What’s That? You Want To Have Sex With Your Electric Toothbrush? Sorry- Thomas Nagel Says You’re A Pervert

“Hehehe! Georgie, I just told Mike you have a HUGE crush on him!” 

“But I don’t have a crush on Mike, Sara! I like Mark, remember?”

“But Mike told me that he likes you too!”

“Really?! Me?! Mike likes me? I was sitting behind at lunch time the other day and I saw that he got a new haircut and he did look very cute…Do you think he’ll still like me if he finds out I used to like Mark!?”

The above is a very clear memory I have carried around with me since leaving third grade. My best friend Sara, inadvertently illustrated Nagel’s theory of sexual desire as a double reciprocal incarnation, while we played four square on the black top. How curious it was, that as soon as I became aware of Mike’s crush on me, my juvenile romantic desires quickly, if not immediately, shifted in his favor. And thus, my description of Mike as a scrawny, annoying, mama's boy, before recess -  flourished into a bombastic declaration of love by time the line-up-to-go-inside-bell rang.

So why is it, that the affections of another, can sweeten, or even establish, our own affections for an individual? Nagel would argue it is due to a complex system of perceptions. Recognition and desire bounce off the two individuals involved, and allow both individuals to simultaneously perceive themselves, as well as that which they desire (the other).  Nagel breaks down this mess of perceptions and offers us a clear model within which all socially accepted forms of sexual desires fall.

Firstly, Nagel introduces a pair of individuals (for this explanation I will call them Jaime and Taylor) who separately and simultaneously desire each other. Taylor sees Jamie and thinks “Hmm I like that”.  Jamie sees Taylor and thinks “What stunning features”. This simple awareness of each other as objects of desire constitutes Nagel’s first ‘phase’ of sexual desire.

Then, Nagel claims, each party will desire the reciprocal desire of the other. Eventually Taylor will become aware of Jamie’s desire for Taylor, and Jamie will become aware of Taylor’s desire for Jamie. Upon discovery that the object of desire, has come to lust for the original desirer, attraction is heightened significantly in both parties. In other words, when Taylor finds out that Jamie recognizes and reciprocates Taylor’s affections, Taylor likes Jamie even more than before. Additionally, Taylor not only desires Jamie, but now desires Jamie in Jamie’s state of desiring for Taylor. And visa-versa.

Finally, when Taylor and Jamie both know that they A) like each other and B) are liked by the other, they enter the final stage of sexual desire. Here, each partner wants for the other partner to desire, his or her desire. Understanding that Jamie desires Taylor, Taylor wants Jamie to desire Taylor’s affection for Jamie, as well as desire Taylor as an object of affection. In short, Taylor wants to be simultaneously desired as an object, and as a desirer. And visa-versa for Jamie.

To sum it up, whoever fits into this model, first desires for someone. Then, wants for that someone to desire them back. And finally, they want that someone to desire the affection they have for them. In short, each desirer wants the object of their desire to experience the same subjective desires as the subject. 

Nagel argues any sexual act that operates outside of this model or deviates from any of these phases is a sexual perversion. Because Nagel’s theory of sexual desire is dependent on mutual recognition and reciprocation of desire (at various stages), failure or refusal to participate in either of these responses to the sexual desires of/by another, constitutes a perverted inclination.  

For example, Nagel condemns bestiality as perverted because the practice of sexually desiring animals stalls his model of sexual desire at the first phase. Bestiality is perverted -as is sexual desire for objects, or infants- because farm animals, electric toothbrushes and small children do not reciprocate one’s sexual desires. In effect, there is only a subject who desires an object. Such narcissistic sexual desires are primitive and perverted because there is neither recognition, nor reciprocation of desire by the desired.

Further perversions of Nagel’s theory of sexual desire include exhibitionism and masochism. Exhibitionism is a form of sexual perversion because the exhibitionist wants her sexual desire to be recognized by another, but does not want this sexual desire to be reciprocated by such other. As a result, the exhibitionist stalls the model at the second phase by forcing her sexual desire to be seen by those who do not desire her.  Meanwhile, the masochist participates in perversion because he refuses (or is perhaps unable) to desire his partner’s desire for him. Instead, he desires only his partner’s control of him. This qualifies as perverted sexual desire because the masochist withholds from his partner the reciprocation of desire necessary to participate in the standard model of accepted sexual desire.

Because only divergences from this model count as perversions, homosexuality, oral sex, and anal sex are not qualified to participate in the deviation.  Despite prevalent social opinions that such acts are perverted, participants of oral, anal and homosexual sex fit neatly into Nagel’s schema.  These individuals are able to provide each other with the double reciprocal incarnation necessary to constitute healthy sexual desire, while simultaneously performing any of the fore mentioned acts. 

Anything You Can Do, Gays Can Do Better; Homosexuals As Equally Capable of Maintaining A Prepolitical Institution

In Cheshire Calhoun’s proponent argument of same sex marriage, the vehement author mounts a scathing attack on our culture’s perception of marriage as beyond the reach of political neutrality.

Calhoun argues that our society treats marriage as a prepolitical institution. That is to say, we treat marriage as if civil society depends on it. The concept of a prepolitical institution holds that the institution itself plays some integral role in the creation of the society. The prepolitical institution must exist as a foundation, before a civilization can be supported upon it. As a result, married couples are treated as if they somehow make a direct contribution to maintaining the community, simply by participating in the ‘age old’ construct of marriage.

