I'm only storing it on here because I have no disk to save it to (PHIL-essay)
Joshua Hales
Professor Hill
PHIL-240
March 23, 2005
Exam 2
Sandra Lee Bartky, in her article “Feminine Masochism and the Politics of Personal Transformation”, addresses the problem that lies inherent within all people who are both sexual and moral beings. The main question she poses, in consideration of this problem, is “how or should one reconcile one’s desires if they obviously contradict one’s principles?” When a person has socially deviant sexual desires that are too pervasive to ignore or simply give up on, and when society as a whole has principles about morality within sexuality that contradict those desires, then this person can easily become alienated from both the society and themselves.
This is an increasingly important question to ask in this new age of politically personal laws. The legislative bodies, on seemingly every level, have been pushing for more control over the personal lives of its constituents. This would obviously include their sexual life. This trend is seen in the recent state proposal disallowing homosexual marriage, which was passed in almost every state. For those who fight for sexual liberation of all people, like many feminist groups, there is an even greater need to adopt a stronger forum for sexuality in politics.
This cannot, however, be limited to only those who have desires that fit with the traditional feminist theories about sex. One example that Bartky uses is sadomasochistic sex. She defines this as an “eroticization of relations of domination and submission” (Bartky, 520). Throughout her article, Bartky uses the example of a woman (P.) who has strong sadomasochistic fantasies and desires, but also is a strong feminist. This is not a completely rare case, as Bartky points to the fact that 25% of all women who have sexual fantasies have fantasies about being raped. Victim situations are sexually appealing for many women, and are evident in the romance novel business, along with other forms of media. However, the contradiction is apparent. Many feminists believe that these kinds of practices are a startling example of male oriented and male centered sex. Because of this, P. would have a hard time aligning her feminist views with her seemingly innate desires.
One individual solution to P.’s problem is to keep the desire and stop being ashamed. If she does this, she will have supporters special to her case. Samois, a sadomasochistic organization for women, would argue that P.’s sexual freedom is a civil right and an intrinsic good. They would also say that feminism is repressing sexuality and perpetuating the tradition of sexual shame by discouraging sadomasochism, and that this kind of thinking is endangering to the women’s movement as a whole. Even if this thinking is enough to convince P. to express her desires, it doesn’t solve the contradiction problem, where she is split between desires and principles. This is inadequate.
The second individual solution to her problem is to change her desire. P. could easily go to many therapists and still not receive a change of desire. Bartky believes that this is because of sex-prints. Sex-prints are the sexual fingerprints which every person is born with. It is displayed within the sexual desire, fantasy and practice of all people. Bartky explains that it is nonsense to go on believing that one can change their sex-prints, and still remain happy and united. Sexually deviant desire and action are on this form of identity, and every person must adhere to this if they want to live a completely honest sex life.
So if one cannot individually give up their desires, or the shame that society places upon it, then the person must try to change society. Bartky explains that there needs to first be a revolution within feminist thinking, to bring a united feminist body who believes that sex-prints cannot be changed. Only after this, can well-developed theory cause political change, and therefore change the society as a whole. None of this will come easy.
Mercedes Steedman, author of the article, “Who’s on Top? Heterosexual Practices and Male Dominance During the Sex Act,” brings up much reason why it is oppressive for women to engage in the submissive role during sex, which is brought to the extreme in sadomasochism. She argues that both men and women accept the fact that women’s sexuality and femininity hinge on whether or not she is submissive or receptive. Men, because they are the dominant ones within society, are easily the more aggressive ones in the bedroom. Women are taking a huge risk to be the one who initiates sexual activity, because many are still economically dependant upon their husband or boyfriend. Steedman also brings up how pornography, which is mostly directed toward men, portrays women as whores who seem to always want sex, they just need a man to ask them. Sadomasochism is also portrayed heavily in pornography, and the aggressive one is most often the male. This line of thinking is against Bartky’s push for allowing this certain sexual behavior.
In regard to this, Bartky would most likely agree with how oppressive aggressive/dominant sex roles can be for women. She would definitely attest that sex should not be this way for the entire population. But for those who have the sexual desire of sadomasochism in their sex-print, this is the right way for them. Not only should they be allowed to participate in this kind of sex act, but they should not have to deny all their feminist principles to do it. Steedman is a good example of the feminist thought that discourages women from being submissive. Bartky says that it should not frown upon those women, as long as they choose to be that way. Bartky is here agreeing that no woman should be kept pigeonholed in sex, whether they are naturally aggressive and kept submissive, or naturally submissive and kept aggressive.
