Discriminatory Desires and Disintegrated Sexual Selves: An Investigation into Selective Sexual Preferences and the Limitation of Sexual Autonomy

Joost Wijffels
{"title":"Discriminatory Desires and Disintegrated Sexual Selves: An Investigation into Selective Sexual Preferences and the Limitation of Sexual Autonomy","authors":"Joost Wijffels","doi":"10.33391/jgjh.166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the apparent tension, recently highlighted by Amia Srinivasan, between sexual autonomy and one’s responsibility to critically engage with their desires in the context of Selective Sexual Preferences (SSP). Many see SSP, criteria employed for excluding and including potential sexual partners, as a fundamental expression of one’s sexual autonomy. Simultaneously, these preferences mirror oppressive social structures and have detrimental effects on already marginalized groups. Noting this politicalness, authors like Srinivasan hold that we have an obligation to critically engage with our desires. Such engagement impedes, however, our sexual autonomy, which presupposes we are all free in developing and enacting our desires. Sexual autonomy and moral responsibility seem to be at odds. This article argues that this tension is a fabrication. More specifically, it posits that SSP are morally objectionable because they signify a limitation of one’s own sexual autonomy and that of others. To do so, this article moves beyond the dominant liberal approach to autonomy and examines sexual autonomy through the lens of Catriona Mackenzie’s Integrated Bodily Perspective. Together with empirical findings regarding effeminophobia in the gay community, this reconceptualization shows that SSP signify a twofold limitation of sexual autonomy. SSP may be a symptom of the limited sexual autonomy of the individual expressing them. As SSP reify oppressive social norms, they can contribute to the disintegration of others’ sexual perspectives, thus constituting a limitation of their sexual autonomy as well. Consequently, this article argues that sexual autonomy is not limited by our obligation of critical reflection but can rather be enhanced by it. It lastly considers the position of critical reflection and argues that while insufficient, critical reflection marks a necessary, possible, and fruitful starting point for approximating sexual justice.","PeriodicalId":115950,"journal":{"name":"Junctions: Graduate Journal of the Humanities","volume":"58 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Junctions: Graduate Journal of the Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33391/jgjh.166","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the apparent tension, recently highlighted by Amia Srinivasan, between sexual autonomy and one’s responsibility to critically engage with their desires in the context of Selective Sexual Preferences (SSP). Many see SSP, criteria employed for excluding and including potential sexual partners, as a fundamental expression of one’s sexual autonomy. Simultaneously, these preferences mirror oppressive social structures and have detrimental effects on already marginalized groups. Noting this politicalness, authors like Srinivasan hold that we have an obligation to critically engage with our desires. Such engagement impedes, however, our sexual autonomy, which presupposes we are all free in developing and enacting our desires. Sexual autonomy and moral responsibility seem to be at odds. This article argues that this tension is a fabrication. More specifically, it posits that SSP are morally objectionable because they signify a limitation of one’s own sexual autonomy and that of others. To do so, this article moves beyond the dominant liberal approach to autonomy and examines sexual autonomy through the lens of Catriona Mackenzie’s Integrated Bodily Perspective. Together with empirical findings regarding effeminophobia in the gay community, this reconceptualization shows that SSP signify a twofold limitation of sexual autonomy. SSP may be a symptom of the limited sexual autonomy of the individual expressing them. As SSP reify oppressive social norms, they can contribute to the disintegration of others’ sexual perspectives, thus constituting a limitation of their sexual autonomy as well. Consequently, this article argues that sexual autonomy is not limited by our obligation of critical reflection but can rather be enhanced by it. It lastly considers the position of critical reflection and argues that while insufficient, critical reflection marks a necessary, possible, and fruitful starting point for approximating sexual justice.
歧视性欲望和分裂的性自我:对选择性偏好和性自主限制的研究
本文探讨了阿米娅-斯里尼瓦桑(Amia Srinivasan)最近强调的性自主与选择性偏好(SSP)背景下批判性地对待自己欲望的责任之间的明显矛盾。许多人认为,选择性偏好,即排除和纳入潜在性伴侣的标准,是一个人性自主的基本体现。同时,这些偏好反映了压迫性的社会结构,并对已经被边缘化的群体产生了有害影响。注意到这种政治性,斯里尼瓦桑等作者认为,我们有义务批判性地对待我们的欲望。然而,这种参与会妨碍我们的性自主,而性自主的前提是我们都能自由地发展和实现我们的欲望。性自主和道德责任似乎是矛盾的。本文认为,这种矛盾是无中生有的。更具体地说,本文认为,"性自主 "在道德上是令人反感的,因为它意味着对自己和他人性自主的限制。为此,本文超越了主流的自由主义自主观,从卡特里娜-麦肯齐(Catriona Mackenzie)的 "综合身体视角"(Integrated Bodyily Perspective)的角度来审视性自主。结合有关同性恋群体仇视娘娘腔的实证研究结果,这一概念的重构表明,"性自主 "是对性自主的双重限制。SSP 可能是表达 SSP 的个人性自主有限的症状。由于 SSP 重申了压迫性的社会规范,它们可能会导致他人性观点的瓦解,从而也构成了对他人性自主的限制。因此,本文认为,我们的批判性反思义务不仅不会限制性自主,反而会增强性自主。最后,文章考虑了批判性反思的立场,认为批判性反思虽然不够充分,但它是接近性正义的一个必要、可能和富有成效的起点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信