The question of whether or not prostitution should be legal is something that has only arrived in relatively recent history. Prostitution has been regarded as the “world’s oldest profession” since there is evidence of it occurring in preindustrial societies all the way up until today, with some of the earliest accounts of its existence in the time of primitive people when husbands would regularly exchange their wives amongst each other. In the Middle East and India, temples maintained large numbers of prostitutes because they believed that sexual intercourse facilitates communion with the gods (“Prostitution”, 2014). Although prostitution usually involves women, there are some male prostitutes but they typically cater to male clientele (“Prostitution”, 2014). Usually prostitution is accompanied by many vices since a lot of the women that practice it now are coerced into the act, sex trafficked into doing it, or end up not having a choice due to financial struggles. They also have reported abuse from their “pimps” and their customers as well as a lot of involvement in other organized crime, which of course cannot be reported because prostitution is illegal, at least in the United States. There are many people on both sides of the issue that state legitimate and research-backed reasons for both legalizing/decriminalizing prostitution, keeping it illegal or going about other types of persecution and evidence for these sides will be discussed and analyzed in this blog.

For the No side of this argument, I found a solid amount of articles that offered evidence as to why legalizing/decriminalizing prostitution would be detrimental to society. One such article was by J. Raymond who offered ten reasons why it should not be legalized and offers an alternative legal response to the demand for prostitution. One of her reasons is that legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry and she argues this because this would legitimate the sex industry as a whole, not just the women (Raymond, 2003). This would mean that massage parlors, brothels and sex clubs would be considered as viable businesses and pimps would be sex entrepreneurs and valid businessmen. Dignifying prostitution as work doesn’t dignify the women, just the industry as a whole. Her next point is that legalizing prostitution, as was done in the Netherlands, promotes sex trafficking. She references statistics from the Netherlands that show an increase of sex-trafficking and that even in the year 2000, the Dutch Ministry of Justice argued in favor of a legal quota of foreign sex workers because the market demanded a variety of bodies (Raymond, 2003). Raymond also mentions that eight Dutch victim support organization reported an increase in the number of victims of trafficking since the ban on prostitution was lifted (2003). From both of these reasons against legalization, it is possible to see how her subsequent reasons are viable from the information she presented. Other reasons include that legalization doesn’t control the sex industry, only expands it, and increases illegal and street prostitution. Through both of these, that would most likely lead to her next reason that it increases child prostitution, as has been seen in the Netherlands (Raymond, 2003).  Raymond’s next reason was that legalization does not protect the women, which was supported by a statement from a woman who said “the only time they protect anyone is to protect the customers” regardless of whether or not it was a legal establishment (2003).  Other reasons included that legalization only increases demand because it encourages men to buy women for sex in a wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings, along with that it does not promote women’s health, nor does it enhance their choice in the participation in the industry (Raymond, 2003). The last reason also explains why it does not enhance their choice and that is because women in systems of prostitution do not want the sex industry legalized or decriminalized because “it’s not a profession. It is humiliating and violent from the men’s side,” according to one woman (Raymond, 2003). Raymond and her colleagues from previous interviews said that not one woman they talked to would want their daughters or family members to consider sex work as a viable option for a career.

Some people legitimize their reasoning for legalization of prostitution by stating that other cultures have tolerated it for centuries and that it will not go away, so we might as well legalize it. In regard to societies of the past, L. Schrage says that we should not look to them to support reasons for either keeping things the way they are or imposing a reform because the stance of past cultures is not necessarily applicable to us. For example, she mentions that in medieval French society, public opinion did not view prostitutes with disgust; they were on good terms with priests and men of the law, and many bachelors had compassion and sympathy for them and therefore they had a real chance of becoming reintegrated into society because they were desired as wives or servants when they came into their thirties (Shrage, 1989). Even though the same act of prostitution was present in this society, according to Shrage, we cannot equate it to our society since the public opinion is nowhere close to what it was in that society.

