Confronting the Philosophical Foundations of Modern Sexology: Why the Discipline Needs a Scholastic Re-Foundation for Meaningful Scientific Progress
Abstract
Modern sexology faces persistent challenges in building coherent models of sexual functioning and in offering clinical interventions that address more than physiological symptoms. These problems stem not only from gaps in data but also from unexamined philosophical assumptions that shape what the field considers scientific. This article argues that contemporary sexology relies heavily on Cartesian principles that prioritize mechanism, quantification, and methodological neutrality, which limits its ability to account for relational, existential, and moral dimensions of sexuality. Drawing on the scholastic understanding of science as knowledge grounded in real causes and ordered toward human flourishing, the article proposes a reassessment of the discipline’s foundations. A scholastic framework provides clearer operational definitions, a unified anthropology, and more coherent interpretations of empirical findings. Such a foundation strengthens both research and clinical practice by situating sexual experience within the broader context of the human person.
I. Introduction
Modern sexology has produced an impressive body of empirical work, yet the field continues to struggle with fragmentation, conceptual inconsistency, and clinical approaches that address symptoms without fully addressing persons. These challenges do not arise simply from gaps in data. They stem from the philosophical assumptions that guide the discipline’s understanding of what counts as scientific knowledge. Most researchers inherit these assumptions without examining them, which allows conceptual tensions to accumulate unnoticed.
Aquinas observed that “a small error in the beginning becomes great in the end” because early assumptions shape the entire trajectory of a discipline (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I.1.8). Sexology illustrates this principle. Since its formation, the field has relied on models that reflect a Cartesian vision of science: mechanism over meaning, quantification over purpose, and methodological neutrality over a substantive account of human nature. These assumptions have shaped research questions, definitions, interpretations, and clinical protocols. Consequently, the discipline often lacks conceptual tools for addressing the relational, existential, and moral dimensions that clients identify as central to their sexual lives.
This article proposes that sexology needs a philosophical reassessment. A scholastic understanding of science, grounded in an integrated view of the human person and oriented toward real human goods, offers resources that can address the field’s current limitations. Such a foundation does not replace empirical inquiry. Instead, it clarifies the aims and categories of research and provides a coherent framework for interpreting findings. By examining the metaphysical commitments that underlie modern sexology and contrasting them with the scholastic model, the field can develop in a more stable and humane direction.
II. What Do We Mean by “Science”? Two Competing Frameworks
Sexology’s challenges cannot be understood solely by examining its data. They arise from deeper assumptions about what counts as scientific knowledge. Modern sexology often treats these assumptions as neutral, yet they reflect a specific philosophical heritage. A clearer foundation requires contrasting the scholastic understanding of science with the Cartesian model that dominates contemporary research.
A. The Scholastic View of Science
In the scholastic tradition, a science is an ordered body of knowledge grounded in real causes. Aquinas defines scientific understanding as knowledge that proceeds through causes toward a unified grasp of truth (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I.1.1). This framework treats final causes as essential because every power acts for a purpose. Thus, to understand a human capacity such as sexuality, researchers must ask what natural goods it serves and how those goods relate to human flourishing.
Moreover, scholastic thinkers maintain a unified anthropology. The human person is an embodied rational being whose physical, emotional, relational, and spiritual dimensions form a coherent whole. Feser and Kerr note that this integrated view prevents fragmentation because it situates human actions within the broader context of meaning and purpose (Feser, 2019; Kerr, 2002). Consequently, sexuality is not a mechanical system but a dimension of the person ordered toward identifiable goods.
B. The Cartesian Turn
René Descartes introduced a very different understanding of science. In Discourse on Method and Meditations, he separates mind from body and treats bodily processes as mechanical events that can be explained through quantification and analysis (Descartes, 1637/2006; 1641/1996). He rejects final causes as unfit for scientific inquiry, arguing that researchers should reduce complex realities to their simplest measurable parts.
