Cassandra Cazares's Human Sexuality Site

In Issue 8, we are proposed the question of whether the availability of “sexual health services” determines whether a college campus is healthier than others. Side A is presented by David Hall, a graduate professor of human sexuality at Widener University. Side B is presented by Jens Alan Dana, a student and school newspaper editor at Brigham Young University, which was ranked lowest in the Trojan survey. This right away seems like a faulty argument and not because they were ranked the lowest but because I feel like Side B’s presenter does not have enough credentials. With a survey done by Trojan, testing which universities in the States were sexually healthy, the findings were all over the place. Yale being #1, to Harvard being #43 and our sister school, Notre Dame, being #99.

Hall begins his argument with statistics about what age boys and girls have sex for the first time. The average tends to be around 17. This being stated, Hall believes that colleges and universities have a responsibility to help their students make good sexual decisions. He then goes on to talk about the Trojan study and how it may have its flaws but it is in the best interest of not only the company but also the schools to have available services to students who are in need of them. Abstinence-only education has been seen to fail so having this available resources helps protect these students from possible STI’s, pregnancy, or other factors that are involved with sex.

Dana beings their argument with a metaphor about fishermen and drawing fish to his bait. He then relates this to college freshman being baited by mediocre marketing. They then go on to talk about the reason they were ranked the lowest in the Trojan study.

Personally, Hall’s argument won this debate. The reason being was that  I felt like Dana was just whining about why they got such a low score and how unfair it was that they were now seen as a sexually unhealthy university which they weren’t. While it may not entirely be their fault that BYU received straight 0’s on their scores, it does bring up some kind of concern. If students aren’t able to receive free condoms, options of birth control, HIV and STD testing, and so on, well just how sexually healthy are the students. Again this whole ranking is flawed, mostly because, well yea the resources are there but are the students actually taking advantage of them. The one thing colleges need to do is inform their students of such services. To be honest I’m not even sure St. Edward’s offers any of those resources and if they do I would love if they would advertise it a bit more. I do know we have sexual abuse awareness, but not sure about HIV testing or condoms.

In issue 7, the question being asked is whether or not Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is an appropriate psychiatric diagnosis and whether or not it should be included in the DSM anymore. Mercedes Allen, an educator, trainer, and founder of AlbertaTrans.org, does recognize GID as a psychiatric disorder and argues that if the removal of this diagnosis occurs, there is a possibility of harming the trans community and leaving them without medical care or treatment. On the other side of the argument is Kelly Winters, a writer and founder of GID Reform Advocates. Winters argues that the inclusion of GID in the DSM adds a stigma that a trasperson faces and will continue to face.

Allen begins her argument by explaining how homosexuality got removed from the DSM and  how this started a movement for gay and lesbian rights. Although she views this as a positive move towards equality, she also believes that removing GID from the DSM could be more harm than good. By removing GID from the DSM, medical opportunities might also be removed. For most transpersons, this diagnosis validates their reasons for receiving medical surgeries and not just viewing them as cosmetic procedures. There is also a lot that goes into figuring out who you are when you are gender confused. It is not just wanting to change your body it is viewing yourself as how you internally feel.

Winters begins her argument with stating facts from the DSM and how certain diagnoses continue to raise questions of consistency, validity, and fairness. She believes that certain categories have made the diagnosis of certain disorders ambiguous and overinclusive. The main point of her argument is that many of the disorders cause negative stereotypes on gender. She also states that the name suggests a negative connotation to begin with.

Personally I could not choose who won this debate in full mostly because I agree with both of the arguments. While Winters pulled the string of my emotional side, Allen won on the logical side. Yes people with this disorder can view the diagnosis as something that may cause a negative connotation on who they are but on the other hand it helps them with medical procedures and psychiatric help. Even then, some people may not find anything wrong with themselves, they just know that they are different.

In this issue, the question of argument is “should parents be allowed to select the sex of their baby?” The whole basis of this question is mostly whether it is ethical or not to actually choose between a boy and a girl. John A. Robertson, law professor at the University of Texas, believes that there is no ethical problem with wanting to choose the sex of your baby while Marcy Darnovsky, associate director of the Center for Genetics and Society argues the opposite.

Robertson begins his argument with giving a brief history of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and its medical use. PGD is often used medically to seek out possible embryonic cues of chromosomal abnormalities that can be screened out. New uses of PGD are used to screen for rare Mendelian diseases, susceptibility conditions, late onset diseases, and HLA matching for existing children. As he continues on his argument about the “good” PGD is used for, he finally goes into the argument about using it to select the sex of the infant. Robertson states “more ethically troubling has been the prospect of using PGD to screen embryos for genes that do not relate to the heatlh of the resulting children or others in the family (310).” He then goes on to justifying that it is indeed bad to use PGD for sex selection in countries like those of China and India because in the end it is detrimental to their population. After he makes that argument, he then goes on to say that sex selection through PGD is only making families more “balanced.” In no way does Robertson believe that it is sexist to choose the sex of the baby unless its due to the fact that the family wants the first born to be a male. Although his argument seems valid in points, “a couple would be selecting the gender of a second or subsequent children for variety in rearing experiences, and not out of a belief that one gender is privileged over another,” he doesn’t come to a strong “yes” or “no” when it comes to answering whether it is sexist or ethical. The same goes for his argument about PGD for perfect pitch in children. In the end of his argument, Robertson ends with saying that PGD for medical use is great but for gender selection, he believes that it is up to the parents and in the end they shouldn’t necessarily be turned away.

