The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality - Parts I and II

[dan_edge]

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Following are the first two parts of a six-part essay on the psycho-epistemology of sexuality. I will try to post the next four parts over the next four weeks, and then publish a complete, edited version of the paper a few weeks later. I am open to feedback on the separate sections and will answer questions as they arise, but I intend to execute the original outline as planned. This paper is as much for writing practice as it is for philosophical exploration. Critiques of writing style and editorial suggestions are also welcome.

THE PSYCHO-EPISTEMOLOGY OF SEXUALITY

Introduction

To the men: Imagine standing next to your ideal lover, looking into her eyes, wrapping your arms around her, picking her up in the air, and kissing her deeply. To the women: imagine being the one desired, lifted, and kissed. These are the moments when one has a deep experience of his sexuality. They are the times when you love being a man, and love reveling in your masculinity. Almost all of us have felt this way at some point.

But where does this feeling come from? Man generally derives pleasure from the achievement of values. What values are achieved in the act of kissing a lover? If there is a set of (philosophical) values shared between two lovers, then love-making can be a celebration of those values. But one also experiences a pleasure that is related directly to his gender. When a man picks a woman up off the floor and kisses her, he not only experiences his lover as a valuable human being, but as a valuable woman. And by reflection, he experiences his man-ness as a value.

There is a set of traits that are considered masculine, and a separate set of traits that are considered feminine. Most men are proud of their masculine traits, play them up, and act to gain additional masculine traits (like lifting weights to gain bigger biceps). Women do the same with feminine traits (like getting manicures). Men and women generally treat expressions of sexuality as a value.

If a value is "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" (Rand, Atlas Shrugged), then in what way can one's gender be considered a value? Certainly it is no more valuable to be a man or a woman. Men and woman are completely equal from an ethical standpoint. From this perspective, it would appear that experiencing one's gender as a value is irrational.

Some have argued that masculinity and femininity are culturally based. Men have traditionally opened doors for ladies, so over the years this has become a "masculine" act. This would imply that the pleasurable experience of sexuality is based on irrational premises left unchecked in the subconscious. Masculinity and femininity become a psychological disease, disseminated through osmosis from the culture. If this is the case, then the rational man should stamp out any hint of so-called "masculinity" in his psyche, and strive for a "gender neutral" image of self.

If the man (or woman) inside of you emphatically rejects this conclusion, then I agree completely. This is an appropriate reaction to an absurd conclusion.

In this paper, I will argue that it is valid to value one's gender and other individuating elements of self that are morally optional. I will argue that the experience of sexuality is a natural, rational result of man's physiological and psychological makeup. Finally, I will explain why sexuality is experienced most deeply in the context of a romantic love relationship.

Individuating Elements of Self - The Shower Principle

I contend that it is rational to value individuating elements of self. An individuating element of self is an aspect of one's self, physical or mental, that makes an individual unique. This includes both the particulars of one's body (like facial structure, skin tone, or hair color) and the particulars of one's personality (like sense of humor, taste in music, or personal style).

That one values individuating elements of self is evident through introspection. I value my face because it is my face; I value my voice because it is my voice; I value my sense of humor because it represents what is funny to me. All of these individuating elements are morally optional within a range. It is not inherently more valuable to have brown hair rather than blond, to have green eyes or blue, to be white or black. But I would not want to change my hair, eye, or skin color -- I love the way I look, just as I am. It is not inherently more valuable to prefer Beethoven to Bach, ice cream to chocolate bars, or jeans to khaki. But I would not want to change my music collection, the contents of my fridge, or my ideal wardrobe -- I love my personal preferences, and treasure them over all others.

Why is it that I value the particulars of my body and mind? While in the shower one day, I conducted a thought experiment that clarified this issue for me. For this reason, I christen it "The Shower Principle":

Consider the example of a normal, rational man who values his life. He values his particular life, here on earth. This does not imply that every aspect of his life is positive. He abstracts away the negative elements and focuses on the positive values in life. One could say that he values his life in general.

Assuming the man is a good person with a healthy self-esteem, he values his self (his self being the sum of his physical and mental existence). He acts to preserve both his mind and body, because both are necessary for his survival. He values these elements of self in general -- but this does not imply that every particular aspect of his mind and body are positive. He may have a congenital heart defect, or some leftover psychological problems from his childhood, or perhaps he has not fully integrated some aspects of his philosophy into his life. But in general he is a good person, with a good mind, and a good body. He focuses on the positive elements of his particular mind and his particular body, and he values these elements of his self in general.