Other problems with legalizing prostitution were highlighted in the book Prostitution Policy: Revolutionizing Practice through a Gendered Perspective by L. Kuo (2005) and she states that the four main reasons that are often stated as why certain areas will legalize prostitution are to protect public sensibilities, to protect public health, to protect public safety, and to protect women and men in the business. Unfortunately, Kuo says that this isn’t always the case, as can be seen with Nevada, the one state that has legalized prostitution in the United States, save a few counties (2005). Nye County, Nevada issued an ordinance justifying legalization by saying that the legalization of prostitution would be under strict medical and police supervision, control and enforcement in order to substantially reduce the occurrence of venereal and other contagious disease and the crime rate within the county (Kuo, 2005). Kuo states that at the time, the Nye county ordinance was enacted, they had no empirical evidence to support their claims and this stems from a stereotypical view of prostitution as being diseased and dirty. She mentions a study done in the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal, where it was found that only 10% of the national STD rate is attributable to prostitutes or their clients. Furthermore, Kuo mentions that if legalization is meant to protect public health, but they only have the prostitutes tested, then that isn’t fair because they’re part of the public too; therefore, their clients in theory should also get tested for their protection. Essentially, what the bottom line of all of the arguments against legalizing prostitution is that it won’t really change anything anyway. They state that while each city, county, state or country may have its reasons for legalizing prostitution, in the end what they set out to do doesn’t actually take place, or it just benefits the sex industry as a whole and does nothing to help the women, only those who are involved in the overall business like sex clubs and pimps.

In my research, I found that most of the advocates for the Yes side of the question offered alternative options other than just full-decriminalization, which would remove all criminal penalties and leaves prostitution unregulated and could therefore exist in any locale so long as the parties do not disturb the peace or violate other laws (Weitzer, 2011). For example, in Weitzer’s book Legalizing Prostitution: From Illicit Vice to Lawful Business, he proposes a two-track policy for legalizing prostitution. In this policy, it would differentiate between indoor venues that are hosts to sex acts and street or window prostitution. Most countries that have legalized or decriminalized prostitution have only done so for the indoor venues, not for street prostitution, mostly because prostitution manifests itself in fundamentally different ways in both of these situations. Weitzer mentions the Wolfenden Committee of Britain that produced a report that advocated a dualistic approach, extremely similar to the two-track policy that Weitzer mentions. Even though they proposed it more than fifty years ago, the ideals are still very relevant. They state that prostitution was defined as a public nuisance and offensive to the public because it exposed the ordinary citizen to indecency and the exploitation of others, and since it was deemed as a public offense, they recommended harsher penalties for prostitutes who operated outdoors.

Weitzer goes on to mention several instances in which police from different states and counties have not only used unnecessary resources as far as tax dollars go on sting operations, but they have also used an unnecessary amount of time planning these elaborate operations (2011). There were also multiple instances in various counties across the country where the police that were undercover allowed prostitutes to masturbate them or perform oral sex on them before issuing an arrest. The amount of money spent on these operations is staggering. In one case in Allentown, Pennsylvania, the state police paid an informant on four occasions to have sex with women at a spa in 2006 and he received $180 for his time and $360 to pay the women for sex each time (Weitzer, 2011). Not only is it a waste of money, but also they are only perpetuating the business and hiring unnecessary people to do their job for them. In this way, decriminalizing indoor prostitution venues, according to Weitzer, would allow the police to focus on more violent crimes rather than pursuing pleasurable acts, as well as allow the more legitimate forms of prostituting as a consensual business continue.

While some of the aspects of prostitution have increased in the Netherlands as mentioned in the No section, there are some aspects that they flourish in. Weitzer states that they have the lowest spread of HIV in the world, even though they have no required testing of any populations (2011). The reason for this is attributed to their extensive sex education. There are pamphlets, posters, comic books, you name it, on how to practice safe sex. A particular comic book is mentioned that is given to prostitutes that explained with pictures how to put a condom on their client with their mouth without the client noticing. It also featured a quiz that had pictures of male genitalia infected with various STIs, enabling the women to spot these diseases when they become visibly detectable (Weitzer, 2011). While this doesn’t exactly deal directly with the legalization of prostitution, an informed society is a much safer one as proven by the statistics of the low rates of STI contractions amongst Dutch citizens. Perhaps if the US were to implement some of these forms of education, there wouldn’t be the stigma of prostitution being regarded as a dirty, impure and infectious job.

Other advocates for alternative reform include Raymond who says that it is crucial to advocate for the decriminalization of women who are prostitutes by choice because no woman should be punished for her own exploitation. On the other hand, she believes that there should definitely be a punishment for the demand and that pimps, buyers, procurers, brothels or sex establishments should never be decriminalized for they are what are perpetuating this business. Other reasons to not shy away from the thought of legalization include that some experts have noted that prostitution is no longer a major investment for organized crime because it is difficult to control, too visible and affords too small of a return so that evidence combats the thought that prostitution and organized crime are so closely linked (“Prostitution”, 2014). Also public health officials have indicated that prostitutes only account for a small percentage of cases of sexually transmitted diseases in the US (“Prostitution”, 2014). Some proponents also agree with Weitzer’s case that legalizing prostitution would allow the courts and police more time and resources to deal with more serious crimes, and as states before, a lot of time and resources are spent on trying to craftily solve this problem.

