Final Examination

Instructions

Our final examination is scheduled for Thursday, May 7, in our usual room (CI-106), from 11:00 to 1:30. To formulate the examination, I will ask five of the following eight essays, verbatim, on the exam. You will be provided ample space to write your answers to the five selected questions. You will have the entire time to write your essays and each essay is worth 60 points. Please note that no notes, readings, or screens will be permitted during the exam; however, like the midterm exam, you are permitted a single 4x6 inch handwritten notecard, which you will submit with your examination. You may use both sides.

As with the midterm examination, it is crucial that you have a very clear conception of

1. What is being asked; and,
2. What is required, by the question, to provide a thoughtful, clear, and precise answer.

I am happy to help you with (1), but (2) is entirely up to you. This is the last opportunity you will have in this class to think, and think well, about the various important issues we have discussed. Make it count.

Please note that I have tried to provide links to relevant readings to help simplify your studying. Naturally, these links will not appear on the final exam.

1. The Unbearable Complexity of Being Human

Explain as clearly as you can Frankfurt's conception of love and Blackburn's conception of lust. Using these conceptions and in light of all the various forms of sex and sexual entertainment we've examined this semester, explain the relationship between love, lust, and sex so as to explain:

1. The tension between love and lust;
2. How casual sex with a friend-with-benefits can lead to 'catching feels';
3. The distinction between mere assault and sexual assault (rape); and,
4. The relevance of love, lust, and sex to human flourishing.

Harry Frankfurt, "The Reasons of Love", Chapter One
Harry Frankfurt, "The Reasons of Love", Chapter Two
Harry Frankfurt, "The Reasons of Love", Chapter Three

Simon Blackburn, "Lust", Intro
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 1
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 2
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 3
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 4
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 5
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 6
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 7
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 8
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 9
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 10
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 11
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 12
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 13
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 14
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", Notes

2. The Promiscuity Scold

Elliston (Frederick Elliston, "In Defense of Promiscuity") spells out five arguments condemning promiscuity and gives what he no doubt views as decisive counter-arguments:

1. The Western Norm and Technology;
2. The Inseparability Premise and Promiscuity;
3. Promiscuity as a Threat to Monogamy;
4. Lying, Deceiving, and Exploiting; and,
5. Personal Emotional Security and Growth

Which of these arguments do you think is the best of the five? That is, which argument do you think poses the most significant challenge to Elliston's project of defending the moral acceptability of promiscuity. Justify your answer. What is the argument, as you construe it from Elliston's account? Are Elliston's responses to it satisfactory? Why or why not? Finally, is there a sense or are there senses of objectification of the ten we've considered this semester, (quoting from Halwani, Raja Halwani, "On Fucking Around",

Martha Nussbaum lists seven different ways to objectify someone. Rae Langton adds three. I quote them at length... Nussbaum’s list:

1. Instrumentality: The objectifier treats the object as a tool of his or her purposes.
2. Denial of autonomy: The objectifier treats the object as lacking in autonomy and self-determination.
3. Inertness: The Objectifier treats the object as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity.
4. Fungibility: The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type and/or (b) with objects of other types.
5. Violability: The objectifier treats the object as lacking in boundary integrity, as something that is permissible to break up, smash, break into.
6. Ownership: The objectifier treats the object as something owned by another, can be bought and sold, and so on.
7. Denial of subjectivity: The objectifier treats the object as something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.⁹

Langton’s additional three:

8. Reduction to body: One treats [the person] as identified with his or her body, or body parts.
9. Reduction to appearance: One treats [the person] primarily in terms of how he or she looks, or how he or she appears to the senses.
10. Silencing: One treats [the person] as silent, lacking the capacity to speak.¹⁰

which pose a special moral challenge to promiscuity? That is, does promiscuity pose a special risk of objectification--even if not necessarily, as Halwani argues--which are problematic for promiscuity? How might Elliston best respond to this argument, were he given it?

3. The Fire Within

In an attempt to rehabilitate the phenomenon of lust from its condemnation at the hands of panicked Christians, Blackburn (links above) draws on Thomas Hobbes to develop a conception of lust. What is Hobbesian Unity? Is Hobbesian Unity an ideal we desperately seek but can never truly realize? Why or why not?

Either way, it is clear that lust is a powerful force in our lives, finding as it does expression in everything from hair styles, cosmetics, and clothing styles to plastic surgery and erotic entertainment (so-called "gentlemen's" clubs, etc.) Augustine (excerpt, pdf), of course, explained in great detail why this force is detrimental and to be discouraged so far as possible--or even eliminated altogether. In light of the pressure women especially, but men also, experience in trying to be sexually attractive, has lust too strong a hold on us? Is lust, that is, a desire to embrace and enjoy like any other desire, or is it too powerful and thus must be treated gingerly or at least with a great deal of respect? If the former, what do we do about the societal pressures that come from emphasizing lust? If the latter, what would we do differently?

