March 2010
New reproduction technology and Sexuality
A pregnant Man”, does this statement grab your attention? I wonder why? Is it just because it is something unusual or just because we are not used to such statement? This statement has been the headline of many newspapers, magazines and TV programs for a long time. Again, does this statement make you feel surprised, shocked or abnormal? I also wonder if people are going to change their views about sexuality because of this statement. All these questions could lead to the main topic of this essay which is to find out how could new reproduction technology change people’s perspectives about sexuality. There is an ongoing debate about sexuality and whether it is biologically or culturally constructed. In this essay, the biological and social debates are going to be discussed to examine how these social factors might change people’s view of sexuality.
The biological debate about sexuality is that the main purpose of sexuality is reproduction which humans share that with all species (Bancroft 2002, p.15). However, among humans, other than biological factors, social and cultural purposes have been developed gradually due to technology (Bancroft 2002, p.15). Cultural factors are different such as having sex for pleasure, having sex in the age when reproduction is not possible for women and of course new reproduction techniques such as IVF (Bancroft 2002, p.15). Most biologists ignore the fact that sexuality can also be for non reproductive purposes as mentioned above (Weeks 1986, p.20). Researches on sexuality topic have shown that biological factors are still the dominant and the most powerful even with the existence of these cultural and social factors (Bancroft 2002, p.15). This shows that there has been a controversial debate around the purposes of sexuality. Freud (1898) supported the idea of separating sex and reproduction as he viewed them as separate because of cultural, philosophical and religious factors (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.97).
All these factors mentioned above have led people to think differently about sexuality. Technology has interfered everything in people’s lives even sexuality (Goren 2003, p. 488). Nowadays, the reproduction and sexuality concepts are almost independent and consequently many people have changed their idea about sexuality (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.96). As a result, the main focus of this paper is that how people have changed their biological views about sexuality due to some cultural factors and technology (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.97). The phenomenon of gay and lesbian relationships and then parenthood has led many people to reconsider what sexuality and reproduction is (Erwin 2007, p.100). Furthermore, new reproduction technology such as, IVF, contraception and deciding the sex of the baby are the main reasons for changing people’s viewpoints towards sexuality (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.99). Each of these factors would be separately discussed to examine both sides of sexuality and reproduction debate.
First of all, a background of how people view sexuality in the past is very important to mention to compare between the viewpoints in the past and nowadays. In the past, the western societies such as the Christian culture believe that the main purpose of having sex is to reproduce (Weeks 1986, p.26). This shows that people before were only concerned about the biological side of sexuality and ignoring the other factors related to sexuality. However, nowadays, the link between sexuality and reproduction is no longer very relevant thanks to new technology (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.98). A century ago, to have a baby without having sex was almost impossible (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.98). For example, in the United Kingdom, a new sociological shift of understanding sexuality away from the biological basis has evolved in the 1960s and 1970s (Richardson 2007, p.460). New reproductive techniques such as Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), have been introduced by doctors, scientists and professionals in the 20th and 21st century (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.99). These new technological techniques have led people to think differently about the whole process of sexuality and reproduction. People have started to believe that sex is not only for procreation because of social changes. The first social change is that more women nowadays enter the workplace so they need to control their fertility by using the new technique, contraception (Abramson and Pinkerton 2002, p.158). The second social change is Gay and Lesbian movement which has led people to rethink about sexuality in general (Abramson and Pinkerton 2002, p.158).
Talking about historical background, religious facts should be mentioned to view how religions view new reproduction technologies. Almost all religions were against the notion of changing the viewpoint of sexuality because of the notion of reproduction is a gift from God which is not negotiable (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.97). I think this is really relevant as some religious countries allow new technology such as IVF but limiting it to only the wife and husband (Schenker 2000, p. 72). However, all these facts were in the last decade while nowadays religions have changed this notion and promoting using reproduction technology to have babies. For example, Islam encourages medical treatment if procreation fails to produce babies (Schenker 2002 b, p. 409). This shows how some followers of a specific religion would be encouraged to seek medical help and use new reproduction technology as to satisfy their religious beliefs.
After listing some historical facts about sexuality and reproduction, I am going to discuss some examples of technological ways to enhance sexuality and also some social changes.