When it came time for me to make a decision about who I agreed with more, I found it pretty difficult being a woman and thinking of what life would be like if prostitution was legalized and one of my friends or my sisters could easily and legally make a living off of sex work. However, since I am making an informed decision about this, having heard sound reasons from both sides, I chose to side with the Yes side for a number of reasons. When I say yes, I more so mean the decriminalization of some aspects of prostitution rather than just full-legalization. I agreed with Weitzer the most when he was proposing the two-track policy. I thought it was ignorant of me to close my eyes and pretend that prostitution isn’t happening just because I am neither directly nor indirectly affected by prostitution, so I decided to go with the option that dealt most effectively with the existing problem. As someone who believes in female empowerment, I think that if a woman really wants to go into this business because she knows it is lucrative and that the demand will always be there, then it is her right and she should be able to do it. Of course I disagree with the coercion of women into this profession as well as sex trafficking, which is where a lot of the street prostitution and brothels are concerned. Large establishments like brothels or sex clubs are definitely known to have a substantial amount of women who are not there consensually, which is why private, individual, consensual practice could and should be allowed and not dealt with unless there is a complaint or report of maltreatment. I think that keeping street prostitution illegal is a fair thing to do because where ancillary crimes are concerned as it refers to their involvement in prostitution, it is typically through street prostitution where they flourish. Also, punishing the people who are demanding the prostitution, as Raymond suggests, is another part of a viable solution. Those who exploit the women should be punished, not the women who choose to exploit themselves or are the victims of forced exploitation.

Some critiques that I had about each of the sides included the fact that most of the articles that I found were written by women and usually only one woman. Obviously this is a topic that is very dear and dear to women’s hearts because it is typically women who are being exploited, but I wonder what more men’s views on the subject are. Although, the source that I did use the most and agree with the most was written by a man, Ronald Weitzer, I think more men need to concern themselves with this issue. Also, since most of the articles were written by women and usually only one woman, there were a lot of bold statements made that could have been backed up with empirical evidence, but since sometimes they weren’t, they just sounded like really audacious opinions. Raymond did a fabulous job with her article and she had studies or interviews that she referred to for each of her claims as to why prostitution shouldn’t be legal, which I definitely respected and I thought it made her argument quite sound, as opposed to Shrage, who did not use nearly as many references or citations. Through reading the many opinions of people who propose possible solutions to the problem or cracking down on the system we have, I think that the two-track policy has the most promise in America than the other options. Hopefully someday a version of it will be implemented which would allow independent women to go about this business if they so choose, and stop the sex-trafficking of children and women all around the world.

Works Cited

Kuo, L. (2002). Evolving a Policy – Legal Status. In Prostitution policy: Revolutionizing practice through a gendered perspective. New York: New York University Press.

Prostitution. (2014). Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, 1p. 1.

Raymond, J. (2003). Ten Reasons For Not Legalizing Prostitution And A Legal Response To The Demand For Prostitution. Journal of Trauma Practice, 2, 315-332.

Shrage, L. (1989). Should Feminists Oppose Prostitution. Ethics, 99(2), 347-361.

Weitzer, R. (2011). Legalizing prostitution: From illicit vice to lawful business (pp. 47-56). New York: NYU Press.

There is a very fine line that exists between what is considered “normal” and “abnormal” in the realm of human sexuality. Most of the these constructs are devised by societal norms of the time; however, there is one category of sexual practice that has lingered in the shadows for quite some time which is collectively known as BDSM, or Bondage and Domination/Dominance and Submission/Sadism and Masochism. This category tends to encompass most practices that do not fall into your typical sexual experience and are often geared towards intense role play, domination or the infliction or reception of painful experiences. The question of whether or not BDSM is a healthy form of sexual expression definitely more complex than I had originally anticipated because of the many layers of the BDSM lifestyle.

When researching about BDSM, I found that the most consistent and important factor that is always present is consent. Like most of the public, I did not realize that the reality of BDSM is not like it is portrayed in the media and CSI, but it is a legitimate practice among many varieties of age groups and sexual orientations. In all of the articles I found, when discussing non-pathological, consensual practices of BDSM, members of the community state that it is very important to establish clear consent, boundaries, and typically the use of a safeword (Pitagora, 2013). In a BDSM scene, the two parties are referred to as the “dominant” and the “submissive” which reflects the person’s role in the scene. A safeword is a way for the submissive to ultimately be in control the whole time and can call everything off if they feel their boundaries are being pushed (Pitagora, 2013). An article in The Telegraph talked about the importance of consent to the BDSM community saying that “with greater sexual freedom comes greater responsibility, and authentic BDSM requires the correct mindset” (Kent, 2015). This relates to the maturity that one must have when engaging in BDSM activities because the line between sexual pleasure and being taken advantage of is very fine.

