Sex and Pleasure as Evolution
(Up to: Foucault Philosophy )
Currently, I intend to investigate the origins of sex, pleasure and intelligence, an idea sparked by reading a section from "The Foucault Reader entitled "Sex and Truth", which comprises of the chapters "We 'Other' Victorians", and "The Repressive Hypothesis", both taken from The History of Sexuality, Vol. I. In this chapter, Foucault analyses not just the instruments and methods that the "suppression" of sexuality in the last century has implemented, but also (or rather) the counter-argument of an increased awareness of sexuality, at least in discursive terms, and the interdependent binding between the two.
As Foucault discussed the myriad forms of sexual "deviance", the notion came along that ll of these are driven by pleasure. As has done before, I am sure (and hence why further reading is needed), the question of where this pleasure comes from arose. And more importantly, as always, why. The latter of these may, in fact, be easier - deriving "pleasure" (as yet undefined - biologically some chemical reaction, but for what purpose?) from sex (as it stands in all sexual creatures) is a near-on fullproof method for ensuring the survival of a species - it stands to reason that a creature that gains some "emotional benefit" from the sexual act will partake in it more often, thus has a higher chance of species survival than one that relies solely on unurged instinct. In other words, our sexual proactiveness is a form of evolution.
From this, coupled with the fact that any living creature is an individual entity, cut off from the experience of any other, it also makes sense that there can be no sexual pleasure other than that of and for the self. In other words, the pleasure is distinct and isolated from any ties to anything such as "relationships" et al. This is not to discard emotional social attachments and dependencies, but sexual pleasure is certainly separate.
Once this decoupling is realised, it follows that sexual pleasure is therefore now no longer limited to the inter-gender act for which it was originally purposed. These are effectively side-effects of such an efficacious mode of population growth. But that is not to say they are unnatural - on the other hand, they are born of nature's evolutionary techniques (if you subscribe to the theory).
This throws up some new areas and questions:
Are these effects useful, or should they just be left as is, with no further expectation of their role other than as a sideline?
Are there "deviations", for want of a much better word, that exist due to a feedback of higher functions and derivatives (i.e. societal situations) into the cycle of sexual pleasure? Or are certain effects simply a manifestation within a constructed environment? Foucault approaches this in "The Repressive Hypothesis", referring to these as "manifest sexualities" - sexual outlets derived precisely from modes of power. Is there a separation point?
On a much more open note, did the development of higher brain functions appear as a result of this "pleasurisation"? Are the two processes - self-awareness and sexual enjoyment - entwined? It is obvious that sex within a sexual species is a necessity, whereas higher brain function is not, and thus the evolution of the former taking place before the latter (if not necessarily as a basis for) would also follow.
2004-03-09: Register article - Inside the mind of the gay sheep