This shift had far reaching effects. Hatfield explains that the Cartesian method encourages scientists to prioritize mathematical description and operational definitions over questions of meaning or purpose (Hatfield, 2003). As a result, disciplines that adopt this framework focus on mechanisms rather than on human goods. In sexology, this approach leads to models that emphasize physiological function, behavioral metrics, and stimulus response patterns while sidelining relational context or subjective meaning.
Thus, sexology developed within a philosophical framework that prioritizes measurement over purpose. Recognizing this contrast does not diminish empirical work. Instead, it clarifies the limitations of Cartesian assumptions and prepares the ground for a more integrated and coherent understanding of sexuality.
III. How Modern Sexology Embodies Cartesian Assumptions
Although contemporary sexology presents itself as empirically grounded, its central models reflect a specific philosophical inheritance. Much of the field developed within a Cartesian framework that prioritizes mechanism, quantification, and methodological neutrality. These assumptions shape how researchers conceptualize sexuality, design studies, and interpret clinical concerns. Thus, the challenges facing sexology arise not only from gaps in data but also from the philosophical commitments embedded in its foundations.
A. The Reduction of Sexuality to Mechanics and Physiology
Modern sexology often treats sexuality as a physiological system that can be analyzed and optimized. Bancroft’s Human Sexuality and Its Problems, for example, explains desire, arousal, and orgasm primarily through neuroendocrine and vascular mechanisms (Bancroft, 2009). Although such research provides valuable insights, it also reflects a Cartesian conviction that complex phenomena should be reduced to measurable physical parts (Descartes, 1637/2006).
Moreover, many widely used models operationalize sexual desire and satisfaction in purely quantitative terms, such as frequency or intensity of thoughts, behaviors, and responses (Lehmiller, 2018). These measures offer clarity for data collection, yet they overlook relational context and subjective meaning. Thus, the field often privileges what can be counted over what shapes lived experience.
B. The Split Between Body and Person
Cartesian dualism also influences how clinicians conceptualize sexual difficulties. Hatfield observes that Descartes’s separation of mind and body encouraged later scientific traditions to treat bodily processes independently from subjective or relational dimensions (Hatfield, 2003). This mindset persists when clinical protocols address physiological symptoms without fully integrating emotional or interpersonal factors.
Tiefer’s critique of sexual medicalization shows how this split leads to treatment plans that normalize genital response yet fail to address the client’s broader concerns (Tiefer, 1996). When clinicians assume that sexual function can be restored mechanically, they may overlook how trauma, relational discord, moral conflict, or personal meaning shape the experience of sexuality. Consequently, interventions become narrower than the problems they attempt to solve.
C. The Suspicion of Intrinsic Ends
Because Cartesian science excludes final causes, modern sexology often avoids considering the purpose of sexual powers or the goods they serve. Instead, it frames sexuality as value neutral, with normative judgments relegated to personal preference or sociocultural construction. However, this stance reflects a philosophical choice rather than an empirical discovery.
This avoidance of teleology creates interpretive challenges. Research consistently shows that relational quality, emotional security, and personal meaning have major effects on sexual desire and satisfaction (Murray & Milhausen, 2012). Mechanistic frameworks struggle to account for these findings because they lack categories for intrinsic goods or human flourishing. Tiefer’s work highlights this gap: when meaning and relationship are treated as external variables, models fail to capture what most people identify as central to their sexual lives (Candib, 2022).
Thus, contemporary sexology embodies Cartesian assumptions that prioritize mechanism, fragment the person, and avoid questions of purpose. Recognizing these philosophical commitments enables the field to see both the strengths and the limitations of its current frameworks
IV. Small Philosophical Errors, Large Clinical Consequences
Aquinas warns that “a small error in the beginning becomes great in the end” because a discipline develops around its first principles, whether they are correct or not (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I.1.8). Modern sexology illustrates this pattern. Once the field adopted Cartesian assumptions about mechanism and quantification, it set itself on a trajectory that shaped both research methods and clinical interventions. Thus, we must examine how early philosophical mistakes generate significant distortions in practice.
