“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment