Objectification and Consent

In Raja Halwanis paper, On Fucking Around, he defines casual sex as a no strings attached sexual
activity between both partners where there is no commitment between the parties beyond the act. Halwani
breaks down the complexity of casual sex because its intentions vary depending on the needs and
outcomes of sex itself. There are three criteria that Halwani represents to support his definition of casual
sex. The first criteria involve both partners, which are in search of casual sex and sexual pleasures.
Secondly, the people involved in casual sex usually tend not to be in a monogamous relationship instead
they are interested in multiple partners. Lastly, the two individuals hope that their sexual activities stay
casual with no commitment, other than to please each other. Humans want their sexual desires to be
fulfilled and those who engage in casual sex, often do it for sexual pleasures, avoiding relationships.
Aside from casual sex, he builds a connection with promiscuity and objectification. Promiscuity
is the association with sexual relations that involves having sex with multiple partners on a casual basis,
whereas objectification is treating a person only merely as an object. Halwani tries to see if casual sex and
promiscuity are entirely objectifying. First he looks at objectification on its own and notices that it is
morally wrong to degrade or dehumanize an individual during any sexual activity. Also, he points out that
objectification is a necessary feature to casual sex. Since objectification is morally wrong and
objectification is necessary in casual sex then casual sex is morally wrong too. There is a relationship
between promiscuity and casual sex, where being promiscuous involves having casual sex with different
people so that labels promiscuity as morally wrong. The argument behind his reasoning revolves around
the idea that when people are involved in casual sex and promiscuity, they are having no-strings attached
sex solely for sexual pleasure. By having no-strings attached sex means that they are using their partner's
body as an object for their own sexual pleasure. Halwani can call this being selfish in the sense that they
are only looking out for their own needs.
With this in mind, Halwani defends casual sex as morally permissible, despite objectification because
casual sex and promiscuity may involve objectification but they do not necessarily. However, it is still
likely to objectify another person during casual sex and promiscuity because there is still a chance that
they will deceive each other or give themselves up for sexual pleasure. Regardless, even if there is
objectification, one can overcome the wrongness of it by overriding the factors that come with
objectifying a person. The morality of casual sex and promiscuity depends largely on the motives of the
parties involved with the act and what they are trying to get out of the sexual desires.
In Alan Soble paper Sexual Use, he introduces internalist and externalist solutions to confirm with the
Second Formulation. Sex and the Second Formulation proposes that we should not treat ourselves as
objects or treat others as tools. The internalist solutions are behavioral and psychological. The behavioral
internalism solution is similar to Goldman's perspective of plain sex where sex is the desire for another
persons body. Halwani's account compares to behavioral internalism because of how Halwani portrays
casual sex and promiscuity. If an individual stands on Goldman's perspective then they are involved in
having casual sex because the person is not looking for anything more than just plain sex. It could be that
they are also being promiscuous because they are in it for the sex and not the commitment. Behavioral, as
told by Goldman, tells us that it is morally permissible to objectify someone as long as the other person
objectifies too. But it becomes morally wrong when only one receives pleasure, while the other is left
giving the pleasure. Halwani would have said that behavioral internalism is morally wrong and not
permissible because the main approach is objectification. However, it does support Halwani's definition
of casual sex because Goldman does not want any commitment, just plain sex.

In addition, the second internalist solution is psychological. Jean Hampton who believes that sexual acts
should have limits based on attitudes supports psychological internalism. This internalist solution
prohibits casual sex no matter who or how sexually desiring it can be. Disrespecting attitudes are wrong
in this solution because it can affect the final outcome; pleasure. This is similar to Morgans view on how
dark desires can have an affect with whether one if going to have a sexual relation with the individual.
Hampton and Goldman can have similar views about mutual sexual desire as pleasing, but Hampton also
requires meeting their sexual needs and focuses on the humanity of it (behaving morally and respectfully
towards another person sexually). Hampton talks about people who engage in casual sex with a different
motive other than sexual pleasure, but Halwani solely wants to focus on the people who just do it for the
sexual pleasure. Halwani would respond to Hamptons reasoning by saying that one could objectify their
partner without intending to objectify. Also, thinking of someone as an object is not the same as treating
them as one.
Now, we proceed with externalist solutions. There are four different externalist solutions, but only
will be focusing on two: thin externalism and thick extended externalism. Thin externalism comes from
Thomas Mappes perspective on free and informed consent, which satisfies the Second Formulation
because it shows that people involved in the sexual activity know that they are not using each other as a
means. Mappes talks about sexual activity as a force, threat, or offer, which are morally wrong because it
allows the other person to control them in order to gain sex. Halwani would agree with Mappes that they
are not using each other because both parties know that they are being involved in casual sex. Halwani
would also say that objectification is not harmful, but that there is a higher chance that they would use
each other and deceive each other to get what they want out of the sexual pleasure. Mappes would
disagree with Halwani because he wants the respect level to be there even though both parties are
engaging in casual sex, the moral principles should apply to the human behavior.
The last externalist solution is thick extended externalism that is proposed and supported by
Nussbaum. In this solution casual sex is morally wrong because theres no good that can transform out of
it. Halwani expresses a lot of Nussbaum views in his paper about the seven different ways that one can
objectify another. So, Halwani and Nussbaum would have some similarities because they would agree
that casual sex does have objectification and it can be morally wrong, but Halwani would disagree that
there can be some good that can be come out of it. Halwani would say that when both partners are
involved in casual sex and promiscuity they are doing it for their own sexual pleasures so they are both
fulfilling their desires. Fulfilling ones desires is a good feeling and so it is not necessarily morally wrong.
The Kant Sex Problem relies on whether sexual interaction can meet the requirements of the Second
Formulation that was explained earlier. The account that best solves the sex problem is the thick extended
externalism that is taking on by Martha Nussbaum. The reason why this is the best solution to the sex
problem is because all the others are still objectifying each other or their partner. As an externalist
solution there are restraints placed on the sexual acts that help satisfy the Second Formulation. Thick
extended externalism focuses on first having a mutually respectful relationship with the partner before
any sexual activity evolves. This solves the sex problem because we take into account the we are treating
the person as a whole and not just using them as a means to our sexual desires because we are getting to
know them first. Belliotti would also agree that Kant falls more in the thick extended externalism because
he sees some similar views between Kant and Nussbaum. Kant says that sex should involve the persons
mind and body so sexual desire is a desire to possess a whole person and that is what Nussbaum wants, a
person who is looked at as a whole rather than an object but still get the sexual desire that they want.