*Connection to the lineage's continuation.* A closed self-producing recursion, on its own, does not persist; a lineage of such recursions does not persist long either unless it can generate variation at the rate environmental change demands. Any account of sexuality must connect the phenomenon to the lineage's reproductive continuity rather than treating it as a free-floating cultural or psychological domain. The structural requirement is that the account derive sexuality (where it occurs) from the variation-generation problem the lineage faces, with reproduction as one of its structural functions.

*Connection to intersubjective coupling.* Sexuality is among the deepest forms of embodied intersubjective coupling — two beings tracking each other tracking themselves at the full depth of registration the bodies afford. Any account must accommodate this intersubjective register rather than treating sexuality as a one-place biological or psychological state. The structural requirement is that the account preserve the two-being structure: distinct subjects, mutual registration, shared exchange across an interval that conditions what the exchange consists in.

*Both poles of drive's bipolarity.* Sexuality is one differentiation of the attraction-pole of drive's bipolar structure ([§8.1](<8.1 Drive.md>)), the register where the reaching forward is specifically for producing other beings that share the recursive architecture. Any account must connect sexuality to drive's structural bipolarity rather than treating it as a separate motivational system. The structural requirement is that the account derive sexuality from drive's attraction-pole at the depth where coupling for variation-generation becomes the lineage's solution to its continuation problem.

*Multiple registers operating simultaneously.* Sexuality runs at the chemical, somatic, affective, and reflective levels simultaneously in beings deep enough to register at all of them. Any account must explain how the registers stack rather than treating sexuality as one level. The structural requirement is that the account distinguish the registers — attraction at the depth where another being is registered as such, desire as drive shaped by registered attraction, embodied coupling at the depth where mutual reading becomes possible, identity at the depth where the self-model includes its position in the field — and locate each at its depth in the recursion.

*Self-model construction in the sexual register.* Gender, sexual orientation, and sexual identity are features of the self-model constructed at sufficient recursive depth. Any account must register their constructed status without making them merely arbitrary or merely fictional. The structural requirement is that the account treat sexual self-modeling as a real construction within awareness — consequential, structurally sustained, dissolvable under specific conditions — with the same status the narrative self has in [§8.5](<8.5 Identity.md>).

*Depth-graded animal and human spectrum.* Attraction and sexual behavior of some kind run across the eukaryotic record; embodied coupling at the depth where two beings register each other tracking themselves requires the self-aware level [§8.5](<8.5 Identity.md>) names; sexual identity in the strong sense requires recursion deep enough for the self-model to take itself as an object. Any account must register the depth gradient rather than treating sexuality as one categorically unified phenomenon. The structural requirement is that the account distinguish what runs at each depth and what requires deeper recursion to obtain.

*Consent at the modal-depth standard.* Sexual encounter between beings of sufficient depth requires consent on the modal-depth standard [§8.9.4](<8.9.4 What is Confirmed.md>) names. Any account must accommodate the structural fact that what counts as consent depends on the modal capacity of the will behind the act. The structural requirement is that the account preserve the bridge between sexual ethics and the modal-depth account of will, with consent as the operational form autonomy takes in the sexual register.

*Non-reduction without supernaturalism.* Sexuality is neither reducible to fitness maximization (the sociobiological story understates the phenomenology) nor decreed from outside Nature (the classical religious story locates the source incorrectly) nor merely culturally constructed (the constructionist story understates the structural conditions). Any account must locate sexuality at the first-person perspective on coupling for lineage continuation, without collapse to any of the three. The structural requirement is that the account give sexuality its phenomenology, its structural conditions, and its constructed contents without reducing one to another.

These requirements name the explanatory program the framework [§8.6](<8.6 Sexuality.md>) defends: links to reproduction and variation, intersubjective coupling, multi-register operation, self-model construction, depth variation, consent, and non-reductive explanation. They are not neutral criteria every adequate account of sexuality must accept. In particular, the proposed relation to drive, the account of gender and sexual identity, and the modal-depth account of consent are substantive philosophical claims that require independent argument.


---

← [8.6.1 What is Disputed](<8.6.1 What is Disputed.md>) | [8.6.3 What is Predicted](<8.6.3 What is Predicted.md>) →
