Sexuality isn’t just a matter of crumpled sheets and knowing glances. It’s also, for centuries, a serious subject that has occupied the greatest minds in philosophy. Yes, these same thinkers who usually rack their brains over being, time, or existence have also wondered: “But what do we do with our desires, our impulses, that sometimes embarrassing, sometimes sublime need we call desire?”
Spoiler: no one really agrees. But everyone had something to say. Let’s take a little philosophical tour of sexuality, without taboos but with lots of smiles.
Plato and Aristotle: Divine Love vs. Basic Biology
Plato, the eternal romantic on duty, saw love as a kind of spiritual rocket. In The Banquet, he explains that sexual desire, instead of stupidly stopping at carnal satisfaction, can propel us towards the contemplation of Beauty with a capital B. In short, for him, sex is like Netflix: it can start as a light series, but end up as a very profound documentary on the quest of the soul.
Aristotle, however, wasn’t in the same mood. More down-to-earth, he said to himself: “Sex? Useful for making babies and perpetuating the city. Period.” He classifies pleasures like one classifies apps on a smartphone: those of the mind at the top, those of the body a little lower, but still necessary. Morality: Plato soars, Aristotle reproduces.
Kant and Rousseau: When Morality Enters the Bedroom
Let’s fast-forward a few centuries to Immanuel Kant, the great master of duty. For him, sexuality should be like a good game of Monopoly: clear rules, respect, and above all, no cheating. Reducing the other to an object of pleasure? Unacceptable. In his Metaphysics of Morals , it establishes that the sexual act must remain dignified. No 18th century-style libertinism: with Kant, everything is rational, even in bed.Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a little more blue-chip. For him, sexuality is natural, a passion like any other, which one must learn to tame. It values the authenticity of feelings: a good marriage, sincerity, and presto, sexuality can be harmonious. In short, where Kant takes out a graduated ruler to measure the morality of antics, Rousseau takes out a bouquet of flowers.
Nietzsche: “let’s break the chains and live life!” »
Then comes Nietzsche, the enfant terrible. His philosophy is based on the will to power and he sees sexuality as a vital force. Forget strict rules, Nietzsche wants us to stop feeling guilty and experience desire as self-affirmation. According to him, religions and moralities that repress sex are giant love killers, machines that restrict creativity and joy.
He therefore advocates a sexuality freed from constraints, a raw, vital energy. Clearly, Nietzsche is a bit of a rebel rocker of sexual thought: “Beyond good and evil, but above all beyond taboos and judgments! »
Freud and Lacan: welcome to the unconscious, we do not guarantee the exit
In the 20th century, Freud entered the scene with his revolutionary idea: sexuality is not limited to the act, it is in the psyche, unconscious, sometimes repressed. For him, even children have a sex life (phew, that caused a scandal), and libido explains a lot of behavior. Freud therefore invented the concept of “infantile sexuality”… and the psychoanalysis that goes with it.
Lacan picks up the torch and adds an additional dimension: language. For him, desire is never satisfied, always lacking, and structured by words. In other words, even when we think we understand each other in bed, there’s always a signifier wandering astray. With Lacan, the bedroom becomes a symbolic labyrinth.
Foucault: Sexuality, a Matter of Power
Michel Foucault, for his part, decides to shatter the myth of natural sexuality. In
History of Sexuality , he shows that what we call “sexuality” is in fact a social construct, shaped by medical, legal, and religious discourses. In other words, if you think you’re free in your sexuality, it’s probably because you’re already caught up in an invisible power game.The concept of “bio-power” emerges: societies regulate bodies, classify practices, and distribute permissions. In short, Foucault is the master of the “be careful, everything is political, even what you do under the covers.” Sartre and Beauvoir: Freedom, Responsibility, and Emancipation
Jean-Paul Sartre, with his existentialism, sees sexuality as a terrain where freedom is at stake. The problem? The risk of objectifying the other. In Being and Nothingness, he describes the tension between subject and object: each wants to be free, but also to possess the other. Sexuality thus becomes a fragile dance between desire, freedom, and responsibility.
Simone de Beauvoir, for her part, applies this reflection to feminism. In The Second Sex, she denounces the oppression of women reduced to their sexual function. For her, liberating women’s sexuality means liberating all of humanity. And this isn’t just a chapter in history: it’s still a burning issue.
And today? Between Onfray, Preciado, and consent In the 21st century, other voices are rising. Michel Onfray advocates an epicurean sexuality, free of guilt. Paul B. Preciado deconstructs binary norms and analyzes the commodification of bodies. Sylviane Agacinski explores questions of gender and sexual difference.But above all, the star of contemporary debates is consent. More than a simple “yes” or “no,” it is a process, an ongoing dialogue, a mutual recognition. Philosophizing about sexuality today therefore also means reflecting on how to build relationships that are respectful, free, yet conscious of power issues.
Conclusion: From the Sheets to the Debates From Plato to Preciado, including Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Beauvoir, philosophers have proven that sex is not only a matter of pleasure but also a vast field of reflection. Sometimes spiritual, sometimes biological, sometimes oppressive, sometimes liberating, it remains at the heart of our questions about the body, desire, others, and society.So, the next time someone tells you that philosophy is abstract, remember: even the greatest thinkers have been interested in what happens under the covers. And not just a little.