As a liberal state, our governmental body is obligated to maintain a neutral position about all political institutions. Every citizen has the right to choose their favorite institutions, and decide weather or not they are going to adopt them.  However, this is not the case for marriage. So how come the state can pick sides on same sex marriage and get away with it?  The answer rests with the political classification of traditional marriage as a prepolitical entity.

 Because a prepolitical institution must exist in order for the state to exist, the state may openly support prepolitical institutions without opposition- no one would expect an entity to reject that which gives it life.  Furthermore, the state is justified to openly promote those institutions that sustain its existence. Because the state sees heterosexual spouses as integral to the survival of civil society, they are allowed to encourage their citizens to continue to participate in the tradition, without leaving the ‘liberal camp’ behind. Opponents of same sex marriage claim that marriage exists independently from the state; that marriage is ordained by God or human nature or absolute morality- thus rendering the state as unqualified to do anything but support the institution from whence it came. This places marriage beyond the reach of obligatory state neutrality.

Calhoun argues that banning same sex marriage, positions heterosexual couples as having a “uniquely privileged status” in society.  By allowing heterosexual, but not homosexual marriages, the state elevates heterosexual citizens to a position above political liberalism. In doing so, the state essentially displaces homosexual couples from civil society by stripping them of their rights to the equality of institutional liberalism. 

Calhoun fumes that heterosexuals are NOT the only ones who are able to maintain this prepolitical foundation. She argues that the best way to reverse this inequality is to demand same sex marriages. Doing so, she says, we will force the community to treat homosexual couples as equally capable of contributing to the foundational support of society. 

“Yeah we can kiss, but I need you to sign this contract that guarantees me three more dates first.”; Goldman and Card Paint Marriage as an Insurance Policy

Emma Goldman sharply criticizes the institution of marriage and diminishes the construct to a lop-sided insurance policy with a very poor return rate, and a harshly binding contract.  Goldman characterizes the practice as an indemnity of financial security, state benefits, and social acceptance. Goldman argues that marriage is essentially a loveless practice, which is accepted primarily, for the social and financial bettering of the two individuals involved. Indeed, Goldman points out that the symbolic engagement ring bestowed upon a woman, began as an insurance policy within itself— If the husband-to-be deflowered and left his soon-to-be-bride before their wedding day, the young woman was left a ring valuable enough to ensure her financial security without the support of another man (support she is unlikely to get once deflowered). Goldman asserts that the price paid for the insurance policy provided in marriage, is steep. Women pay with their names, their respect, and their freedom, while men pay with cash— traditionally assuming their wives as financial dependents.

            Years later, Claudia Card develops a position on same sex marriage that seems to share a common ancestor with Goldman’s original assertion: marriage is an insurance policy.  Card is openly against same sex marriage, as far as she is against the institution of marriage itself. This author feels that while homosexual couples should have the right to marry, they should not want to! Card continues that no one, gay or straight, should want to participate in the failing construct of marriage.  Throughout Card’s damnation of the practice, glimmers of Goldman’s position seem to creep through Card’s argument— Proving that marriage is just as much of an insurance policy today, than ever.

            Card states that her ambivalence toward same sex marriage rises from her belief that legalized homosexual marriage may force gay couples into marriages for the same reasons straight couples feel railroaded into the construct.  Card fears that gay couples may fall victim to the over-bearing Aunt at Christmas parties, who corners you by the punch bowl and demands to know why you haven’t found “A nice girl like your cousin Danny” yet.  Card fears that gay couples will begin to feel pressured by the timeframe in which they are socially expected to wed (whether that be a particular time in an individual’s life, or a specific point in a couple’s relationship).  In an effort to secure an insurance policy of social acceptance and normalcy, gay couples may begin to wed for the wrong reasons.  Similarly, Card worries that the option for same sex marriage may pressure gay couples into unwanted wedlock upon the arrival of a child. Threatened by estrangement from the status quo, risk of financial desertion by a legally unaccountable partner, and possibility of solo child rearing, gay couples may begin to gravitate towards marriage simply to alive these worries and ensure their child the social and economic benefits of marriage. Both of these scenarios would constitute a participation in marriage solely for the insurance policy benefits carried within this construct.

            Arguably the most sought after perks, of the marriage insurance policy, are the state provided benefits. The benefits desired by every citizen, are only available to those citizens who have chosen to marry.  As a result, there is a strong incentive for individuals to pair off as married couples, in order to reap the perks.  This incentive essentially eliminates marriage as culmination of a love connection, and positions it instead as a financially practical unification. This renders marriage as just about as romantic as the mergers and acquisitions of actual insurance companies. Furthermore, this financially arranged marriage is maintained as within the best interest of all parties involved.  As a result, both partners gain incentive to lie to the other about the authenticity of the arrangement, as well as to lie to one’s self. In the end, the insurance policy fails anyway— everyone is living a sham, and the government is still taking a fourth of the couple’s income!

            Unfortunately, it’s not an arrangement that’s quite so easy to get out of. Card and Goldman agree that marriage is an insurance policy that totes a binding contract.  However, while Goldman suggests that the difficulty of divorce could lead to unfulfilled lives of those involved, Card is more specific about the negative effects of the inability to divorce. Because divorce is very expensive, many couples that should not for whatever reason be married, must remain so.  Couples that no longer love each other (or even those that –in the case of financial arrangements- realize they never loved each other at all) are given a clear incentive to continue participating in the construct. Couples who maintain unhealthy, abusive, or unstable relationships will be prevented from separating and moving on.

