Philippe Hayek

Dr. Galloway
PHIL 325-03
February 10th, 2021

Article #2: Thomas Nagel on "Sexual Perversion"

Nagel begins his definition of sexual perversion by first clarifying what “perversion” is,
he does this by stating 3 conditions. First, perverse acts are described as unnatural, perverse
practices cause controversy, and lastly that the perverse have unnatural sexual inclinations.
Therefore in the opening of Nagel’s piece, he surmises that: “A sexual perversion must reveal
itself in conduct that expresses an unnatural sexual preference”. Moving from this definition,
Nagel then provides limitations on what is sexually perverse and what is not. One of these limits
is that the distinction between sex and reproduction has no bearing on perversion. This boils
down to Nagel’s belief that perversion is a symptom of psychology, not physiology. Nagel also
throws out the notion of cultural or cultural influences on “perversion”, expanding its definition
through universal psychology rather than a specific cultural lens.

Building from the established grounds of perversion, Nagel finds it pertinent to highlight
a skeptical critique of his psychological definition. That critique is the comparison between
sexual desire and appetite, which Nagel argues: “sexuality does not admit of imperfection, or
perversion, or any other such qualification”. From this argument's refinement, Nagel then offers
a more nuanced take on the psychological aspects of perversion by stating, “peculiarity of the
desire itself rather than the inappropriateness of its object to the biological function that the
desire serves”. Ultimately, this creates a set of conditions and definitions conducive to defining
pervasive sexual acts, and Nagel carries the conversation toward the identification of pervasive
sexual acts through the consideration of scenarios. I found the quote, “no such thing as a
successful sexual relation, since the deep aim of sexual desire cannot in principle be
accomplished” to be interesting and thought provoking.

Ultimately, Nagel’s conclusion is subtly mixed. The first 2/3rds of the piece offer the sets
of conditions and limitations for “sexual perversion”, but Nagel’s conclusion does not leave the
reader with a definite answer to the initial question. Instead, Nagel’s work seeks to address new
questions, through the introduction of particular scenarios and the different implications each
situation beckons to “sexual perversion”. I think Nagel’s work keeps in line with the first couple
readings for this course, as “Sex and Love” takes a hard look at old questions, we find that there
are many different ways to provide a valid answer.