of language, a philosophy of science, a philosophy of mind, etc. Philosophy is, therefore, central to every (human) thought or action. Feibleman, in Runes’ Dictionary of Philosophy, further embellishes it as “technically, the science of sciences, the criticism and systematization or organization of all knowledge, drawn from empirical science, rational learning, common experience, or wherever.” A philosophy of sex is therefore not inconceivable. “Sexuality is one of our needs,” as I quoted Wilson, “to express ourselves through our bodies.” Mind or spirit or animus can be conceived as one of our needs to express ourselves through our intellect or emotions (or mind). A philosophy of sex is, therefore, mandatory.

The fact that one can sit down and argue in words about what I have written (and further, the fact that many people believe in and act in vastly different ways to a given set of circumstances) directly assumes the existence of a philosophy of sex. But given that, so what? Who cares?