            After careful observation of all such patterns, Card and Goldman agree, if marriage is taken as an insurance policy, the price far outweighs the gain.

             

Simone Takes a Walk on the Wild Side; A Feminist Analysis of BDSM Relationships Through The Eyes of Simone de Beauvoir’s Woman In Love

What do Anastasia Steele, the Senator’s Wife, and men who employ female dominatrix, all have in common?  Simone de Beauvoir of course! Each of these figures adheres to de Beauvoir’s theory of the Woman In Love. As a feminist writing in the 1950’s, Simone de Beauvoir constructed her conception of the Woman In Love to explain the means by which women are objectified and oppressed in heterosexual relationships.  The Senator’s Wife assumes this position in the traditional sense of a 1950’s housewife, while Miss Steele does so by accepting the submissive role in a BDSM relationship. However, when a man accepts a submissive role by seeking out a dominatrix, his position constitutes the oppressed Woman In Love as well.

With a little male oppression mixed in, here and there, one might expect gendered inequality to balance out a little, Right?  So with the prominence of submissive men in mainstream media on the rise, why hasn’t our society experienced a modification to the patriarchal status quo? Although men who seek out submissive roles within BDSM relationships successfully assume de Beauvoir’s position of the Woman In Love, they do not contribute to modifying the parameters of gendered inequality. Because BDSM as an institution serves as a shelter for men who would have otherwise served as inversions of the status quo, it effectively negates any progression to gender equality these submissive inclinations may have encouraged.

…

When it comes to ripping apart existential cowards, Simon de Beauvoir doesn’t mess around. In her analysis of The Woman In Love, de Beauvoir mounts a scathing attack upon the women who so frequently fall victim to this androcentric construct.

De Beauvoir argues that androcentric conditioning leads women to believe that men are the ideal. When a woman is a young girl, she is taught that a man is synonymous with authority. She is taught to view him as the normal, the godly, or even as the divine. Meanwhile, women are lead to view them selves as the ‘other’. And they buy it! They accept their position as the deviant, in a society where male is the accepted ‘norm’. Born into communities where this construct is not only maintained, but also encouraged, women consent to their role as second-class citizens. 

In an attempt to align herself with the promoted ideal of her society, The Woman In Love will cleave to a man. She will attach herself to him in the hopes that his divinity may transfer to her though her worship of him.  In this way, the Woman In Love allows a man to constitute her entire identity. She cleaves to his transcendence in an effort to become one with it. For example, the woman who enters a party and introduces herself by saying,  “I’m Governor Patrick’s wife. How lovely to see this evening. The Governor is so glad you could make it.”  This example lives among countless others—the Dr.’s wife, the pastor’s wife, an entire community of army wives, even the First Lady for goodness sake! All of these women have one goal in mind: To become part of their man’s divine being; to pass through social acceptance by piggybacking on his paragon.

            However, the establishment of a man’s identity as her own, does not stop when a woman takes on her husband’s name.  The Woman In Love can be seen to espouse her husband’s entire point of view.  She will quite literally abandon all her own opinions, to make room for his. This absolute assumption of perspective includes the adoption of his hobbies, his political views, his interests—Even his taste in food or music!  Because the man constitutes her entire identity, The Woman In Love has no interests outside of her husband’s.

            The Woman In Love does not value herself. Instead, she values her man’s recognition. If the man states she is beautiful, then she may feel beautiful. If the man worships her, she may worship herself. However, she may only do so through his eyes. In this way, his very gaze ascribes her value.  Because The Woman In Love’s very being exists through the man, she feels as if she is literally nothing without this gaze. 

            This same male gaze establishes a woman as a sexual being. Because a woman would be socially debased for her independent enjoyment of her sexuality, she must deny this aspect of herself to maintain her respectability. She may not derive great pleasure from sex. She may however, derive pleasure from her husband’s sex. The Woman In Love may only enjoy her sexuality, through her husband’s enjoyment of her as his carnal object. By becoming an erotic object, used at the hands of her husband, the woman separates herself from her own sexual inclinations (and responsibility for such inclinations), and makes herself a tool for those of her husband.

            De Beauvoir argues that The Woman In Love accepts this male oppression in an effort to avoid her own existential responsibility. Because every individual possesses a radical freedom, one may make her own choices in life. However, if you are going to make your own choices, you are going to have to be responsible for them! De Beauvior claims, that this little fact causes the Woman In Love incessant anxiety. In fact, The Woman In Love dreads this responsibility so fervently, that she is willing to embrace her own subjugation to escape it.  De Beauvior continues that The Woman In Love is able to tolerate this androcentrism, because she genuinely prefers it to the possibility of facing her own imminence. Allowing her identity to be defined by another is far easier than establishing her own individuality. And so, The Woman In Love takes the easy road in life- first ascribing to the authority of her father, and then accepting the transcendence of her husband (once her father physically transfers her dependence when he “hands her away” at the alter). She is carried through life as an unaccountable parcel- happily tucked away beneath his arms. No choices to make, no opinions to define, no decisions to explain, and certainly, no inclinations to defend. And really, what could be simpler?