In the past, BDSM has gotten a horrible reputation, mostly because people did not understand it. Like other sexual minorities like homosexuality and gender identity disorder, BDSM has been stigmatized for quite some time, and was even in the DSM IV and previous editions as a pathological condition until the most recent edition of the DSM was published (Pitagora, 2013). Pitagora suggests that the reason for this was that data about BDSM was taken only from extreme clinical cases and not from non-pathological practitioners, so the only information they had was then generalized to encompass all participants. This is why consent is so important; the same acts that are performed in a consensual environment could result in detrimental psychological and physical complications if the act is forced. Taylor and Usher state that although BDSM includes a huge variety of activities, there are four common elements of a BDSM scene which include consensuality, inequity of power, sexual arousal and compatibility. They also state that focus is often less on the physical enactment of a scene than it is on the power exchange (2001). One can definitely see where things could go very wrong if the scene is not planned out beforehand and discussed between all participants. This is where BDSM could be unhealthy, just like any other act, whether sexual or not, that is taken to the extreme, which will be discussed later on.

The Yes side of this argument is very well supported and strong because there are thousands of people that are practicing BDSM right now that are fully functional in every aspect of their lives, they just happen to have an uncommon taste for the source of their sexual pleasure. Even though BDSM can include the infliction or reception of painful acts or ones that may push personal boundaries, the literature offers a number of benefits to practicing BDSM. As previously mentioned, there is greater sexual freedom in BDSM than in more typical forms of sexual expression, so one must be confident and self-aware when practicing BDSM (Pitagora, 2013). As a result, BDSM can further self-awareness and self-esteem because one really has to think about their boundaries and where they can be pushed, as well as what they truly enjoy when it comes to sexual arousal, in order to have a successful experience. This is also a way to organize and find meaning in sexual interaction through the formation and enactment of these sexual scripts. Another benefit that was offered is the emphasis of the power dynamic over gender and sexual orientation as neither of these pertains to which role a person can choose. Through the organization and planning of the scene, this also offers a way to bond and connect with another individual through an exchange of power (Pitagora, 2013).

Something that I definitely did not expect to find as far as benefits for BDSM go, or in any part of BDSM practice in general, is the inclusion of a phenomenon called aftercare. Although it is varying in intensities and manifestations, it is a regular activity of BDSM practice and it is “the process of care and attention paid to the more emotionally and physically spent participant after the scene concludes, and often includes comforting physical contact or verbal processing of the scene” (Sagarin, Cutler, Cutler, Lawler-Sagarin, Matuszewich, 2009). This also tended to result in increased intimacy between participants. This only furthers the suggestion that non-pathological BDSM practitioners closely attend to the cognitive aspect of this type of sexual expression in all phases of BDSM.

As was explored in the Yes side of this debate, there are many benefits to the practice of BDSM when done with full consent from both partners, with full understanding about what the role play will consist of, but what about the times when those acts are not consensual? The No side of this argument preys upon this specific part of the BDSM process in order to support the fact that the practice of BDSM can spill over into unhealthy realms. Unfortunately, most of the negative consequences that make their way into the public eye are cases of extremism and people tend to base their opinion of the entire BDSM community off of these cases. An article in Psychology Today referenced an article published by ABC News stating that a 67-year old man had lost consciousness in a sex club due to injuries that he sustained while being hung from a cross by his hands and didn’t regain consciousness for a few days because his injuries were so severe (Sweeton, 2009). While there were obvious unhealthy consequences of this action, multiple factors could have gone into why this man lost consciousness. People have even been known to die during sex once they get past a certain age, so it is not surprising that a 67-year old man would have health complications when participating in BDSM. When it comes to the negative health consequences of BDSM, this refers more so to the sadistic and masochistic practices as these are the ones that involve inflicting pain on others as well as themselves, so those that take it to an unhealthy and truly level would most likely be considered pathological. If someone is willing to push someone else’s boundaries or their own to the point of life-threatening injuries or even accidental suicide, then it has progressed past what would be considered non-pathological as that is not a functional form of sexual expression.

