Review of "Objectivism and Sexuality" by Jason Stotts

[dan_edge]

I just finished listening to Erosopiha’s Jason Stotts’s

on “Objectivism and Sexuality,” which he delivered at the Ohio Objectivist Society on June 14, 2009. (A portion of this essay has been published on his blog). I am a bit of a hobbyist in this field myself (soon to have my License in Marriage and Family Therapy!), and presented my own preliminary theories in a six-part essay a few years ago. So I was very interested to hear Jason’s perspective. While I don’t agree with all of Jason’s views as presented in this lecture, I very much enjoyed listening to it. The psychology of sexuality from an Objectivist perspective is a wide-open field right now, with crickets chirping in it, and I’m very pleased to see another intellectual working to fill the gaps.

First, here’s a summary of his lecture from my notes, with comments:

In Part 1, Jason connects sexual attraction to objective values. This is the strongest part of his lecture, filled with concrete examples, and Jason seems very familiar with the material. He places a special stress on sexiness as healthiness, and I’m diggin’ it. I always feel squishy when Objectivists acknowledge the importance of mind and body on issues like this. Good work, Jason.

Part 2 is titled “Philosophy and Sexual Attraction.” Jason starts off strong here, but gets weaker towards the end. He does make a critical point – that instantaneous attraction or “love at first sight” is an automatized response to visible sense of life characteristics -- but if one is not exceedingly familiar with the “sense of life” concept, then he gets lost here. Jason doesn’t define “sense of life” and provides very few examples in this section of the presentation. For instance, give me an example of a sense of life characteristic I would see in a woman, causing attraction? Where does this come from, and what precisely am I seeing? His theories here are essentially correct, but are not concretized fully enough, and without examples it’s unclear whether he has integrated them appropriately.

Part 3 is where Jason gets where he really wants to go: the issue of homosexuality. First he presents Rand’s views, using Galt and Dagny as archetypes of sexuality from Rand’s perspective, along with quotes from her. He does a good job here. He goes on to discuss Rand’s views on homosexuality, and then transitions directly into his own views. From the way Jason handles this, it seems that the entire lecture is designed to deal with the homosexuality issue. His key objection to Rand’s view, from which all other criticisms arise, is that she believed homosexuality was immoral.

In Part 3, Jason discusses why he disagrees with this, and presents a new theory which will avoid the question of gay morality. Jason proposes a revised definition of masculinity – “one’s embodied maleness, combined with a desire for penetration.” For women, it’s the same with “femaleness” substituted for “maleness” and “reception” substituted for “penetration.” This definition can apply to hetero and homo alike.

Part 3 is where Jason’s approach and mine begin to diverge significantly. Jason’s contention that homosexuality is perfectly moral comes across as a flat assertion without sufficient foundation. The argument proceeds like this: 1) Homosexuality is moral. 2) Rand’s view implies that it is immoral, therefore her view is inadequate. 3) Here is a new view of the foundation of sexuality which will not imply that homosexuality is immoral.

I agree wholeheartedly with premise #1, but I do not believe that Jason fully establishes its truth. As for the rest of the premises: I doubt that he intended his argument to flow as I summarized it above, but based on the content and execution, this is what it amounts to.

While I appreciate his (appropriately) passionate defense of gays, I don’t see that the existence of homosexuality can serve as a foundation for a preliminary, fundamental inquiry on the topic of sexuality. One must account for it at some point, to be sure, but one can’t automatically presume that it is ethical, and one ought not define sexuality in such a way as to ensure that homosexuality is subsumed under the definition.

At one point in the speech, Jason asks: when two men have sex, do both feel masculine or only one? But this doesn’t cover all possibilities. How about neither? If there were no such thing as males and females, if the human race were a-sexual, then there would be no such thing as masculinity or femininity. I’m not asserting that gays don’t experience a gender-specific form of sexuality – I honestly don’t know at this point – but the possibility must be taken into account in any exhaustive inquiry, especially if one makes homosexuality a central part of his thesis.

Regarding the ethics of homosexuality: Arguing that gays don’t experience a gender-specific form of sexuality is not tantamount to claiming that homosexuality is immoral. Jason may accept this false dichotomy, considering how hard he works to take sides here.

All in all, this was a great effort on Jason’s part. Some of the sections were very strong, and the essay as delivered was well-written. He has a good understanding of the connection between values and emotions, and he does not discount the importance of the physiological when it comes to sexuality and attraction. I have some issues with his argument, as indicated above, but within the framework it flows reasonably well.

While he does a decent job with delivery, varying his tone and keeping the listener interested, for next time he may want to consider the differences between presenting an argument in print vs. in lecture format. His argument was constructed for the page, not for the lecture hall. Next time around, I would suggest restructuring the argument slightly and committing it to delimited points on note cards. This forces you to really know your presentation inside out, and allows you to make eye contact with the audience instead of keeping eyes locked on the page. There’s plenty of time for him to master these skills, though, and it was an honorable initial effort.

Jason’s now working on Chapter 2 of his eventual book on the subject, and he indicated in email that I may get a sneak preview! [Wringing hands]. I look forward to it.

--Dan Edge