…

            While this chauvinistic construct is less prevalent today than in de Beauvoir’s day of 1949, The Woman in Love is still alive and well in modern society. The only difference is, today we call her a very kinky lady.  The modern institution of BDSM (bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism) offers a comfortable home for our existential cowards. BDSM is oriented around the eroticization of domination and submission. But guess who usually submits?  You got it: our Woman In Love.

In an online poll conducted by AcePolls in 2011, 500 women who regularly engaged in BDSM activities indicated their top/bottom preferences. An overwhelming 69% of women reported they highly preferred to be the submissive partner. That’s almost 7 out of 10 women!  Mind you, these ladies did not report which position they assumed most frequently, but which they preferred. Indicating their genuine attraction to relinquishing their autonomy and serving their man’s needs. So why is it that women are getting the shaft (pun intended) and then coming back for more?

            The answer rests in tradition. BDSM arrangements where the female submits, is not a fetish, or a kink, or a dirty little secret- it is simply custom. Women who seek out involvement in this institution inadvertently ascribe to de Beauvoir’s age-old construct of the Woman In Love. These relationships are not foreign or new, they are merely exaggerations of traditional spousal sex roles.  The women, who feel as if they have made an independent assertion of sexual preference, are no more than the product of years of androcentric conditioning.  Certainly Catherine MacKinnon agrees in her many appeals against pornography. MacKinnon argues that heterosexuality (an umbrella term which describes the orientation of pornography, BDSM, and traditional ‘vanilla’ sex) sexualizes power and inequality. She continues that heterosexuality is a construct dependent on male domination and female submission, so much so that anything seen as powerless is feminized and anything that is perceived as powerful is masculinized. MacKinnon claims that this construct has taught women to eroticize their weakness, and enjoy their submission because (as MacKinnon so gracefully puts it) “it beats being forced”. And thus, heterosexuality can be boiled down to a love of violation; A love of being objectified, over-powered, and penetrated.  And that’s just the vanilla sex!

Sound a bit over-bearing? Don’t be so quick to disagree— because recent polls of college-aged women will prove you wrong. In 2009 two psychologists at North Texas University asked a group of 355 young women if they had ever “fantasized about being overpowered/forced/raped by a man/woman to have oral/vaginal/anal sex against your will?”[1]  62% percent of them (that’s 220 young ladies who identify as having ‘vanilla’ sex lives) reported that they were not only familiar with these kinds of fantasies, but they experienced them regularly.  The psychologists responsible for this report make a note that even this number is likely to be below the accurate percentage, because many women feel ashamed or embarrassed to admit their true desires for erotic violation.  These women have been so absolutely conditioned to enjoy submission, that they feel it is their own original desire to experience such fantasies. But moving one step further, they feel as if these sexual desires (programmed into their heads by an chauvinistic community) are their own abnormal perversions.  Driven by shame, a woman will thus endeavor to keep her desires for violation secret from all those around her- apart from her man. As a result, the woman essentially hides her oppression from other women and enables her man to regularly violate her within their sexual encounters, without question or consequence.

Monopolizing on this prominent (although, admittedly messed up) desire amongst modern women is Miss Anastasia Steel.  As the main character of E L James’s erotic novel, 50 Shades of Grey, Miss Steele likely induced heart palpitations in every feminist in North America. The book details the love life of a naïve, virgin as she ventures into the world of BDSM with a ridiculously handsome and wealthy, older man.  Miss Steele’s position within this new relationship bears an uncanny resemblance to de Beauvoir’s Woman In Love.  While any BDSM relationship where the female partner submits, can fit comfortably into de Beauvoir’s construct, Miss Steele and her all-powerful Mr.Grey take her oppression to the next level. 

The eroticization of power and inequality in Miss Steele’s sex acts are flagrant; She is blindfolded, tied to objects, bound with ropes, subjected to pain, made to kneel before her partner, and acted upon as a sex object without any personal agency.  While these activities might seem nightmarish to an educated feminist like de Beauvoir, what one should find truly alarming, is the transcendence of these sex roles into the daily lives of the characters. In the book, Mr. Grey dictates every possible aspect of Miss Steele’s life. He denies her autonomy by dictating what car she can drive, which friends she may see, what job to accept (or not accept), and what food to eat (including how much and how often). He monitors her alcohol consumption, prohibits her drug use, and provides her medical attention only as he sees fit. Miss Steele is stripped of her agency, as she may not go anywhere without asking permission, and is never permitted to travel anywhere alone. However, the most egregious display of power an inequality comes when Mr. Grey forcibly positions Miss Steele over his knee, and proceeds to spank her as punishment for her insubordination of his authority. These daily acts of domination and degradation do not take place within a sexual context (i.e. the ‘red room’ where BDSM activities are actualized) however, as if to solidify the eroticization of Miss Steele’s oppression, she is kept in a near-constant state of arousal during her daily activities, as Mr. Grey carries her through life as his pretty, little, carnal object.

Perhaps the most frightful aspect of the novel is it’s overwhelming popularity amongst modern, educated, women. Published in 2011, the book sold more than 70 million copies worldwide. While BDSM relationships oriented around female submission have worked for years to maintain the Woman In Love, the mainstream break-through of 50 Shades of Grey is now promoting and idealizing de Beauvoir’s construct of female oppression, on a mass scale.  As the next generation of women move into their sexuality, they are handed this ‘girl porn’, and taught to get turned-on when a man takes away their power. De Beauvoir would throw up. The overwhelming popularity of a book that essentially advertises oppression as a penthouse suite, unlimited cash, and a Greek-God boyfriend, has put us right back where de Beauvoir started in 1949!  