Another possible negative aspect of being a BDSM practitioner is the concealment of this uncommon preference. As has been highlighted throughout this debate, there is a lot more to a BDSM lifestyle than just the act itself. Like other sexual minorities, people who practice them have to find a way to be okay with it within themselves, as well as make sure that the people they have sexual relations with are okay with it too. Expanding even further, sex is an important part of being human, as well as being able to express oneself about ideas surrounding sex. Unfortunately for the BDSM practitioner, this can be difficult to work around, as not everyone is comfortable about the topic of BDSM or discussing it with a loved one who partakes in it. This area of BDSM, the concealment of the practice, was investigated by Stiles and Clark who conducted a number of interviews with people who identify as BDSM practitioners and asked about all aspects of the BDSM life, especially concealment. Their participants consisted of 42 women and 31 men where the age range was from 23-75 years of age, and a large percentage (40%) of them had been practicing BDSM for more than 10 years (Stiles & Clark, 2011). In their results section, they offer a number of personal accounts about the varying degrees of concealment in their lives. This included telling most of their close friends and relatives, to being “outted” by family members and then ostracized because of it and everything in between. While this may not constitute as being unhealthy in reference to the actual practice of BDSM, it is a negative consequence that practitioners have to deal with. This all points back to the fact that BDSM is still being stigmatized and the general public does not recognize it as a common or normal form of sexual expression and therefore tend to harshly judge people who openly partake in it. This forces a lot of people to be cautious when in new sexual relationships in that they don’t reveal too much too soon, or even scare friends away by mentioning it. This can definitely be psychologically detrimental.

When examining both sides of this argument, as far as empirical data goes, it is somewhat difficult to devise an experiment that can test whether a sexual act is healthy or not, because that question is contingent upon many subjective factors. Healthy, in this sense, could refer to emotional, psychological, and physiological health, but it can be difficult to find causal relationships between sex practices and areas of health because there are so many factors that are a part of sex. Most of the research I found included questionnaires asking members of the BDSM communities about their specific practices as well as the collection of their qualitative and quantitative responses about the emotional side of BDSM as well. While there were other journals among the BDSM literature that spoke of physiological measurements that were taken from people who were participating in BDSM acts at the time of collection and other similar data, that data is not exactly pertinent when trying to decide whether or not the act is healthy. Of course, as discussed in the No side of this debate, anything, even BDSM, can be taken too far and when participants in a BDSM scene do not adhere to everyone’s specific needs and requests, things can go awry. As far as non-pathological, consensual practice of BDSM, there was not much evidence in the literature to suggest that this is in any way harmful when both parties establish a sense of respect for each other and explicitly state consent for each act they take part in. This was a definite limitation in my research. While almost all of the articles that I found for the Yes side stated that of course things can get out of hand if the acts are not consensual, it was extremely difficult to locate a source that explicitly stated that BDSM in all manifestations was unhealthy. In looking at background information about BDSM, many people suggest that the reason it has been so stigmatized in the past is that people simply did not know that average, functional people can and do engage in this kind of sexual activity. BDSM was always highlighted by cases of extremism like rape or it was showcased as extremely violent in the media and movies, when that is not at all the case in real life. Although the academic community has come to realize that BDSM is not a pathological practice, the general public has not caught up to that realization yet.

Something that I had in mind when I started research for this assignment was John Stuart Mill’s Principle of Harm theory. This states that as long as an act does not hurt anyone else, then the person should be able to do it. Even though some say that their participation in BDSM acts is totally consensual, who is to say that they are not being hurt in some way, either physically or emotionally? Perhaps, in a way that they do not understand or do not even realize yet. Would that constitute as being unhealthy? This was somewhat unsettling when I first started to think about this assignment, but soon I learned that BDSM is more complicated than just the idea of harm. There are multiple layers to this lifestyle and it is much more intricate than anyone in the general public, including myself at the beginning of this research process, tends to think. Essentially, I came to the conclusion that this is definitely a healthy form of sexual expression and can offer many benefits that non-BDSM sex does not provide, like the example of aftercare, which rarely seems to make its way into “regular” sex. The possibility for BDSM to become an unhealthy practice is definitely evident because dangerous acts are performed during BDSM scenes, but as long as both parties are of sound mind and willingly consent to every action and don’t intentionally approach life threatening instances, then an individual should be able to do whatever they like in order to satisfy their kinky desires. As stated before, anything can be taken too far, especially BDSM, and when people are a part of non-consensual BDSM practices or seriously maim themselves or others, it can be labeled as a pathological condition, otherwise it is perfectly acceptable. I think it’s also interesting to point out the increased interest in BDSM practices among the general public that have been brought on by novels such as Fifty Shades of Grey that have shed a new light on the rarely seen world of BDSM practitioners. With emergences like this, I think it is safe to say that we can expect BDSM to be in the limelight again and hopefully this will bring more awareness to the practice of BDSM to where it will not be as harshly stigmatized as it has been in the past.

