So There!

source: Huffington Post
author: Sylvain Bosselet, agrégé de philosophie et docteur en psychologie
translation: doxa-louise

IS THE GOAL OF SEXUALITY REPRODUCTION?

We deny ourselves a host of sexual activities stemming from unfounded restrictions, in the name of illusory principles such as 'against nature', 'evil', 'not conforming to our sexual gender', 'perversion' (anormality) or again 'barbarism' (a behaviour contrary to our culture). Implicitly, these criteria derive more or less from the idea that "the goal of sexuality is reproduction". Yet, contrary to popular belief, this is false.

The weakness in this widely held opinion resides in the little word (aiming) toward

According to Genesis, God created the world and animal species "for" man, who constitutes the aim and endpoint of his creation. He would thus have given man eyes "for" seeing, a stomach "for" digesting, a womb "for" carrtying a foetus, etc.

Applied to biology in general, this approach can rest on an argument put forward by Paley, who offers a comparison: if you find a watch on the beach, with its complex mechanism, you are forced to conclude that it was made toward an end by an intelligent being. If you then discover the incredible complexity of living beings and the different functions of their numerous organs, you are necessarily brought to conclude that these were conceived by an infinitely intelligent being.

The creator of biology, Aristotle, shares a viewpoint that is similar with his notion of a 'final cause'. every living being would thus possess a soul and a 'telos', an end that is his alone. This conception is called "teleological". The aim of man would be happiness in society. This would be his 'final cause',  in effect the kind of cause most important to explain is behaviour. In this context, one can see how sex could easily be seen as tending toward reproduction.

There are two major problems with these old theories, often shared by one and all in an unquestioning manner.

- The first is a simple question of fact. Reality persists in contradiction this so reassuring view of things. Certain organs have no function. We all know of the well-publicized case of the appendix, which not onlky serves no function but can also become a  mortal threat. Our measly body hair offers little protection against cold. And certainly, the clitoris in no way serves reproduction. . It is not even sollicited during basic intercourse. All scientific studies to find it a role (useful to survival) have failed. Worse still, how should one explain that sodomy can lead to an orgasm for the sodomized person, and even more powerful than that coming from intercourse which is meant to lead to reproduction? And what about masochism, or sexual activities between two different species? Is nature perverse?
-Then, since at least the Galilean revolution, Descartes and Newton, a new model of explanation has come to prevail within science. To account for nature, they require that we look to physical causes and effects, without reference to the least intention of whatever creator may be. These are causes that the Aristotelean tradition had classed as 'motor', and which Aristotle had underestimated.

In this new scientific framework, living beings become incomprehensible: what unheard of play of causes and effect could possibly end up in something as complex as an eye, the human brain or the aptly named Fallopian tubes?

Darwin and his disciples have found a solution to this conundrum. Between each generation of a species, variations occur and multiply over millions of years. Those individuals most apt to survive and reproduce in a given environment have the best chances of passing on their characteristics to a descendance. Our organs and activities have appeared by natural selection, with respect to an environment in constant evolution, which is true for sexuality as well.

Direct selection for a given trait is not the only aspect to selection. The organs correlated genetically or mechanically come with it. The clitoris exists for its simple morphological symmetry with the male sex, and does not interfere in any way with survival or reproduction.

Ceretain sexual behaviours are certainly useless for reproduction, but have an indirect pertinence. A natural mechanism accounts for homosexuality, as in the animal kingdom: the selection of family sets (parentèle), according to which beneficial traits for all individuals linked to the possessor of the trait ( and not only his direct descendance) are selection worthy. Where homosexuals develop altruistic traits toward members of their families, they contribute to the spreading of genes similar to theirs. Other non-reproductive functions can be linked to sexuality. Mutual clitoris masturbation between female bonobos contribute to the social cohesion of the group, and hence to survival.

Each individul finds himself in competition with the other members of his species. Let us suppose that they are all equally well adapted to their environments. Which ones have the highest chance of transmitting their genes? Those who engage the most in sexual activity! Natural selection favours those who enjoy sex the most! The more excited will reproduce the most, and transmit their excitement genes!

"Wanting too much" is the natural lot of animals! They inherit a propensity to 'over excitement'(compared to what might be strictly necessary from a reproduction point of view). They will thus need to express this one way or another, hence the incredible amount of non-reproductive activity of which they are capable. Man is no exception. Believing that alternative uses to our sexual organs is "perverse" on the grounds that this is not directly linked to reproduction or survival, is to misunderstand how nature works.

But man adds to this peculiarities which complicate the given all the more

Modern man possesses a peculiar brain. The size of his neocortex offers new possibilities, quite difficult to manage. He can project into the future, remember many things and manipulate abstract notions such as mathematical properties, physical laws or values. Within sexuality, the imagination of a Sade pushes on the limits of sexual practice.

The human brain is very plastic, and can change its knowledge base and behaviours on the base of a large biological potential. With respect to sexuality, the more we advance in life the more we discover sources of desire and pleasure.

Finally, homo sapiens is far from having acted out all the possibilities of this new brain. He is in the midsts of mental evolution, research is proceeding apace, many surprises await us. One should not imagine that sexuality is a static undertaking, known and regimented, not only for oneself as an individual but for humanity as a whole. We keep on making discoveries.

As if this immense biological and neurobiological liberty were not enough, man has yet enlarged the field of possibles with technology. He has pushed to the limit the uncoupling between sexuality and reproduction, with many contraceptives. Conversely, he can reproduce himself without intercourse (sperm donors, in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc). He  masters as well, increasingly well, sexually transmitted diseases which used to limit his explorations. He can even test for the paternity of a child from a simple DNA test, while earlier without doubt society had to put in  place a heavy machine of constraint to fidelity, alledged divine laws and other systems of state and religious controls.

Humanity is just getting to know its biological determinants. The meaning of history consists of taking progressive control of self through a growing understanding of natural heritage, crafted by hasard and not intention. Humankind is like the pilot of a plane in flight who would learn little by little what the various indicators and commands do, to take over from automatic pilot.

The neocortex offers ever larger means of realization to our emotions and primary needs, taking the long term inton account. The time has come to take over our naturally inherited sexuality, rather than  endure it blindly. humanity must become adult. nature has thus given us sexual hyper excitability and an immense liberty, which we ourselves have enlarged all the more. Face with this menu of possibles of which he ignored the evolutionary past, we understand that man could have been dizzied and sought to invent unfounded limits. But freed from these constraints, one can well ask what now?