Finally, a strong indication of the importance of lust in our lives in a capitalist society, at least, can be seen in the various ways in which lust not only drives entire industries (erotic and pornographic entertainment, most obviously), but is used in marketing goods and services which prima facie have nothing whatsoever to do with love, lust, or sex (a bikini-clad woman washing a car to sell... hamburgers, for example). Thus the first law of marketing: Sex sells! Yet in a capitalist society we are also taught to market ourselves--explicitly so, in the case of LinkedIn profiles. What are some examples of people who successfully market themselves using, in effect, lust? What have they done to be successful? Is their success a model the rest of us ought to emulate in marketing ourselves? Why or why not?

4. Catching Feels

An intriguing and curious fact emerged from our brief discussion of promiscuity and the 'hook-up' culture: Over time--maybe two weeks, maybe a month--casual sex with a given partner becomes less casual and more meaningful. One is in danger, then, of catching feels--of developing feelings of affection, attachment, jealousy, and perhaps even love for one's partner.

Solutions (if you will) presumably range from never repeating casual sexual encounters with one person to engaging multiple partners at each encounter to drawing a firm limit on time spent with any one person.

So it seems that avowedly casual sex is beset with a peculiar challenge: sex tends to pull at least some of us--inexorably, perhaps--towards romantic love and all the complications it entails.

Why, though? Of the various accounts of romantic love we've considered, whether ancient, medieval, or contemporary, which ones might best explain the phenomenon of catching feels? What is at stake in mere sex that makes romantic love a potential threat for those seeking to remain unattached?

• Plato's Theory
• Augustine's Theory
• Singer's Theory
• Firestone's Theory
• Nozick's Theory
• Baier's Theory
• Frankfurt's Theory

Plato, "Symposium"

Augustine, "The City of God" (excerpt, pdf)

Irving Singer, "The Nature of Love" (excerpt, pdf)

Robert Nozick, "Loves Bond" (pdf)

Annette Baier, "Unsafe Loves" (pdf)

Harry Frankfurt, "The Reasons of Love", Chapter One
Harry Frankfurt, "The Reasons of Love", Chapter Two
Harry Frankfurt, "The Reasons of Love", Chapter Three

5. Rule 34

The first episode of the BBC documentary series "Pornography: The Secret History of Civilization", appropriately entitled "The Road To Ruin", neatly contrasted the Ancient Roman attitude towards nudity and depictions of sex with the Victorian English who invented the category of pornography. Specifically, where the Romans in statue, fresco, and painting celebrated the naked male and female form and proudly displayed them throughout their villas, the Victorians who unearthed Pompei were horrified at what they discovered and did all they could to keep it secret. The amusing fear, recall, was that men who viewed such things would become frequent masturbators, lose their 'vital seed', and become effeminate, which would lead to the weakening and eventual downfall of the British Empire.

Regardless of Victorian-era fears for the empire, the more general worry was that such depictions as were common in Ancient Rome ought to never be seen by the public at large inasmuch as the depictions contained within them the power to disturb and cause great psychic distress to the uneducated, women, and children. (Recall the fresco that had been viciously hacked by a prudish digger or note, what was shown but not discussed in the documentary, the Roman statues that had been mutilated to remove any depiction of genitalia.) In light of that worry, the Victorians first established the very term 'pornography' and then set about it's legal prohibition by legislation.

Rea's (Michael Rea, "What is Pornography?", pdf) somewhat tortured definition of pornography is intended to give a value-neutral definition that allows for further discussion of the moral status of pornography without begging the question against it as so many other definitions seem to do. How would you unpack and explain Rea's definition to someone not in the class? Would the definition he gives even make sense to the Ancient Romans? Why or why not? Would the Victorians condone or condemn it, as the case may be, and why? How might Blackburn (above) explain the differences in attitudes between the Ancient Romans and the Victorians?

Finally, has pornography as Rea defines it a peculiar power to cause disruption and psychic distress qua the Victorians and/or the dehumanization of women qua Dworkin (Andrea Dworkin, "Pornography Happens to Women") to such an extent that it must be legislated against and secreted away to protect us from its power? Justify your answer.