Works Cited

Kent, C. (2015, February 10). Fifty Shades of Grey: Is BDSM the new vanilla? Retrieved March 9, 2015, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/11400000/Fifty-Shades-of-Grey-is-BDSM-the-new-vanilla.html

Pitagora, D. (2013). Consent vs Coercion: BDSM Interactions Highlight a Fine but Immutable Line. New School Psychology Bulletin, 10(1), 27-36.

Sagarin, B. J., Cutler, B., Cutler, N., Lawler Sagarin, K.A., & Matuszewich, L. (2009). Hormonal changes and couple bonding in consensual sadomasochistic activity. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 38(2), 186-200. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9374-5

Stiles, B. L., & Clark, R. E. (2001). BDSM: A Subcultural Analysis of Sacrifices and Delights. Deviant Behavio, 32(2), 158-189. doi: 10.1080/01639621003748605

Sweeton, J. (2009, April 15). What’s dangerous about BDSM? Retrieved March 9, 2015, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-ordinary/200904/whats-dangerous-about-bdsm

Taylor, G. W., & Ussher, J. M. (2001). Making sense of S&M: A discourse analytic account. Sexualities, 4(3), 293-314. doi: 10.1177/136346001004003002

In the case of whether or not parents should be able to choose the sex of their child, most sources that state an opinion on the matter highlight many instances in which this would both be completely uncalled for or deemed necessary. In order to fully understand the issue, one must understand the processes involved. When using the term “sex” the scientific community refers to this as the biological categorization of men and women whereas gender refers to the societally constructed roles surrounding those sexes. In this debate, this definition of sex will be used. When discussing the actual procedures that are involved to make this a possibility, there are three ways to go about selecting the sex of a child. The first is sex selective abortion, which has come about after the invention of amniocentesis, which is the ability to test the amniotic fluid in the uterus when a mother is pregnant in order to determine if the baby will have any serious genetic deficits (Dahl, 2003). Through this method, one can also find out about the sex of their baby, and if it is not the one the woman or couple desires, they have the option to abort if they so chose. Another method is sex-selective embryo transfer, which is typically used when a woman is using in vitro fertilization (IVF) in which the embryo is scanned for genetic diseases and along with that, sex, before it is implanted in the woman’s uterus. This type of selection is also referred to as preimplantation gender diagnosis (PGD) (Dahl, 2003). The last and most recent technological development towards sex-selection is sex-selective insemination. This is done through a process known as MicroSort, a means in which the sperms that contain X and Y chromosomes are separated and then purposefully implanted into the woman in order to significantly raise her chances of bearing a child with one sex or the other (Dahl, 2003). Since this is not a topic that can just be tested on in any regular experiment, most of the opponents and proponents base their arguments on their own opinions and then find specific instances that support their values. The following debate is based upon these propositions.

Those in favor of this argument are on the pro side for a number of reasons. The most common of these is the avoidance of X-linked diseases. There are over 500 known X-linked diseases and so in order to avoid a world of trouble and harm to both the child and the parents, some people are encouraged to go about this method in order to prevent a multitude of medical problems (Dahl, 2003). Most of the opponents also agree that this is the most appropriate application of sex-selection; however, most claim that this is the only instance where they would support this decision. In the Western world, most people actually do not care if their child is one sex or the other, or at least if they have a preference, it is not strong enough for them to act upon it and go to these drastic measures (Dahl, 2003). The most common reason for choosing the sex of a child in the Western world, apart from avoiding diseases, would be for family balancing; that is, when a family has had two or three children of one gender and would like to balance things out by having a child of the other gender. In this instance, it is not that the parents have a particular preference for one sex over another, but their decision is based upon the gender of the children they already have (Savulescu & Dahl, 2000); however, where Eastern cultures are concerned, it is a different story. In many Asian cultures, such as those of India and China, there is a strong preference for children to be males because their societies are male dominated (Dickens, 2003). This becomes especially important in the case of China with the one-child policy that is currently in place. Many females that are born in this society are subjected to female infanticide since families typically favor having a boy (Savulescu & Dahl, 2003). Proponents of sex-selection reference these events in their arguments saying that sex-selection would be a better option than the difficult fate that a baby girl would have in these societies (Dickens, 2003). Another argument brought forth by the Yes side was the Principle of Harm developed by John Stuart Mill that essentially says that one can do what they want with their own life and body as long as it is not harming anyone else (Dahl, 2003). This also goes along with the argument for procreative liberty, saying that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her own body, especially when it comes to her procreative rights, as long as it is not harming the child or anyone else (Dahl, 2003). To date, there has not been any evidence to suggest that these children are put at any more risk than if they were to naturally be the sex that they are. Upon doing some more research into MicroSort, I found that they only perform insemination for specific circumstances. According to their webpage, MicroSort will only perform this procedure for family balancing, and couples at risk for X-linked disorders (Requirements and Recommendations). For family balancing, the couple must have at least one child, be selecting for the underrepresented gender in the family, and be negative for HIV, Hepatitis B surface antigen and C antibody; for X-linked disorders, the mother must be a known carrier of an X-linked or X-limited disorder and also be free of the before mentioned traits. So, as of right now, this procedure cannot be done for anyone without these conditions, so couples would have to go in other directions if they just wanted to choose the sex of their child for purely preferential reasons.