The first reproduction technology that has led people to change their views about sexuality is the introduction of In Vitro Fertilization, IVF technique (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.99). The idea of IVF was introduced by Dr. Roberts Edwards, the IVF pioneer (Edwards: The IVF pioneer 24 July 2003). The notion of IVF was rejected in the beginning by most scientists and some even described it as condoning murder (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.99). However, after the birth of Louise Brown, the first IVF baby in 1978 in Oldham, many have changed their notion about IVF (Infertility 'could be wiped out’ 25 July 2003). This shows that the idea is successful and people have started to have faith on it as Louise was the proof of this success. Edwards discovered that having a baby can be done without any sexual activity after putting sperm and eggs together under the microscope and eventually a new human life can be developed (Edwards: The IVF pioneer 24 July 2003). As a result, nowadays most men and women who have fertility problems can become parents because of the new technology IVF (Infertility 'could be wiped out’ 25 July 2003). This new and great discovery shows that having a baby can be separate from sexuality as many believe and as a challenge to nature. “It was amazing, and then I knew that the whole field was opening up before my eyes, Dr Edwards said. (Edwards: The IVF pioneer 24 July 2003).
Another aspect of IVF is that it has been like an industry for some (Rogers 2010, p.1). For example, a fertility clinic in London offers eggs of women to those who cannot have a baby naturally. The first British woman to receive egg donation is called Ceila, 38, businesswoman and her pregnancy is now normal but her request is not telling family and even the children in the future about this process (Rogers 2010, p.1). This simply shows how some people are still not comfortable with the idea of IVF. At the same time, the whole process of offering human eggs for sale shows that IVF has become tourism as described in The Sunday Times (Rogers 2010, p.2). Moreover, the winner of the egg prize would choose the donor according to race, background and education (Rogers 2010, p.1). This illustrates that people nowadays are using the idea of IVF as a way of gaining money (Rogers 2010, p.1).
On the other hand, some such as Feminists oppose the idea of IVF for some reasons (Steinberg 1997, p.34). One of these reasons is that IVF might be harmful for women’s health and social status (Steinberg 1997, p.34). To illustrate, for the social status, this might be true as society might view infertile women negatively (Steinberg 1997, p.34). Concerning health problems feminists argue that IVF might cause more fertility problems to women (Rogers 2010, p.2).
The second phenomenon which encourages people to change their viewpoint about sexuality with the new technology help is Gay and Lesbian parenthood. The increase number of gay and lesbian parents who have children has raised some questions about what family and sexuality really mean (Erwin 2007, p.100). The ideal image of any family is a man and a woman who have sex and then produce children as media portrays (Erwin 2007, p.100). However, as the number of gay and lesbian families has increased in the United States, people have started to rethink about the ideal image of the American Family (Erwin 2007, p.100). According to the 2000 US census Bureau report, 103,252 of lesbian couples raise children and this is almost 34% (Erwin 2007, p.101). This shows that the number of lesbian and gay couples who raise children is increasing. As a result, this affects how people think about the whole process of sexuality and family image in their mind. In addition, this also indicates that not only heterosexual couples can have babies by having sex but homosexual couples can have babies as well thanks to new reproductive technology (Erwin 2007, p.101).
On the other hand, Gay and Lesbian face some difficulties using IVF which is one of the most famous reproduction technologies nowadays (Steinberg 1997, p.34). First, some professionals and doctors just refuse to treat gay and lesbian couples for some reasons (Steinberg 1997, p.34). Moreover, some clinicians expressed in Warnock Report that they prefer doing IVF on heterosexual couples not lesbian or gay couples (Steinberg 1997, p.34). “I would personally have reservations about doing for Lesbians – I feel a child should much preferably have a father as well as a mother in their formative years and this also applies to divorced women”, one of the medical professionals said. This quote shows how some people, especially medical professionals, are still concerned about the use of IVF among Gay/Lesbian couples and how this might affect children in the future. In my opinion, I kind of agree with medical professionals about children’s future as the babies of Gay/lesbian families would grow up having either two fathers or two mothers which is really confusing. Also, I think those children would be viewed by society as weird or just different and this might have a negative impact on children. However, this might take years for people to normalize this phenomenon as people simply are not used to such thing (Steinberg 1997, p.34). For example, people just couldn’t accept the idea of marriage among homosexual couples a century ago but nowadays some countries allow homosexual marriage such as Canada (Erwin 2007, p. 100). Putting restrictions to who should receive IVF treatment and who should not is absolutely up to the medical professionals’ perspectives as what’s the appropriate family (Steinberg 1997, p.37). This is the reason why Gay and Lesbian couples might defend their human rights (Steinberg 1997, p.37). Additionally, this shows how clinicians are powerful as they could be selective to whom they might use IVF for (Steinberg 1997, p.37). Moreover, Legislative policies such as children act (1989) define the proper family is the heterosexual one while the government act (1988) described Lesbian and Gay families as pretended families (Steinberg 1997, p.37). In my opinion, this might be true as Gay/Lesbian families might be unhealthy environment for children. To sum up, although people have changed the way they think of sexuality, family and reproduction, people still struggle to fully accept homosexual families with children. Time would be the only solution for people to accept such new type of families.