…

…Or has it?  Beginning around 2000, heterosexual men begin popping-up as BDSM submissives in mainstream media outlets.  Popular television shows including CSI, Nip/Tuck, Desperate Housewives, and House, have all featured powerful, female, characters dominating and inflicting pain upon their male submissives. In each case, the show features an episode where a very powerful man who, despite having a ‘vanilla’ sex life with his wife, seeks out a female master- or more appropriately, ‘mistress’- to exercise her supremacy over him.  Interestingly, the motivation to acquire such a relationship is the common denominator between all four men in the above examples. That motivation is the desire to temporarily displace their existential responsibility. In a poignant line from Bob Easton, the male submissive character featured in Nip/Tuck, this desire is explained: “All day long, I’m the one with the control, the power. Once a week, Mistress Dark Pain takes it all away from me. Sometimes twice a week during Oscar season. It restores the balance, Ya know?”[2]

This representation of male submission in mainstream television reflects a growing movement of men who seek out eroticized female domination, invert the heterosexual status quo, and assume the position of de Beauvoir’s Woman In Love— all in the name of avoiding their existential responsibility. 

Male submissives in BDSM relationships assume the Woman In Love position by allowing his partner to define his identity, viewing his mistress as divine, asking his partner to dictate his value, and by viewing himself an object belonging to his ‘Domme’ (Domme and Sub are the colloquial terms used within the BDSM community to identify dominant or submissive individuals respectively). 

In a BDSM relationship, roles, titles, and names are used to dictate the identity and position of those involved. However, it is the Domme’s responsibility to choose a name for both herself, and her submissive. Generally, a Domme will maintain one title and name throughout her various BDSM relationships. However, the naming of a submissive is undertaken by the Domme at the beginning of each individual BDSM arrangement and marks a significant point in the relationship for both partners. The naming of any object traditionally constitutes ownership (such was true when I named my childhood hamster, and also, when Adam famously named each biblical animal of the earth) However, more than just establishing ownership, the female Domme defines her Sub’s entire identity based on the name she chooses. She names her Sub in correspondence with how she expects him to behave within the relationship. In this way, the Domme not only dictates her Sub’s identity and personality, but she defines the identity of the relationship itself.

The name chosen for a submissive partner generally indicates the lowliness of the position. They include examples such as, slave, toy, pet, doll etc.  These names seem inescapably tied to the establishment of the submissive, as an object belonging his Domme. To further solidify the objectification of the submissive partner, these names are generally rejected as proper nouns and will not be capitalized in written correspondences. The male submissive enjoys this, and expresses his desires to be used as an object for the enjoyment of his Domme. The male submissive finds erotic pleasure when he is objectified and stripped of his agency.  Sound familiar? That’s probably because the male submissive strives to become the carnal object of his Domme, just as fiercely as our dear old, Woman In Love strives to become such for her husband.

Meanwhile, the Domme’s chosen name establishes her absolute divinity within the relationship. Not only because she has named herself, but also due to the title she selects. The most common female Domme titles seem to be Goddess, Mistress, or Princess. Often these titles are followed by a personally selected ‘Domme name’. For example, Goddess Athena or Princess Pain, or anything that the Domme feels reflects her personality. However, this kind of personal expression is a privilege unavailable to the Sub.  Domme names indicate positions of authority and are always capitalized. The Domme plays the role of the ideal, or the norm, while her Sub serves as her ‘other’.  Thus, the male submissive aligns himself with the Woman In Love again by accepting his oppression based on a belief that he is fundamentally inferior to his partner.    

The male submissive finalizes his emulation of the Woman In Love by allowing his partner to both grant and define his personal sense of value.  As a result, the male submissive may only value himself to the extent that his Domme values him as her object. The Domme must give her Sub direct permission to feel any given emotion before he may do so. The Domme constantly manipulates her Sub’s value because the male submissive derives erotic enjoyment in his belief that he only qualifies as a valuable being, because he is a valuable servant to his Domme.

…

But if the Woman In Love has essentially become synonymous with the man in chains, what does that mean for our heterosexual status quo?  What implications does this male movement into submissive BDSM roles, hold for the parameters of our androcentric society? Upon first glace, this tendency appears to be de Beauvoir’s dream.

These submissive men have effectively rejected the tradition which raised them- which raised every single one of their forefathers as well. By refusing to partake in MacKinnon’s understanding of heterosexuality, these individuals have personally rejected the sexual objectification their female partners. As a result, they may begin to modify and balance the status quo to create an environment of greater equality.

Furthermore, if this male tendency as a whole, was to gain support and develop into an identifiable social phenomenon, its impact could bring about significant social change. Heterosexual male solidarity around the issue of erotic male submission, could allow for greater equality for women during sexual encounters, but more importantly, such solidarity could transcend this equality to society as a whole and work against the social oppression of women generally.

Talk about a threat to the misogynistic pigs of America!  Fortunately for the well being of chauvinism, this solidarity is not the reality.  Because these individuals operate as submissive men only within the institution of BDSM, any forward movement towards gender equality is negated.  There is no male solidarity for sexual submission; there is no Harley Davidson biker on a soapbox proclaiming, “I like it on the bottom!”— there is only the kinky, and secret world of BDSM relationships.