I found that the No side of this argument was definitely based more upon values and general ideas about how life “should” be conducted than the arguments of the Yes side. The Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and R. McDougall are three sources that proclaim their opposition to this phenomenon. Savulescu and Dahl reference claims made by the Ethics Committee against sex-selection in a paper debating this issue (2000), which are very much on the same page as the claims made by HFEA (McDougall, 2005). Some of the claims proposed by both the Ethics Committee and HFEA include possible gender discrimination and gender stereotyping and an inappropriate use/misallocation of medical resources (McDougall, 2005; Savulescu & Dahl, 2000). Other claims from HFEA include that sex selection is playing God, that there could possibly be an unequal access to sex selection technology, possible sex ratio disruption, that it is a slippery slope for designer babies, and that there could be negative effects on the welfare of the children produced through this method (McDougall, 2005). Another argument that was made for the No side was made by R. McDougall when she claims that in addition to the claims brought forth by HFEA, she also things that willingness to accept one’s child, regardless of characteristics such as sex, are virtues of a good parent (McDougall, 2005), and if one does not possess this quality, then they will already not be a good parent because they are trying to change who their child is before it is even born. She definitely brings up a good point; for instance, if the parents select to have a girl, for whatever preferential reason, and she turns out to be a total tom-boy, a lesbian, or doesn’t conform to societal gender roles for women in other ways, would they be even more bitter towards her since she did not turn out the way they planned? It is hard to dispute the fact that if someone is using this method for something other than family planning or avoidance of diseases, then they must have some sort of expectation about who they want their child to be if they are going to already pick out their sex for them.

As mentioned in the beginning of this discussion, most of the articles and journals that I found surrounding this issue did not have much scientific basis in their conclusions about the matter. Of course, everyone agreed upon the scientifically proven methods in which someone can go about selecting the sex of their child, but it was difficult to find actual studies that proved whether or not this was a harmful act or detrimental to the child or parents’ lives in anyway; therefore, most of the information presented was opinion-based, which was difficult for me to analyze. Especially when it came to the No side of the argument, there was almost no empirical evidence to support their claims. As highlighted in the debate paper by Savulescu and Dahl (2000), it is very easy to shoot down the claims of The Ethics Committee, and even though McDougall did not dispute any claims by HFEA in her paper, it is easily detectable that their claims are also opinion-based. A troubling over-arching theme that I noticed between those two essays was that both the HFEA and Ethics Committee definitely support this method in certain situations. HFEA is a fertility institute that definitely offers IVF and other methods of boosting fertility in women, and I think it’s somewhat difficult to follow along with their claims that sex-selection is wrong, even though I’m sure they engage in this activity when screening embryos for IVF and the parents end up wanting to choose the girl embryo over the boy or vice versa. Another troubling part of HFEA’s argument was their claim that sex selection could have negative effects on the welfare of the child, but they offer no further explanation as to what this could be. It was easy for me to surmise that these were all just speculations rather than statements with facts to support them. Also, at the end of Savulescu and Dahl’s rebuttal against the Ethics Committee, they go on to show evidence directly from the Committee that support sex-selection and offer loopholes for almost all of the arguments that they put forth when expressing their opposition to the idea. Another huge issue I had with the No side is claims brought forth by people such as McDougall that rely solely on ethical arguments to support their claims; the problem with this however, is that ethics, especially virtue ethics are extremely subjective and therefore difficult to apply to every general situation. When McDougall opened her argument for additional reasons why sex-selection should not be accepted, she mentioned that this was based on virtue ethics, which she explains as: “what makes an action right under virtue ethics, is that it is what a virtuous person would do” and describes a virtuous person as “one who has and exercises the virtues” (McDougall, 2005). As someone who is trained to find the scientific, empirical evidence to support scientific arguments, that definition is way too vague and objective for me to accept. Therefore, I essentially discounted McDougall’s claim when making my decision, because of those reasons. All of this inconsistency and lack of evidence lead me to believe that the No side of this argument is much weaker than the Yes side.