Now, let us break it down further. The man values his body as a matter of course. He values his particular body because it is his particular body that supports his life. Suppose the man is a painter. He loves using his hands to create beauty on canvas. The man highly values a particular aspect of his body: his hands. This does not imply that every aspect of his hands are perfect. Maybe he has some scarring on his fingers from a bloody fight in his past. Maybe he is starting to develop arthritis, and has to take Advil to dull the pain. But he abstracts away these negative elements, and focuses on the positive. He values his hand in general. And he values his hands in particular.

This man loves his hands (love being the emotional response to values). He likes to look at them and watch himself using them as a creative force. He has chosen to focus on this particular value because of the way he views its integration with other positive elements of his life, like his painting. He understands the curves, strengths, and capabilities of his hands to a far greater degree than most people. Though his hands have scarring and occasional pain, he values his own hands much more highly than anyone else's. This man loves his particular hands, despite their accidental flaws.

So why, exactly, does the artist value his hands in particular? Why is it that he takes such pleasure in looking at them, even though their individuating characteristics (size, shape, etc.) are non-essential? It is because his subconscious integrates the perception of his hands, the automatized motions they perform, and his evaluation of the things they create. His emotions then respond to this integrated, psycho-sensual unit.

Thanks for reading. Part three of this paper, Mind-Body Integration and Psycho-sensual Units, should be published either next week or the following week.

--Dan Edge

View the full article

[mrocktor]

Here are my comments on the essay:

To the men: Imagine standing next to your ideal lover, looking into her eyes, wrapping your arms around her, picking her up in the air, and kissing her deeply. To the women: imagine being the one desired, lifted, and kissed. These are the moments when one has a deep experience of his sexuality. They are the times when you love being a man, and love reveling in your masculinity. Almost all of us have felt this way at some point.

A poor introduction for an argument. "Imagine your ideal" anything is not a basis for deriving any principles or anything useful. I would suggest "remeber the last time" and go with that, grounding your introduction in actual experience of the reader. "There are times when you love being a man" looks like a complete non-sequitur. What is "being a man" in this context? Do you mean "being male" or "being a rational animal"?

Personally, I can't say I ever "loved being male". It is what I am, I act accordingly and I love life. But I no more "love being male" than I "love being left-handed". They are facts I have no control over - I can only choose to act accordingly or evade them.

I think trying to invoke emotion in your readers to "get them in the mood" for your argument is not really the best way to start a rational derivation of important principles. Inviting them to remember experiences and introspect is. It is a tenuous but significant difference.

But one also experiences a pleasure that is related directly to his gender. When a man picks a woman up off the floor and kisses her, he not only experiences his lover as a valuable human being, but as a valuable woman. And by reflection, he experiences his man-ness as a value.

What does that mean? Are you implying that there is some value beyond "a valuable human being that values me back and has compatible sexual organs"? If so, what is that value? Man-ness, what does that mean? How is it valuable?

Some have argued that masculinity and femininity are culturally based. Men have traditionally opened doors for ladies, so over the years this has become a "masculine" act. This would imply that the pleasurable experience of sexuality is based on irrational premises left unchecked in the subconscious. Masculinity and femininity become a psychological disease, disseminated through osmosis from the culture. If this is the case, then the rational man should stamp out any hint of so-called "masculinity" in his psyche, and strive for a "gender neutral" image of self.

This is really an absurd argument, but it is not the strongest argument you could choose to oppose. I have argued myself that there are reality-based masculine and feminine traits, those that are derived from the biology of being male of female, and that there are cultural or traditional masculine and feminine traits. I have argued that all the "behavior" traits, such as submission for women, are culturally based, since at the root both men and women are rational animals and that is what their behavior derives from.

I can't help but see a straw man in picking a gross generalization to argue against.

I contend that it is rational to value individuating elements of self.

I strongly disagree. This amounts to saying "this is good because it is me", your long argument notwithstanding. It is rational to value life-enhancing elements of the self.

To use a reductio, imagine two virtuous men, extremely similar in body and ability. One of them has a treatable disability, the other does not. Applying your principle consistently would mean that the disabled man not only should not treat the disability, he should love it, since it keeps him distinct from his twin.

Being distinguishable from others is certainly a value. If I had a bunch of clones running around I would certainly consider some sort of tattooing or dressing a particular way, something to "individuate" me. This does not mean that the specific traits that make one distinct are values though. Having a limp makes you distinct - it is in no way a value. For normal people, there is no need to worry about being confused with others.

There is certainly no basis for a man to love his arthritic hands because they are his. Your artist should love his hands because he can paint with them, and this enhances his life greatly. Removing scars from them, curing arthritis or any other ailment don't diminish their value in the least - quite the contrary - even if they look a lot more like other people's hands afterwards.

[dan_edge]

RE: Mrocktor post #2.

"Imagine your ideal" anything is not a basis for deriving any principles or anything useful. I would suggest "remeber the last time" and go with that, grounding your introduction in actual experience of the reader.

Actually, I was encouraging the reader to introspect on "actual experiences" with his ideal. Sexuality is experienced most fully in the context of a long term romantic love relationship (with one's ideal), and I'm inducing principles based on my experiences in that context. I ask the reader to do the same. This topic will be much more difficult for someone who lacks this experience -- it is the data from which one must induce.

(This is not to imply that you, Mrocktor, do not have access to such evidence. I don't know that.)

Personally, I can't say I ever "loved being male".

I'm sorry. Surgery may be an option for you.

Man-ness, what does that mean? How is it valuable?

Hold your horses, dude, that's the point of the essay. There are 4 more sections to go.

This is really an absurd argument, but it is not the strongest argument you could choose to oppose.

I think that any arguments implying that sexuality is not a value are absurd, but you're right: I need to give the opposing view a fair shake. I will improve on that in the final edit.

I strongly disagree. This amounts to saying "this is good because it is me", your long argument notwithstanding. It is rational to value life-enhancing elements of the self.

It is impossible to experience life-enhancing elements of your body detached from incidental, non-life-enhancing elements. Man exists as an integrated whole. You imply that it is irrational for one to value his self as a whole, because there are bound to be some elements of one's self (whether physical, mental, or spiritual) that are not life-enhancing. This view is destructive to self-esteem.

One can properly judge and evaluate the negative elements while maintaining an overall, positive, integrated evaluation of himself. This is necessary for healthy self-esteem.

There is a lot more to say about this, but I'm not done with the paper yet so I don't want to spend a lot of time at this point responding to objections. In the mean time, I highly suggest Nathanial Branden's Psychology of Self-Esteem.

--Dan Edge

[Inspector]

In the mean time, I highly suggest Nathanial Branden's Psychology of Self-Esteem.

--Dan Edge

When was that book written? Keep in mind I am only interested in anything he said that was in fact evaluated and approved by Ayn Rand. Nathanial Branden is a thoroughly, disgustingly dishonest man.

[dan_edge]

The Psychology of Self-Esteem, Copyright 1969. Based on articles published in The Objectivist.

[mrocktor]

Actually, I was encouraging the reader to introspect on "actual experiences" with his ideal.

Good. I suggest reconsidering the word "imagine", to make that clear.

Sexuality is experienced most fully in the context of a long term romantic love relationship

If this is not the thesis of the essay, I suppose this can be accepted as a hypothesis. But it sure seems like petitio principii to me.

I'm sorry. Surgery may be an option for you.

I wouldn't love being a transgendered freak either, and would be capable of achieving less. So no, it would not be a good choice.

Hold your horses, dude, that's the point of the essay. There are 4 more sections to go.

Okay. It would be good to indicate that this is what you are trying to define and validate, instead of using the term in a positive assertion as if the reader were supposed to know what you are talking about.

I think that any arguments implying that sexuality is not a value are absurd

One can argue that sexuality is a value, but being of a particular sex is not.

It is impossible to experience life-enhancing elements of your body detached from incidental, non-life-enhancing elements. Man exists as an integrated whole.

True!

You imply that it is irrational for one to value his self as a whole, because there are bound to be some elements of one's self (whether physical, mental, or spiritual) that are not life-enhancing. This view is destructive to self-esteem.

False!

I imply no such thing. I am saying that you should love the elements of self that enhance your life and realize that these elements are what matters (benevolent self premise here? hehe). You should also be aware of the aspects that are not life enhancing and do your damndest to change them.

Its wise to love the diseased hand that can paint wonders. It is insane to love the disease.

One can properly judge and evaluate the negative elements while maintaining an overall, positive, integrated evaluation of himself. This is necessary for healthy self-esteem.

I agree entirely. But the "positivity" of the integrated evaluation comes from positive particulars, in no part does it come from "because its me".

There is a lot more to say about this, but I'm not done with the paper yet so I don't want to spend a lot of time at this point responding to objections.

I don't intend to argue, really. Just trying to point out some assumptions that are not explicit and things that seem to me as gaps in your logic.

Which adds up to arguing, I guess