The third social factor that has helped people to change their idea about sexuality is some women have sex in menopause period. Menopause period for women, 40 years and above, is the period when women cannot produce any eggs then cannot have babies (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.99). Most people think that women during menopause are asexual persons (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.99). This means that women do not have sex because they cannot get pregnant. However, recent studies have shown that women and men can be sexually active until the end of life (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.99). This illustrates that having sex is not only for reproducing especially for women (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.99). According to a study conducted on undergraduate students in various American and British universities, the results have shown that most students think pleasure is the main purpose of having sex (Pinkerton, Cecil, Bogart and Abramson 2003, p. 341).This shows that most people especially new generation believe the desire for having sex is for pleasure and not only for reproduction (Pinkerton, Cecil, Bogart and Abramson 2003, p.341). Again, this is another proof that people are reconsidering their perspectives about sexuality gradually (Benagiano, Carrara and Filippi 2010, p.99).
There are other factors which have affected people and then led to reconsider their thinking about sexuality. One of these factors is the new technology that can decide the sex of the baby (Schenker 2002 b, p. 401). An example of the new technology is infertility treatment called Ericsson’s liquid albumin method (Glass and Ericsson, p.381). Ericsson’s liquid albumin method allows any couple to have male babies (Glass and Ericsson, p.381). This shows that new technology not only helps any couple to get pregnant but select the sex of the baby as well. This also indicates that people are no longer dependent on nature to have a baby because of technology (Schenker 2002 b, p. 401).
All these factors mentioned above will lead me to talk about the case study of Thomas Beatie, the pregnant man. First of all, the most common fact among all societies worldwide is that women are the ones who get pregnant and give birth to babies (Maher 2008, p. 279). However, this fact has been changed in the Western Societies in the 1980s and 1990s due to new fertility technology (Maher 2008, p. 279). Moreover, this fact does not apply to Thomas Beatie , 34, who was born as a girl called Tracy and then transferred to a man in 2002 (ABC News 2008). Thomas met his wife, Nancy, before the transferring operation and then got married (Channel 4 report 2008). What is interesting about Thomas’s case is that he kept the female reproductive organs and that’s why he could get pregnant as his wife cannot have a baby because her womb was removed (Channel 4 report 2008). The whole debate about Thomas is that some people consider him a woman as he still has female organs while others consider him a miracle as he is a man and pregnant (Channel 4 report 2008). In my opinion, Thomas is in between as he has both male and female organs. Many doctors refused to treat Thomas to get pregnant and give birth (Channel 4 report 2008). This shows that doctors cannot believe the idea that a man is pregnant so they refused to treat Thomas. Eventually Thomas gave birth to a baby girl and naturally not by cesarean in 2008 (ABC News 2008). This shows that Thomas is fully female as his reproductive organs are still female. As a result, the whole debate about Thomas is that is Thomas a man or a woman? Also, are people really going to change their views about reproduction and its relation to women and men? Many questions cannot be answered as people are different in their points of view. When Thomas was asked about the reasons why people consider him a phenomenon, he said “people are just not used to see ‘a pregnant man’ and I just used my female organs to become a father” (ABC News 2008). This proves the idea that Thomas’s case is just abnormal and unusual. “We are a woman, a man and a child and it is ironic that we are so different but yet, we are just a family just the same as anyone else”, Thomas said (ABC News 2008). This quote concludes Thomas case as he expresses his situation as normal while others just cannot accept the fact that a man can give birth!