Robert Nozick, author of “Sexuality”, writes of an objective optimal sex for all people. He sees lovers as in a dialogue together, or as two musicians creating a harmony. In his version, there can be no dominance by either partner. Even when they began to get more physical and “ferocious”, no person is dominating the other. Nozick would be greatly opposed to allowing sadomasochism, as it is very oppressive and victimizing toward one party over the other. This does not fall in line with his idea of optimal sex, and should therefore not be pursued. Nozick would probably not disagree with the fact that it should be allowed, as he seems to be a supporter of sexual freedom, but he would see it as an avenue that is not worth going down.
Bartky would explain to Nozick that there is no objective optimal sex. Each person’s sex-prints allows for their own version of optimal sex, which is completely unique to themselves. Perhaps for P., Bartky’s example woman, this is sex where she is seemingly victimized and sexually abused by the dominant male. This could be optimal in her view, while Nozick would say that it is no where near a good sex act.
I do not agree with Bartky’s solution. This is mainly because the idea of a sex-print seems very peculiar and dangerous. If one cannot change their own sexual identity at all, then some problems seem apparent. Primarily, there would be many sorts of extremely deviant acts that would be allowed, simply because the person somehow knows what their sex-print is telling them. For example, a pedophile may make the claim that from the time of puberty, they have always wanted to have sex with those much younger than them. It seems as though no legislative body would allow him to express himself in this way. If they did, they would be impeding upon the rights of the child who was the pedophile’s desire. However, a more sexually free society would certainly admit that only living in fantasies and desires would limit his own sexual fulfillment, something that Bartky seems to find highly important in everyone’s lives. Disallowing him to act out his fantasies, yet approving and allowing of other deviant acts is very inconsistent.
I do not believe that there should be more sexual freedom, in Bartky’s sense. Promiscuity may be in someone’s sex-print, but it has been proven over and over that stable, monogamous relationships are much better for society than promiscuous kinds. Even though there seems to be no real way to enforce monogamy, nor am I saying that we should start thinking of some, there are real ways to encourage it. Within the school systems, there lies an endless amount of ways to socialize children toward monogamy.
Professor Hill
PHIL-240
March 23, 2005
Exam 2
Sandra Lee Bartky, in her article “Feminine Masochism and the Politics of Personal Transformation”, addresses the problem that lies inherent within all people who are both sexual and moral beings. The main question she poses, in consideration of this problem, is “how or should one reconcile one’s desires if they obviously contradict one’s principles?” When a person has socially deviant sexual desires that are too pervasive to ignore or simply give up on, and when society as a whole has principles about morality within sexuality that contradict those desires, then this person can easily become alienated from both the society and themselves.
This is an increasingly important question to ask in this new age of politically personal laws. The legislative bodies, on seemingly every level, have been pushing for more control over the personal lives of its constituents. This would obviously include their sexual life. This trend is seen in the recent state proposal disallowing homosexual marriage, which was passed in almost every state. For those who fight for sexual liberation of all people, like many feminist groups, there is an even greater need to adopt a stronger forum for sexuality in politics.
This cannot, however, be limited to only those who have desires that fit with the traditional feminist theories about sex. One example that Bartky uses is sadomasochistic sex. She defines this as an “eroticization of relations of domination and submission” (Bartky, 520). Throughout her article, Bartky uses the example of a woman (P.) who has strong sadomasochistic fantasies and desires, but also is a strong feminist. This is not a completely rare case, as Bartky points to the fact that 25% of all women who have sexual fantasies have fantasies about being raped. Victim situations are sexually appealing for many women, and are evident in the romance novel business, along with other forms of media. However, the contradiction is apparent. Many feminists believe that these kinds of practices are a startling example of male oriented and male centered sex. Because of this, P. would have a hard time aligning her feminist views with her seemingly innate desires.
One individual solution to P.’s problem is to keep the desire and stop being ashamed. If she does this, she will have supporters special to her case. Samois, a sadomasochistic organization for women, would argue that P.’s sexual freedom is a civil right and an intrinsic good. They would also say that feminism is repressing sexuality and perpetuating the tradition of sexual shame by discouraging sadomasochism, and that this kind of thinking is endangering to the women’s movement as a whole. Even if this thinking is enough to convince P. to express her desires, it doesn’t solve the contradiction problem, where she is split between desires and principles. This is inadequate.
