philosophy of human sexuality

PHL243 THIRD PAPER
Due Date: Monday, April 4 by 11:59 through Quercus.
Length: 4 pages double spaced. (Note that it is fine to go over this limit by a few lines, but if
a paper is a full half page or page over the limit it will be considered in the
assessment, as part of the task is to plan and write a paper within this page limit.)
Late Policy: Late papers that have not been granted an extension will be penalized 2% for each
calendar day past the deadline (including weekends). Requests for extensions
should be made before the deadline or as soon as possible. Students who miss a
deadline and request an extension after the deadline has passed should declare their
absence through the Absence Declaration tool on ACORN.
From acorn.utoronto.ca: Students should record all absences through the Absence
Declaration tool on ACORN. Find the tool under the ACORN Profile and Settings
menu. Please contact your Registrar’s Office if you have any questions.
Assignments submitted more than five days after the due date without an extension
will be graded but will not receive comments.
OPTION #1: KITTAY ON THE ‘CONTRACTUAL’ VS. ‘GIFT’ MODELS OF CONSENT
The first option you have for the third paper is to respond to the argument Kittay
makes in the following passage:
“Consent within policies or codes are generally understood through the
model of contract: I voluntarily agree to a specified such and such, and you
forming your expectations based on the agreement hold me to the
contractual terms.
The contractual model, however, is inappropriate in many intimate
domains. Consent in these contexts is less an agreement binding into the
future that will override itinerant desires than the expression of a willing,
wanting, desiring self that seeks fulfillment with and through another. Socalled ‘surrogate mother’ falls into this category. If a birth mother gives up
the child she has born as a gift, that is one thing; if she gives it up for
payment, that is quite another. A contractual relation demands the action of
an agreed-to giving, whether or not the desire to give continues to be
present at the moment, past the time the contract is signed. If I promise you
a gift and don’t deliver on the promise, I will disappoint you, but you will not
have a claim on that gift. While you can accuse me of breaking my promise,
you cannot make a claim to that gift. The strong sense that surrogacy ought
not to be bound to contract in the same way other transactions are arises
from the nature of the act as a gift, that is a giving to which we attach a
desire to give another satisfaction through our own actions. Sexual contact
has a similar nature. If the sexual contact is not desired at that moment, then
one makes of oneself a sexual object and not a sexual agent. One makes
oneself into a thing, and the other who insists on the sexual act makes of the
partner a means only, a means to one’s own pleasure regardless of the
desire of the partner.” (157-158)
Step 1: Explain the argument Kittay makes in this passage in your own words. To set
up this explanation, it will be important for you to explain the two models of consent
at issue and Kittay’s reasons for thinking the ‘gift’ model is the correct model to use
for sexual activity.
Extra directions: In the passage that follows the one quoted above, Kittay
makes further comments about the relationship between desire and sexual
agency that you may find useful for understanding her argument. She also
draws upon Kant’s moral principle that we should not use others as a mere
means to our own ends, and so you should address that principle in your
paper as well.
Step 2: Raise an objection to Kittay’s argument. (Note that it is possible to agree with
Kittay’s conclusion and still raise a criticism or potential problem with the argument
she gives to support it.)
Step 3: Respond to your objection on behalf of Kittay, OR offer your own suggestion
for how to improve her argument.
OPTION #2: BERGER ON IMAGES OF NAKEDNESS
Hélène Fourment in a Fur Coat, Peter Paul Rubens 1577 – 1640
The second option is to write on Berger’s account of nakedness in Ways of Seeing.
Berger discusses the role nakedness plays in lived experiences of sexual activity
between two people (57-60), draws upon this account to identify three criteria for
images of nakedness, and then applies those criteria to a particular painting by
Peter Paul Rubens, arguing that it is one of the few examples of a painting of
nakedness in the European oil painting tradition (60-61).
Step 1: Explain Berger’s argument in your own words.
Carefully read Berger’s text, paying particular attention to the claims and arguments
he makes in the passages indicated above. Next, explicate the argument Berger
makes to support his claims about what is required for an image to capture
nakedness as it is experienced in real life, and how the painting by Rubens meets
those requirements. To do this, you will need to explain the role Berger thinks
nakedness plays in lived sexuality (a role that distinguishes nakedness from the
conventions of the nude), his three criteria for an image of nakedness, and his
argument that the Rubens meets those criteria and thus, is an image of nakedness.
Step 2: Develop an objection to Berger’s argument and defend it.
There are many possibilities here, but two main directions could be:
– Raise an objection to Berger’s account of the way nakedness functions in real life
sexual encounters (including, potentially, the contrast he draws between
nakedness and “the nude”). If there are problems with this account, it would
likely have ramifications for the rest of his argument, including one or more of
the criteria he gives for images of nakedness.
– You could argue that what he has said about nakedness and nudity is fine
enough, but we should not accept his conclusion that this particular painting by
Rubens is a painting of nakedness (and explain your reasons for this). Your
argument should engage with the three criteria he has set out for images of
nakedness, explaining how this image does not meet one of them, or calls one of
those criteria into question, etc. (Note: try to avoid objections that amount to
saying “painting is all subjective”. We are looking for an objection that draws us
deeper into the details of Berger’s argument, and really engages with the
substance of his view, and I have found that “it is all subjective” is such a general
claim to make, it rarely leads to a meaningful discussion of what he says.)
You may find it helpful to use your own examples in the course of your argument. If
so, please attach a copy of the image(s) for your TA at the end of the paper.
Step 3: Respond to your objection on behalf of Berger, OR offer your own suggestion
for how to improve his argument/account.
References for Kittay and Berger:
Eva Feder Kittay, “AH! My Foolish Heart: A Reply to Alan Soble’s ‘Antioch’s ‘Sexual Offense Polity’: A
Philosophical Exploration’” Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 28 No. 2, Fall 1997, 153-59.
Berger, John, and Sven Blomberg, Chris Fox, Michael Dibb, Richard Hollis. Ways of Seeing. Penguin
Books Ltd., 1972.
(Although there are many people listed here, it is fine for you to refer to the author as just Berger in
your paper.)
Note on Plagiarism: DON’T DO IT.
All you need for this assignment is Benatar’s text and your brain. There is no need to look at
anything else (this is a thinking paper, not a research paper – the point of it is to think for
yourself, not just show how well you can explain other people’s ideas). However, if you do
look for help online, you absolutely must provide a reference to the source of any ideas you
use, be it a blog, academic paper, whatever. If you find it helpful to refer to other readings
for the course, you must reference those as well.
Note too that it is not enough to make something your own to simply change a few words
here or there, or write a very close paraphrase. If you use the exact words another person
has written, you must indicate this by putting those words in quotation marks and
providing a page reference.
These rules apply to my handouts as well, and to the work of your peers.
You can use either MLA or Chicago style for referencing, both have guides you can look up
online.
All students in this class are expected to be familiar with and uphold the Code of Behaviour
on Academic Matters. I also recommend that you read the University of Toronto Writing
Centre handout: How Not to Plagiarize.