Darnovsky begins her argument with stating that “these pre-pregnancy sex selection methods are being rapidly commercialized…” and for the wrong reasons. She says that they are not being commercialized to assist in the medical claims but to satisfy the desires of the parents. Darvonsky explains that the sex selection debate has been going on for years in the Unites States and how in a way seems to have pushed abortion (at least that is how I read it). She states that this issue began in the 1980s and early 1990s when during this period, choosing a boy or a girl was done by undergoing prenatal diagnostic tests that would then determine the sex and if the baby was an undesired sex, the pregnancy would be terminated. After she mentions this, she goes on to say that the ultrasounds were used to detect down’s syndrome which then gave the woman the choice to abort the fetus (which was usually the case). Now the option was being spread to aborting the fetus if it wasn’t the sex they wanted (that’s where I got the whole “pushing abortion” thought). Her main issue is that these sex selections could be a cause to more abortions and that sex selection should be apart from abortion politics. Darnovsky then concludes that people cannot really stop the wanting of a certain gender for a child but the well-being of future children should be taken into consideration and also these new technologies should not be marketed as the way they are.

Personally, I believe Darnovsky won this debate, at least for me she did. I understand that sometimes you cannot just change the mind of a parent who wants their first born the be a boy but think of the consequences. I am one of the people that has a pretty firm view on the whole against abortion thing, not because of religious reasons or anything of that sort and I’m not against it because I don’t think women should have rights, because I do, and because I am a woman. I just don’t agree with it because a child is a child, and going along with the topic of sex selection, I personally would never want a specific gender. I would never go out of my way to have “this gendered child” first and then the other gender later or whichever. I have a love for children so, whether it be boy or girl, I would have it either way. Now as for the medical uses, I would consider the whole PGD but even then, I still don’t have my mind set on it.

Oral sex is that topic that can be either very easily explained or way too complicated to even bring up. The big debate about whether oral sex is really sex has been mostly unanswered for a long while now. Two women have stated both their sides on the issue and in this issue of Taking Sides, the answer may have just been slightly answered.

Rhonda Chittenden, a sexuality educator, debates that oral sex is definitely sex. As Chittenden begins defending her side, she mentions that she was naive about what oral sex was when she was growing up in the early-80’s and that now a days most teens are mostly aware of what oral sex is but are lacking the knowledge of the actual definition and what it entails. Her definition for oral sex goes along with the definition of sexual penetration, “oral sex is the stimulation of a person’s genitals by another person’s mouth to create sexual pleasure and, usually orgasm for at least one of the partners. It’s that straightforward (71).” Chittenden believes that the definition of oral sex not being sex due to the fact that it is not penis-vagina intercourse is a narrow definition and invalidates the sexual practices of people who do not engage in penis-vagina intercourse.  A point Chittenden makes multiple times is that contrary to popular belief, oral sex can lead to STIs even though it is less likely to happen when it is compared to penis-vagina intercourse. Chittenden stands strong on her side about oral sex actually being sex. She believes that the definition of just sex needs to be broadened to anything that can lead to STIs, pleasure, and intimacy.

Nora Gelperin, a sexuality trainer, debates that oral sex is not sex because the definition does not hold true to the behavior that young people understand. Gelperin’s main argument is that people are putting an adult definition on intimacy as if young people (who are the ones mostly partaking in it) understand it completely. She believes that educators must help teens clarify what they believe intimacy is and what it includes and whether or not they believe oral sex is sex. One of the main points in her argument is that it is mostly teens who are engaging in oral sex and this is mostly due to the fact that they don’t think it is actual sex. In their minds, they are still “virgins” if they want to be, because they haven’t engaged in coitus. A problem she also points out is that there is little to no scientific data to support the buzz about teens having more oral sex compared to previous years. For all we know, the same amount teens could have been engaging in oral sex for many years , but because of parental rights, there are restrictions on research. Teens also do not consider oral sex to be sex because it isn’t intimate. Due to this statement this is one of the arguments that she believes supports her side that oral sex isn’t sex.

It was hard for me to choose one definite side of who convinced me the most about this topic. Personally before I even read the issue, I was on the side that oral sex isn’t sex. The reason for that was because I believe that it is a sexual act but it is not actual sex because it does not lead to procreation. The moment I read “this narrow definition of sex invalidates the sexual practices of many people who, for whatever reasons, do not engage in penis-vagina intercourse,” Chittenden had me on her side. I never thought to consider people who engage in this sexual act because they may be LGBT, or ill, etc, and this is actual sex to them. This then again had me siding with Gelperin, mostly because the overall definition is vague. Sex is whatever definition you give it. If you believe oral sex is sex, then it is, if you don’t well then it isn’t. It all depends on the person/people. Due to never engaging in this act myself I will stand on the “no” side of the argument. My mind may change if my experience changes, it really all depends.

Insert genius words here

Welcome to your brand new blog at St. Edwards University Sites.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

For assistance, visit our comprehensive support site, check out our Edublogs User Guide guide or stop by The Edublogs Forums to chat with other edubloggers.

You can also subscribe to our brilliant free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.