A. Small Errors
In the scholastic view, a science must begin with true accounts of its subject’s nature and purpose. If a discipline misidentifies what a human being is or what sexuality is ordered toward, its interpretations of data will drift over time (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I.1.8). Feser and Oderberg argue that empirical confusion often stems from metaphysical mistakes rather than from inadequate data collection (Feser, 2019; Oderberg, 2007). Sexology reflects this problem. Its early adoption of mechanistic models framed sexuality as a set of discrete functions that could be optimized without reference to meaning, relationship, or human flourishing.
B. Large Consequences
These foundational errors scale upward. The Leaning Tower of Pisa illustrates the point. Its visible tilt resulted from a subtle flaw in the foundation, yet the entire structure followed that trajectory as it rose. In the same way, sexology’s original shift toward Cartesian reductionism created a conceptual “lean” that accumulated over decades. Later additions to the field, including relational and psychological research, helped stabilize the structure but could not fully correct the deeper misalignment.
This misalignment becomes evident in clinical practice. Mechanistic models encourage clinicians to prioritize physiological improvement over relational or existential needs. Tiefer shows that such medicalization often produces interventions that normalize bodily response while leaving core distress unresolved (Tiefer, 1996). Moreover, empirical work consistently demonstrates that sexual functioning depends on relationship quality, emotional security, and personal meaning (Murray & Milhausen, 2012). However, reductionistic frameworks struggle to account for these dimensions. As a result, treatments sometimes address symptoms but not the underlying human realities.
Thus, small philosophical errors have generated large clinical consequences. A field built on an incomplete anthropology will inevitably offer incomplete interpretations. To move forward, sexology must examine its foundations and rebuild its models on a more coherent understanding of the human person.
V. What a Scholastic Foundation Offers to Sexology
A scholastic framework offers a more coherent approach to sexuality because it begins with a unified view of the human person. Rather than reducing sexuality to isolated mechanisms, it situates sexual acts, desires, and experiences within the broader context of human flourishing. Thus, it provides categories that contemporary sexology needs but cannot fully supply using Cartesian assumptions alone.
A. Reintegrating Final Causes and Human Flourishing
The scholastic tradition maintains that every human power acts for a purpose. Sexuality is therefore intelligible only when understood in relation to the goods it serves. Aquinas treats human acts as ordered to identifiable ends that contribute to flourishing, not as functionally neutral processes (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II.1.1). This perspective allows researchers and clinicians to interpret sexual behavior as meaningful rather than as a series of biological responses.
Moreover, thinkers such as Feser argue that final causes do not restrict scientific work but rather clarify its aim. When a discipline understands what its subject is ordered toward, it can distinguish between healthy functioning and dysfunction in a principled way (Feser, 2019). Thus, reintegrating final causes does not impose ideology. Instead, it provides conceptual clarity that empirical models alone cannot provide.
B. Restoring a Unified Anthropology
A scholastic approach views persons as embodied rational beings whose physical, emotional, relational, and spiritual dimensions form a unified whole. This anthropology contrasts sharply with Cartesian dualism, which separates mind and body and encourages fragmented models of care. Kerr notes that Thomistic thought resists such fragmentation because it recognizes the intrinsic unity of human action and meaning (Kerr, 2002).
This unity has direct implications for sexology. When clinicians acknowledge that sexual intimacy expresses the whole person, they can better address issues that involve moral conflict, relational disruption, trauma, or existential distress. On the other hand, mechanistic frameworks struggle to interpret these dimensions because they reduce sexuality to physiological performance. A unified anthropology therefore provides a more accurate basis for understanding both the causes of sexual difficulty and the pathways to healing.
C. Clarifying Normativity without Ideology
Many researchers avoid normative claims because they associate them with moralism or political agendas. However, scholastic realism shows that normativity arises from the nature of the subject, not from external imposition. Oderberg argues that intrinsic goods follow from what a being is, and that scientific analysis becomes clearer when it acknowledges these goods rather than pretending to operate in a value free space (Oderberg, 2007).