The dark, private, taboo, ‘kinky’ world of BDSM allows men to explore their submissive desires while entirely hidden from their heterosexual society. By engaging with a dominant mistress (who often doubles as a traditional mistress with whom the man commits infidelity) a man is able to actualize his submissive fantasies under the protection of the BDSM institution for a period of time, before returning to his androcentric community. As a result, a man is able to temporarily avoid the existential responsibilities of his ‘normal’ life, before resuming his heterosexual role in a ‘vanilla’ relationship.

What is more, the inclusion of male submission within the institution of BDSM, positions the men who desire such encounters as ‘kinky’ or perverted.  The Merriam-Webster definition for the word ‘kinky’ is, “bizarre or unconventional sexual preferences or behavior”.  BDSM thereby maintains male submission as incorrect, or unusual sexual behavior. MacKinnon would be fuming.

But what is to be done about these interloping submissives? How should feminist philosophers respond to the man who schedules weekly meetings with Mistress Dark Pain, serves her on his knees for an hour, and then expects his wife to have dinner on the table when he gets home? Should his desires still be supported if they only reject female oppression coincidentally?  Even de Beauvoir might be stumped on this one.

In the end, I would urge every philosopher with a vested interest in gender equality to full-heartedly reject the institution of BDSM in every aspect of its being. BDSM exists as an institution that maintains and perpetuates heterosexual society, and thereby, female oppression and objectification.  When the woman assumes the submissive role in a BDSM encounter, the institution enforces de Beauvoir’s construct of the Woman In Love.  When the man assumes the submissive role in a BDSM encounter, the institution still enforces de Beauvoir’s construct!  BDSM shelters the submissive man’s true desires and hides his submission from society. BDSM itself therefore, allows a man to experience erotic submission without disrupting the status quo in any way, thereby protecting and perpetuating a misogynistic and oppressive society. 

Although BDSM has been exposed as merely appearing to progress the goals of gender equality, one should not look negatively upon submissive males as individuals.  The desires harbored by such men, genuinely invert the heterosexual status quo. Male submissives should therefore, be individually supported in their sexual desires and encouraged to incorporate their submissive inclinations into more traditional relationships.  Only when male desires for submission are removed from the context of BDSM, will they be effective in modifying the existing conditions of gendered inequality.

While I doubt de Beauvoir would be pleased with the development of BDSM or the influx of existential cowards in our midst, she would be pleased to know her fight for gender equality has not been forgotten. The very application of her dated arguments to modern issues proves this. The simple awareness of various institutions and media outlets as androcentric, leads a well-reasoned mind to avoid them, and helps progress de Beauvoir’s 50-year-old struggle.  Now all we need to do is find a way to make The Second Sex as popular as 50 Shades of Grey!

WORKS CITED

Bivona, J. and J. Critelli. "The Nature of Women's Rape Fantasies: An Analysis of Prevalence, Frequency, and Contents," Journal of Sex Research (2009) 46:33)

De Beauvoir, Simone. The Woman In Love from The Second Sex 1949

James, EL. 50 Shades of Grey, 2011

MacKinnon, Catherine. Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech from Pornography and Civil Rights: A New Day for Women's Equality (1988)

Murphy, Ryan. Nip/Tuck Season 5 Episode 1 Carley Sommers. N.d. Television.

"Your Kink of Choice." ACEpolls, n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.

I Was Just Walking Down The Street One Day, When I Tripped, and Fell into Love!; Merton, Sartre, and de Beauvior Criticize The Avoidance of Existential Responsibility

     Merton, Sartre, and de Beauvior are three existential philosophers who criticize our social tendency to avoid taking existential responsibility at all costs. Merton begins this criticism with a scathing attack on the very language we use to describe love. Merton exposes the phase, “I fell in love” as complete bullshit. The implications of such an utterance are clear, love is described like and accident, as if you had tripped on something and tumbled into a foreign world. Falling in love is described as if the lover was just walking down the street one day, minding her own business, and then BAM! Love jumps out from behind a fire hydrant and smacks you in the face with a frying pan. Good god, that couldn’t have been your fault.  

This phrase “falling in love” views love as a choice you didn’t get to make. It paints love as an assault, a rampage, a kidnapping. We allow our language to carry the weight of our existential responsibility so we don’t have to take ownership of our feelings. A lack of personal responsibility is engrained in the very description of love. Interestingly, this manipulation of language as a means of avoidance of culpability extends from the initiation of love, into the experience of it. Have you ever heard the Beyonce song, Crazy in Love ? In the chorus she croons a common phrase: Im crazy in love. This choice of language has the same motives as ‘falling in love’. By allowing love to appear as a consuming, controlling force, we eliminate the responsibility for our actions within a loving relationship. We talk about the lover as if he were a drug addict- so overwhelmed with foreign influence that he has gone completely mad- able to see his actions but helpless to stop them.

While Merton thinks we avoid responsibility by allowing language to carry the weight, de Beauvior claims that women have figured out unique ways to avoid such, by allowing their men to carry the weight. de Beauvior claims that women are first conditioned into an androcentric world- they are taught to believe men are more capable than themselves. As they become adults, and move away from the parents who controlled their liberty, they face the overwhelming fear of ‘taking the reins’ of their lives. Wracked with anxiety, these women find means of avoiding existential responsibility in the social convention of love. They gravitate towards the strong, almost divine, male figure they have been raised to revere. Women crave male authority to shield them from their own liberty. To accomplish this, women tuck away their liberty and self-identity behind the husband figure. Women assume the identity of their men (The first lady, Mrs. Dr. Johnson, the army wife, the list goes on). This kind of woman abandons her hobbies and picks up those of her husband. She does not formulate ideas; she simply repeats those that her husband told her. She has no political opinions outside of her husband, nor interests, nor value, nor anything at all for that matter. She exists entirely within him. And doesn’t that just sound lovely. How relaxing to never have to make any bothersome choices like what you believe or who you are.