In addition to Thomas Beatie case, Mr. Lee Mingwei is a Taiwanese American artist who got pregnant as well thanks to new medical technology (Associated Press 2001). "With the success of delivering ectopic pregnancies in women, it has become clear that a uterus is not essential to childbirth. We have proven that within the proper biochemical environment, an embryo can indeed implant itself within a male abdominal cavity and thrive’, Dr. Elizabeth Preatner said, a prenatal geneticist and embryologist at RYT Hospital (Associated Press 2001). This shows that men can get pregnant and Mr. Lee is an example of that. Many people are seeking such treatment for men to get pregnant around the world such as India which one Indian woman asked experts in RYT Hospital to treat her husband who really wants to carry their second child (Associated Press 2001). One of the questions raised in this case is whether this is the first stage of gender equality as mentioned in the article or it’s just a revolution that leads all people to rethink about their perspectives about reproduction (Associated Press 2001).
In conclusion, sex and reproduction and technology are related and cannot be separate (Weeks 1986, p.25). “Sexuality is not given, it is a product of negotiation, struggle and human agency”, Weeks said (Weeks 1986, p.26). This quote is really a good conclusion to this topic as sexuality cannot be separate from all other factors but they interrelate and create. Societies worldwide are changing due to new medical discoveries. Technology has a big impact on people’s lives nowadays as it makes people’s lives easier. Obviously new reproduction technology has started to change people’s thoughts about sexuality by making almost everything possible and accessible in that field. . More questions need to be asked such as is the new technology going to change everybody’s opinion or people would stick to some cultural, social and religious perspectives?
Bibliography
ABC News (2008) Barbara Walters Exclusive: Pregnant Man Expecting Second Child [online] available from : http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6244878&page=1 [accessed 11 January 2010].
Abramson, P. & Pinkerton, S. (2002), "Sexual Pleasure, Procreation and Natural Selection WITH PLEASURE: THOUGHTS ON THE NATURE OF HUMAN SEXUALITY", Journal of Homosexuality,, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 157-180.
Associated Press (2001) The first man in history to become pregnant speaks up, CNN [online] available from: http://www.malepregnancy.com/CNN/ [accessed 15 March 2010].
Bancroft, J. (2002), "Biological Factors in Human Sexuality", The Journal of Sex Research , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 15-21.
BBC News (2003) Infertility 'could be wiped out’. [online] Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3094209.stm [accessed 21 February 2010].
BBC News (2003) Edwards: The IVF pioneer ,[online] Available from : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3093429.stm [accessed 1 March 2010].
Benagiano, G., Carrara, S. & Filippi, V. (2010), "Sex and reproduction: an evolving relationship ", Human Reproduction Update , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 96-107Weeks, J (1986) Sexuality , Chichester : Ellis Horwood (chapter 2: ‘The Invention of Sexuality’).
Channel 4 report (2008) The Pregnant Man | Pregnant Man's Diary, Youtube. [online] available from : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYX7ACuTBTY. [accessed 25 February 2010].
Erwin , T.M. (2007), "Two Moms and a Baby", Women & Therapy, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 99-149.
Glass, R.H. & Ericsson, R.J. (1982), "New Advances in Infertility Treatment and Sex Preselection", Studies in Family Planning, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 381.
Goren, E. (2003), "AMERICA’S LOVE AFFAIR WITH TECHNOLOGY The Transformation of Sexuality and the Self Over the 20th Century", Psychoanalytic Psychology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 487–508.
Maher, J. (2008), "A pregnant man in the movies: The visual politics of reproduction", Continuum, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 279-288.
Pinkerton, S., Cecil, H., Bogart & L. Abramson P. (2003), "The pleasures of sex: An empirical investigation", Cognition & Emotion, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 341-353.
Richardson, D. (2007), "Sexuality Patterned Fluidities: (Re)Imagining the Relationship between Gender and", Sociology, vol. 41, no., pp. 457-471.
Rogers, L. (2010), "IVF doctors to raffle human egg", The Sunday Times, Mar 14, pp.1-2.
Schenker, J.G. (2000), "Women’s reproductive health: monotheistic religious perspectives", International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, vol. 70, no. pp. 77-86.
Schenker, J.G. (2002), "Gender Selection: Cultural and Religious Perspectives", Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 400-410.
Steinberg, D.L. (1997), "A MOST SELECTIVE PRACTICE The Eugenic Logics of IVF", Women's Studies International Forum, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 33-48.