Consequently, a scholastic foundation enables sexology to articulate healthy functioning, relational goods, and ordered desire without importing ideological frameworks. It grounds these judgments in human nature rather than in shifting social preferences, which allows research and clinical practice to operate with clearer categories and more coherent interpretations.
VI. Implications for Research
A scholastic foundation reshapes sexological research by clarifying definitions, sharpening constructs, and broadening the range of phenomena that count as scientifically significant. Although the field has generated extensive empirical data, much of it has developed around mechanistic assumptions. A more coherent philosophy allows researchers to reinterpret existing findings and design studies that better capture the full scope of human sexuality.
A. Clearer Operational Definitions
Research depends on definitions, yet many sexological constructs remain ambiguous because they lack grounding in a substantive anthropology. For example, desire is often operationalized as frequency of thoughts or self reported interest, even though these measures overlook relational context, moral meaning, and emotional significance (Lehmiller, 2018). A scholastic framework encourages researchers to distinguish between the act of wanting, the good being pursued, and the conditions that foster or hinder healthy desire. Consequently, operational definitions become more precise and less vulnerable to conceptual drift.
B. Expanded Research Questions
When researchers view sexuality through the lens of final causes and human flourishing, they can examine questions that mechanistic models overlook. For example, studies can explore how virtues, relational commitment, or personal meaning shape sexual satisfaction. Tiefer’s critique shows that existing models often exclude these dimensions despite their clear relevance for many individuals (Candib, 2022). Integrating them need not undermine scientific rigor. Rather, it broadens the field’s methodological scope and generates hypotheses that align more closely with lived experience.
C. Interdisciplinary Collaboration
A scholastic foundation encourages dialogue between empirical sciences and the humanities. Historically, the Cartesian turn fragmented disciplines by dividing measurement from meaning. However, contemporary researchers recognize that sexuality involves biological, psychological, relational, ethical, and existential elements (Murray & Milhausen, 2012). A unified anthropology provides a framework for integrating these dimensions without collapsing them into a single explanatory model. Thus, interdisciplinary work becomes more coherent and less susceptible to conceptual contradictions.
D. Improved Interpretation of Data
Finally, a more robust philosophy allows researchers to interpret findings within a broader understanding of human nature. Midgley argues that reductionistic models often produce confusion because they lack categories for meaning or purpose (Midgley, 1992). When researchers can situate empirical results within a teleological framework, patterns that once seemed contradictory become intelligible. For example, the well established influence of relational quality on sexual satisfaction becomes unsurprising rather than anomalous. Thus, philosophical clarity strengthens both the coherence and the explanatory power of the discipline.
VII. Implications for Clinical Work
Clinical practice reveals the practical consequences of a field’s philosophical assumptions. When sexology relies on mechanistic or dualistic models, clinicians often treat symptoms rather than persons. A scholastic foundation, however, encourages an integrated understanding of clients and provides more coherent pathways for assessment and intervention. Thus, philosophical clarity has direct clinical value.
A. Assessing the Whole Person
A scholastic perspective views sexual concerns as expressions of the whole person rather than isolated bodily functions. This shifts assessment from narrow symptom checklists toward questions about meaning, relationship, conscience, and emotional context. Kerr notes that Thomistic anthropology insists on the unity of human action, where physical, psychological, and spiritual dimensions mutually inform one another (Kerr, 2002). Consequently, clinicians can better discern whether a presenting issue stems from relational conflict, unresolved trauma, moral confusion, physiological factors, or some interplay between them.
B. Avoiding Reductionistic Treatment Plans
Reductionistic models often lead clinicians to adopt interventions that focus primarily on physiological performance. Tiefer warns that this approach may normalize genital response while leaving deeper difficulties unresolved (Tiefer, 1996). On the other hand, a scholastic foundation encourages clinicians to ask what good a client is pursuing and what obstacles impede that pursuit. This orientation prevents treatment plans from becoming mechanical sequences aimed at symptom removal. Instead, clinicians can design interventions that address the relational, existential, and moral context in which sexual struggles occur.