To a modern and educated woman this prospect is repulsive and disgusting. But to the existentially anxious woman, it’s far better than taking responsibility. Thus, these women accept their oppression in order to remain warm and cozy behind their man, and only just out of reach of liberty’s influence.  Woman live vicariously through their husbands, even their love for themselves comes through his eyes. In this way, she can attribute her every action and behavior to her husband’s decisions. Her beliefs, her religion, her mood, her life, all become his responsibility.

Finally, Sartre chimes in and states his belief that not just women, but every human, longs to dump their responsibility onto the shoulders of other people. Sartre claims that we are desperate to have our own self-identity defined by the recognition of others.  Sartre argues that the only true constraint of our radical freedoms (and therefore existential responsibility) comes from the radical freedoms of those around us. We desperately try to skirt our own freedom, by assuming the opinions others have of us. Sartre says we want to be judged by others, we want the recognition of another to define how we see ourselves. In this way, we are able to see ourselves through the eyes of another, but are never forced to take responsibility for the creation of our identity- its been done for us. For example, in Sartre’s critical play No Exit, the character Garcin is desperate to hear Inez tell him he is courageous. He believes that if a woman whom he considers to be radically free, tells him he is courageous, then he will be. However, when given the opportunity to make a radical choice to define himself as courageous, he is too afraid to claim it. Garcin would prefer to live within the unflattering recognition of another person, than to live with a self-conception of his identity and take responsibility for his liberty.

These three authors attack various conventions (mainly love) that enable us to ‘unload’ responsibility for ourselves.  Certainly, all three would agree that conventions are the paradise of the weak- a beautiful world of familiar, pre-defined roles we can slip ourselves right into, with no explanations needed.  There is no need to think or develop one’s own motivations. No need to define yourself- everyone has done it for you; they heard that story before.  

Narcissism, Need, and Dissatisfaction; Merton and Franzen Tag-Team an Era of Consumerist Culture

      Jonathan Franzen was not the first philosopher to take a crack at the cultural catastrophe that is Facebook, but Thomas Merton might have been. Writing in the 70’s, Merton developed a theory he called “the package concept of love”.  However, forty years later, Franzen proves that Merton’s argument still rings true- to a frightening degree. Additionally, modern technological consumerism has risen to, and indeed exceeded, the dangers expressed in Merton’s original concept. In a comparison of Merton’s Love and Need: Is Love a Package or a Message? and Franzen’s Liking is for Cowards. Go for What Hurts, startling similarities can be seen between the two works, despite the four decades of history and social development between them. Both authors make arguments against consumerism and paint it as a harshly negative influence on our modern conceptions of what love is. Focusing specifically on the pitfalls brought on by need, narcissism, and perpetual dissatisfaction, the Merton-Franzen dream-team attempts to save us from the dangers of adopting attitudes of consumerism into our love affairs.

            To warn us of a misconception of love (brought on by the belief that love should complete us in some way, or offer us some necessary, and missing, component of ourselves) Franzen offers a comparison to modern technological consumerism.  He claims that technology strives to create a world so perfectly respondent to our spontaneous desires, that our devices become an extension of ourselves. For example, an IPhone has become so attuned to our needs, that many perceive their phone’s ability to find and provide information from the Internet, as a representation of their own intelligence; a fulfillment of a part of self they didn’t quite have before. Franzen claims we have grown to expect this from both our technology and our lovers. Our modern relationship with technological consumerism has conditioned us to view our lovers as agents of wish fulfillment. Merton seems to agree, claiming that we charge into love with a conception of massive personal need and an expectation that this need will be fulfilled. After all, Merton says, this is what consumerism has taught us to demand. Both authors chastise our treatment of lovers, as we expect them to perceive, respond to, and satisfy our needs instantly, with unwavering consistency. In this way, we accept our lovers into our own self-identity, just as a puzzle accepts its last piece. We expect them to be the completion of our whole- the missing aspect of our full being.

            Franzen argues (and Merton agrees) that this approach to love is born out of an immature, and often regressive, commitment to narcissism. If Merton thought our society had problems with narcissism in the 70’s, he would have a hernia upon the discovery of Facebook and it’s societal effects.  Dubbing the social media website as little more than a “flattering hall of mirrors”, Franzen berates Facebook as the champion of narcissism. He claims that modern society has used the platform as a means of self-commodification. We use our Facebook profiles to present ourselves as the most attractive product possible. For example, many young women at my high school had the habit of attending parties and social gatherings simply because they knew the pictures of such a gathering would find their way onto Facebook. These young ladies posed for pictures all-night and cried “FACEBOOK!” in unison with each camera flash, in order to add value to their ‘package’. Being tagged on Facebook as attending parties with upperclassmen, made them seem more attractive in the vicious hierarchy of high school popularity. Our profile becomes our market in which we sell our wares. In a market so saturated with advertising, narcissism is not just promoted and enabled, its demanded. Merton identifies this behavior and points out the slippery slope of vanity.  He warns that is it very easy to become consumed with your own self-image; obsessed with the value of your own product. As we become blinded by our own profiles and grow increasingly devoted to the maintenance of our own beloved images, we slowly replace our capacity for love, with self-interest. Narcissism inhibits an authentic and joyous life because it is not possible to make a genuine connection with a lover while harboring such extreme levels of vanity and self-obsession.

