Nagel Sexual Perversions Analysis

Nagel’s Account of Sexual Perversions
Winnie Shereni
Student Number 500489671
Ryerson, Centennial, George Brown Collaborative Nursing Degree Program

Sexual perversions are difficult to define because sexual desire is a subjective experience. Nagel (1969) explains that understanding sexual desire is the prerequisite to understanding sexual perversions. According to Nagel, attraction leads to sexual desire when one finds a desirable characteristic in another. As such, Nagel explains that people are attracted to people, not features; therefore, transferring a feature from one individual to another leads to a new and different sexual attraction. Thus, sexual desire is individualized, specific, and non-transferrable. Moreover, sexual
According to Nagel, in order for sexual desire to occur, one must have self-awareness as well as awareness of the desired object. Self-awareness allows one to become a subject as well as experience oneself as an object for a subject. This reveals the “complex system of superimposed mutual perceptions” (Nagel, 1969, p. 10). Eventually attraction, mutual sexual desire, and reciprocity lead to unity between the subject and object. Nagel describes the natural order of arousal by describing when Romeo (R) and Juliet (J) meet in a cocktail lounge. Nagel explains that arousal is equivalent to sensing with sexual desire, and the chain of events during this heterosexual attraction allows Nagel to define
How can we truly understand sexual perversion when Nagel (1969) only explains what happens before the act? Solomon (1974) describes Nagel’s account as “sexuality without content” (p. 337). Moreover, non-sexual arousals complicate Nagel’s account because they do not result in sexual intercourse. It is difficult to categorize sexual acts. For example, urinating on a lover during sex may be perverse to the population at large. However, according to Nagel (1969), if both lovers are aroused, this is not a perverse act. This brings us to question whether sadomasochism is not perverse because of mutual arousal. This complicates and contradicts Nagel’s definition of a perversion. The sexual act includes communication of emotions that Nagel fails to address (Solomon, 1974). Perhaps Nagel wanted to maintain the privacy of sexual intercourse, but the complete event, from attraction to orgasm, must be analyzed. Furthermore, Miller (2010) discusses the limitations of Nagel’s account by explaining that in a religious context, homosexuality is a perverse act. One might respond by saying religious views on any subject are limiting. However, some non-religious individuals may argue that homosexual relations are “unnatural” (Nagel, 1969). Therefore, Nagel’s account faces criticism and may not be applicable in all