C. Supporting Clients’ Moral Agency
Many individuals experience sexual distress because their desires, decisions, or behaviors conflict with their moral beliefs. Mechanistic models often overlook this dimension or treat it as irrelevant to clinical care. However, a scholastic framework recognizes moral agency as an essential aspect of personhood. Because human acts are ordered toward goods, clinicians can assist clients in clarifying their values, strengthening their commitments, and aligning their sexual behavior with a coherent vision of flourishing. This approach supports autonomy more effectively than value neutral models, which sometimes leave clients confused about how to integrate their moral concerns into therapeutic work.
D. Addressing Relational Goods Directly
Empirical research consistently shows that sexual satisfaction depends on relational trust, communication, and emotional security (Murray & Milhausen, 2012). A scholastic framework interprets these findings as evidence that sexual intimacy expresses deeper relational goods rather than functioning as an independent domain. Thus, clinicians can work more effectively with couples by prioritizing the relational dynamics that support healthy sexual expression. This approach also helps clinicians avoid the common error of attempting to repair sexual functioning without addressing the interpersonal foundation on which it depends.
E. Providing Coherent Explanations
Finally, a scholastic foundation enables clinicians to offer clients explanations that make sense of their lived experience. Midgley argues that reductive scientific frameworks often fail to provide meaningful narratives because they lack categories for purpose or value (Midgley, 1992). In contrast, a teleological approach gives clinicians a way to frame sexual difficulties within a larger understanding of the human person. Clients therefore receive guidance that is not only empirically informed but also existentially intelligible.
VIII. A Call to Reassessment
Sexology has reached a point where continued progress requires more than additional data. It requires a reexamination of the philosophical assumptions that shape the field’s methods, interpretations, and clinical priorities. The scholastic understanding of science offers resources that modern frameworks often lack: a unified anthropology, a coherent account of human flourishing, and a principled way to integrate meaning with mechanism. These resources do not replace empirical work. Rather, they clarify its purpose and strengthen its conclusions.
Therefore, researchers and clinicians should reassess the foundations of their discipline. This reassessment involves asking what sexuality is, what goods it serves, and how those goods can guide scientific inquiry. It also requires openness to dialogue across disciplines that have long been separated by Cartesian categories. When sexology examines its own assumptions, it gains not only conceptual clarity but also the ability to serve clients more effectively.
The field will continue to gather data, refine models, and adapt to new cultural conditions. However, its long term coherence depends on grounding that work in a more accurate account of the human person. A discipline built on sound first principles can develop in a stable direction. One built on unclear foundations cannot. Thus, a renewed philosophical grounding is not an optional supplement. It is a necessary step toward a more integrated and humane scientific understanding of sexuality.
References
Aquinas, T. (2020). Summa Theologiae (English Dominican Province Trans.). The Aquinas Institute. https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I
Bancroft, J. (2009). Human sexuality and its problems (3rd ed.). Elsevier.
Candib, L. M. (2002). “A New View of Women’s Sexual Problems”—A Family Physician’s Response. Women & Therapy, 24(1–2), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015v24n01_02
Descartes, R. (1996). Meditations on first philosophy (J. Cottingham, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
Descartes, R. (2006). Discourse on method (I. Maclean, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
Feser, E. (2019). Aristotle’s revenge: The metaphysical foundations of physical and biological science. Editiones Scholasticae.
Hatfield, G. (2003). Descartes and the Meditations. In J. Cottingham (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Descartes. Cambridge University Press.
Kerr, F. (2002). After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism. Wiley Blackwell.
Lehmiller, J. J. (2018). The psychology of human sexuality (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Midgley, M. (1992). Science as salvation : A modern myth and its meaning. Taylor & Francis Group.
Murray, S., & Milhausen, R. (2012). Sexual desire and relationship duration in young men and women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 38(1), 28–40. https://doi-org.library.capella.edu/10.1080/0092623X.2011.569637
Oderberg, D. S. (2007). Real essentialism. Routledge.
Tiefer, L. (1996). The medicalization of sexuality: Conceptual, normative, and professional issues. Annual Review of Sex Research, 7(1), 252–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10532528.1996.10559