6. The Joy of Kink?

Nagel (Thomas Nagel: Sexual Perversion pdf) develops an account of sexual desire in order to establish a standard for normal sex and thus make sense of its perversion. Nagel's account is of course more liberal than the traditional view, which counts any sexual activity not involving vaginal intercourse between a man and woman married to each other for the purpose of procreation a perversion. Nevertheless, Nagel concludes that many sexual activities are perversions on his understanding of what counts as normal, even though he is careful to point out that deeming an act one of perversion need not be taken to imply that it is also morally illicit. What, precisely, is Nagel's account, and how does it allow for a greater range of normal sexual activity than the Church?

One puzzle for Nagel's account is whether it always correctly identifies sexual perversions. For example, someone might argue that anal sex is perverse, yet Nagel's account treats it as normal sex. And in class we briefly mentioned how Nagel very much wants to conclude that the sexual relationship between a sadist and a masochist is perverse, yet it is not clear that his own account of normal sex justifies this conclusion. There seems, in other words, to be some tension between our intuitive understanding of perversion and Nagel's account of perversion. For each of the following examples of sexual activity, explain whether it is perverse on Nagel's account, whether it is intuitively perverse, and, in those cases where intuition and Nagelian perversion diverge, explain which you think correct.

• Group Sex (Orgies, "Dogging", etc.)
• Anonymous Sex ("Glory Holes", "Mask Parties", etc.)
• Public Sex
• Swinger Sex ("Key Parties", Cuckolding, etc.)
• Sex with ET (Yes, ET)

Finally, Priest (Graham Priest: Sexual Perversion pdf) argues that we cannot make sense of sexual perversion because we cannot make sense of natural or normal sex. What is Priest's argument, precisely? Having spelled it out, do you find his argument persuasive? Why or why not?

7. Mercenary Sex

In "Charges Against Prostitution" (Lars Ericsson: Charges Against Prostitution pdf), Ericsson explains and responds to what he calls the "Feminist Charge" against prostitution. Explain the Feminist Charge, and explain how Ericsson tries to meet the charge. How does Pateman (Carole Pateman: Defending Prostitution pdf) respond to Ericsson's claim that "so many feminists seem unable to understand that contempt for harlotry involves contempt for the female sex"? Is her response persuasive? Why or why not? In the final analysis and in light of our tentative explorations of the relationship between love, lust, and sex, is mercenary sex merely selling a sexual service as Ericsson insists, or is it more complicated in such a way that mercenary sex work is wholly unlike, say, erotic dancing or cocktail waitressing?

8. The Wrong Lesson

In "What's Wrong With Rape"(Pamela Foa: What's Wrong With Rape? pdf), Foa explains what she calls the "Rape Model of Sex":

Though we may sometimes speak as though sexual activity is most pleasurable between friends, we do not teach each other to treat our sexual partners as friends. Middle-class children, whom I take to be our cultural models, are instructed from the earliest possible time to ignore their sexual feelings. Long before intercourse can be a central issue, when children are prepubescent, boys are instructed to lunge for a kiss and girls are instructed to permit nothing more than a peck on the cheek. This encouragement of miniature adult sexual behavior is instructive on several levels.

It teaches the child that courting behavior is rarely spontaneous and rarely something which gives pleasure to the people involved-that is, it is not like typical playing with friends. It gives the child a glimpse of how adults do behave, or are expected to behave, and therefore of what is expected in future life and social interactions. Importantly, boys are instructed not to be attentive to the claims of girls with respect to their desires and needs. And girls are instructed not to consult their feelings as a means of or at least a check on what behavior they should engage in.

Every American girl, be she philosopher-to-be or not, is well acquainted with the slippery-slope argument by the time she is ten. She is told that if she permits herself to become involved in anything more than a peck on the cheek, anything but the most innocent type of sexual behavior, she will inevitably become involved in behavior that will result in intercourse and pregnancy. And such behavior is wrong. That is, she is told that if she acquiesces to any degree to her feelings, then she will be doing something immoral.

Meanwhile, every American boy is instructed, whether explicitly or not, that the girls have been given this argument (as a weapon) and that therefore, since everything that a girl says will be a reflection of this argument (and not of her feelings), they are to ignore everything that she says. Girls are told never to consult their feelings (they can only induce them to the edge of the slippery slope); they are always to say "no." Boys are told that it is a sign of their growing manhood to be able to get a girl way beyond the edge of the slope, and that it is standard procedure for girls to say "no" independently of their feelings. Thus, reasonably enough, boys act as far as one can tell independently of the explicit information they are currently receiving from the girl.

Foa's article was published in 1977. Is Foa's assertion that western society adopts the Rape Model of Sex true today? If so, what should be done to change it? If not, what has changed since 1977? Regardless, given our discussions on these topics, is there, in light of all we've studied this semester, a defensible model of sex that should be taught to girls and boys? How would such a model be designed, if so? If not, why not?