            Encouraged by consumerism to set and hold exceptionally high expectations, we become victim to severe dissatisfaction. The IPhone is never moody. It’s not temperamental. It does not annoy or frustrate you, but most importantly, it never disobeys your desires. Franzen claims that technology is not ugly, it is not flawed, and it never displays unattractive attitudes.  And if it does, you get rid of it. You march yourself down to the Apple store and tell the sales associate that your device is not, in fact, providing a magical, dream-like, fantasy experience. And you know happens? They give you another one. If you have apple care, they will send you home with a brand-new, shiny device in your pocket that day.  This is the attitude we have adopted with our lovers. Our entitled expectation for the fulfillment of our respective love-fantasies by our lovers, leads us to inevitable and perpetual dissatisfaction when we open our eyes and discover we are dating an inherently fallible human being- A being who farts in the bed and never cleans the dishes and cuts his toe nails on the carpet. We think to ourselves, “This is not what I signed up for” and the next day we have reopened our love-market stalls and rearranged our wares in an especially attractive manner.  Merton thinks that the complete saturation of our society in idealized advertising and media, keeps us feeling incredibly dissatisfied with the inadequate fulfillment we feel we are receiving. And he’s right. Forty years after Merton’s initial warning, and our society is still struggling just to understand the meaning of authentic love, let alone be satisfied with it.

            So where’s the moral? Where’s the button to eject us from this warped world of consumeristic love?  Merton and Franzen agree, that escape is in the love and worship of the lover. Characterized by Merton as “a sacrifice” love necessitates a certain relinquishment of self in order to experience it fully. One must let go of a part of ones self in order to experience the joys and despairs of another, as one’s own. This transformation, says the dream-team, is authentic love. Franzen makes this point quite poetically in saying that love is infinite compassion born out of the personal epiphany that another individual is just as real and important as you are. When we approach love in this way, we do not think only of our own needs and fulfillment, but of how the partnership with the lover can provide growth and happiness for each. We are distracted from our general narcissism by the specific importance and inherent beauty of our lover. Once we discard expectations of perfection and fantasy, we can no longer fall prey to discontentment. Once one learns to embrace empathy, one learns to see themselves and their lover as inherently valuable. The need to present one’s self a product in order to maintain value, dissipates. 

Love Will Set You Free… And Grant You Immortality?

      That’s right, folks! Step right up and get your Immortality elixir here! Available for a limited time only, this one-of-a-kind product was invented by the great Plato himself folks! Its easy, its cheap, and its forever! All you have to do is pay a small one-time fee, give birth in beauty, and you are guaranteed eternal, divine existence or your money back!   

While Plato did not impersonate a street vendor to sell his friends on the connections of love and immortality, he did provide a very effective sales pitch for love in his Symposium via the exploits of Socrates.

Plato believed that wisdom and knowledge were the most divine qualities an individual could pursue, as these attributes allowed the individual to ‘turn off’ the influence of their physical body and rise to a level closer to the gods.  One means by which the citizens (men) of Athens achieved such exalted wisdom was by engaging in paiderastic relationships with older, more established members of the community. Thus, wisdom is found through love, and divinity is found through wisdom. But when Diotema asks Socrates what one desires when one loves, he did not reply, ‘wisdom’, instead he replies: Immortality. Socrates claims love yearns for a union with the divine, or the ideal, in the eternal. In this way, love becomes a means to immortality.

            As Plato fleshes out this theory, he provides a divergence of different forms of love, as well as corresponding forms of immortality for each respectively.

The first form of immortality granted by love is described by Plato to be that of heterosexual love.  This love is purely of the body and of a woman. Due to paiderastic ideals in Athens, this form of love was often seen as base and dense. This form of love was not seen to support divine wisdom, as it tied the individual to the physical body. Also of the physical, is the form of immortality attained from heterosexual love: babies.  After a man dies, his children will live on and carry with them, his name, his memory and his DNA. Diotema claims that the process of reproduction is the way in which mortal creatures share in some immortality. However, Diotema continues on to define a more valuable form of immortality: immortality of ideas. She states, that some individuals have the ability to ‘give birth’ to mental offspring, such as art, poetry, laws, philosophy, virtue or (most importantly) wisdom. Here, Diotema outlines Plato’s ideal form of love: Love of the beauty of knowledge.  To achieve this form of love, a man must dedicate his life to the attainment of wisdom and virtue. Plato describes a wise man be mentally pregnant with ideas. The children of this pregnancy are born from the application of his wisdom. They exist in the public works of beauty created, and left behind, by the parent. For example, the famous poet Homer left behind ‘children’ in his poems. These children hold the highest degree of immortality because they will survive much longer and influence many more citizens, than any physical child could.  Certainly Plato has proven that philosophical contributions to society warrant immortal remembrance, simply by the fact that we know his works and his name.  As a result, “giving birth in beauty” is not only the divine and virtuous process of contributing knowledge to the eternal public, but the key to immortality.