The second individual solution to her problem is to change her desire. P. could easily go to many therapists and still not receive a change of desire. Bartky believes that this is because of sex-prints. Sex-prints are the sexual fingerprints which every person is born with. It is displayed within the sexual desire, fantasy and practice of all people. Bartky explains that it is nonsense to go on believing that one can change their sex-prints, and still remain happy and united. Sexually deviant desire and action are on this form of identity, and every person must adhere to this if they want to live a completely honest sex life.
So if one cannot individually give up their desires, or the shame that society places upon it, then the person must try to change society. Bartky explains that there needs to first be a revolution within feminist thinking, to bring a united feminist body who believes that sex-prints cannot be changed. Only after this, can well-developed theory cause political change, and therefore change the society as a whole. None of this will come easy.
Mercedes Steedman, author of the article, “Who’s on Top? Heterosexual Practices and Male Dominance During the Sex Act,” brings up much reason why it is oppressive for women to engage in the submissive role during sex, which is brought to the extreme in sadomasochism. She argues that both men and women accept the fact that women’s sexuality and femininity hinge on whether or not she is submissive or receptive. Men, because they are the dominant ones within society, are easily the more aggressive ones in the bedroom. Women are taking a huge risk to be the one who initiates sexual activity, because many are still economically dependant upon their husband or boyfriend. Steedman also brings up how pornography, which is mostly directed toward men, portrays women as whores who seem to always want sex, they just need a man to ask them. Sadomasochism is also portrayed heavily in pornography, and the aggressive one is most often the male. This line of thinking is against Bartky’s push for allowing this certain sexual behavior.
In regard to this, Bartky would most likely agree with how oppressive aggressive/dominant sex roles can be for women. She would definitely attest that sex should not be this way for the entire population. But for those who have the sexual desire of sadomasochism in their sex-print, this is the right way for them. Not only should they be allowed to participate in this kind of sex act, but they should not have to deny all their feminist principles to do it. Steedman is a good example of the feminist thought that discourages women from being submissive. Bartky says that it should not frown upon those women, as long as they choose to be that way. Bartky is here agreeing that no woman should be kept pigeonholed in sex, whether they are naturally aggressive and kept submissive, or naturally submissive and kept aggressive.
Robert Nozick, author of “Sexuality”, writes of an objective optimal sex for all people. He sees lovers as in a dialogue together, or as two musicians creating a harmony. In his version, there can be no dominance by either partner. Even when they began to get more physical and “ferocious”, no person is dominating the other. Nozick would be greatly opposed to allowing sadomasochism, as it is very oppressive and victimizing toward one party over the other. This does not fall in line with his idea of optimal sex, and should therefore not be pursued. Nozick would probably not disagree with the fact that it should be allowed, as he seems to be a supporter of sexual freedom, but he would see it as an avenue that is not worth going down.
Bartky would explain to Nozick that there is no objective optimal sex. Each person’s sex-prints allows for their own version of optimal sex, which is completely unique to themselves. Perhaps for P., Bartky’s example woman, this is sex where she is seemingly victimized and sexually abused by the dominant male. This could be optimal in her view, while Nozick would say that it is no where near a good sex act.
I do not agree with Bartky’s solution. This is mainly because the idea of a sex-print seems very peculiar and dangerous. If one cannot change their own sexual identity at all, then some problems seem apparent. Primarily, there would be many sorts of extremely deviant acts that would be allowed, simply because the person somehow knows what their sex-print is telling them. For example, a pedophile may make the claim that from the time of puberty, they have always wanted to have sex with those much younger than them. It seems as though no legislative body would allow him to express himself in this way. If they did, they would be impeding upon the rights of the child who was the pedophile’s desire. However, a more sexually free society would certainly admit that only living in fantasies and desires would limit his own sexual fulfillment, something that Bartky seems to find highly important in everyone’s lives. Disallowing him to act out his fantasies, yet approving and allowing of other deviant acts is very inconsistent.
I do not believe that there should be more sexual freedom, in Bartky’s sense. Promiscuity may be in someone’s sex-print, but it has been proven over and over that stable, monogamous relationships are much better for society than promiscuous kinds. Even though there seems to be no real way to enforce monogamy, nor am I saying that we should start thinking of some, there are real ways to encourage it. Within the school systems, there lies an endless amount of ways to socialize children toward monogamy.