When comparing the two sides together, I found that the Yes side shot down most of the reasons brought forth by opponents rather than providing their own reasons why sex selection should be allowed. Their most solid arguments dealt with medical reasons why this should be allowed. The most prominent of these was using sex selection for the avoidance of producing children with X-linked diseases, and it seemed as though everyone was in agreement that this a time in which sex selection should definitely be used if it is an option for the couple. Since most of the arguments that were proposed by the opponents were opinion-based, it was easy for the proponents to find holes in their claims. One of these that really got my attention on the matter was about cosmetic surgery. In Julian Savulescu and Edgar Dahl’s debate essay that responded to claims made by the Ethics Committee, they responded to the claim that sex selection “represents a misallocation of limited medical services” by saying that not only does it not cause that much of a dent in the supply of medical services, but the same argument could be made for cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic surgery is a medical procedure that is not exactly necessary by any means, yet people are still allowed to do what they want with their own money and their own body and one could argue that that argument is pertinent in this case as well. Another important part of the Yes side for me, was the fact that MicroSort can only be performed for couples that meet certain criteria and that it is not available to simply anyone yet. Because of this, I see no harm in at least going through with it for medical reasons, but it is a little difficult to find evidence to support the need for family balancing, other than preferential reasons.

When it came time for me to make a decision on this matter, I found myself in a very troubling place. When I first read the topic for this assignment, instinctually I was completely against the idea. After doing some research however, I was somewhat swayed. I was not swayed for the reason of my personal preference, but rather for the evidence that I found on the side of the proponents. Rather than straight up advocating for this option, most of them just offered reasons on why it is not outright wrong. Since there are no solid, evidence-based reasons why this procedure should not be done, other than strong opinions of some groups, I cannot simply say that parents should not be able to have this option because of what I would do. In fact, I can’t even begin to place myself in a parent-to-be’s shoes so I find it very troubling to come to any sort of conclusion on this matter. I was definitely most convinced by the arguments of the Yes side, especially like the one relating to cosmetic surgery. While this procedure, for the pure sake of preference and not relating to anything medical, does use medical resources, no known harm is being done to the fetus or the mother, and in some cases, it can prevent the option of sex-selected abortions and lead to a healthier relationship between mother and child. Also, the prevention of infanticide and sex-selected abortions seems to be a good reason to go through with MicroSort in cases where those options would not be avoided. Steinbock, a proponent of this issue, states that MicroSort might even be the best option because it does not require the expulsion of one fetus in favor of another, like in the cases of sex-selective abortion or embryo transfer (2002); in other words, a baby is not wasted in the cases of MicroSort. Furthermore, in a country as individualistic as America, I believe that the individual has the right to do as they chose and as long as they have the money and understand the risks involved with going through with one of these methods. On the other hand, if by chance a couple wishes to have a boy and then does, but he turns out to be gay or have some other sort of gender identity disorder, will they be more inclined to reject the child since he did not turn out how they want? I found this part of the issue difficult to address, but nevertheless, with the evidence that I was presented with, I found it difficult to base my opinion solely on my own values and therefore side with the proponents of this issue.

Works Cited

Dahl, E. (2003). Procreative liberty: The case for preconception sex selection. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 7(4), 380-384.

Dickens, B. (2002). Can sex selection be ethically tolerated? Journal of Medical Ethics, 28(6), 335-336.

Mcdougall, R. (2005). Acting parentally: An argument against sex selection. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(10), 601-605.

Requirements and Recommendations. (n.d.). Retrieved February 25, 2015, from http://www.microsort.com/?page_id=281

Savulescu, J., & Dahl, E. (2000). Sex selection and preimplantation diagnosis: A response to the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Human Reproduction, 15(9), 1879-1880.

Steinbock, B. (2002). Sex Selection: NOT OBVIOUSLY WRONG. Hastings Center Report, 32(1), 23-28.

The debate of whether sexual orientation is biologically based or not is a very interesting one with various opinions on both sides. The Yes side of the argument has numerous proponents, as a range of studies have been done on multiple parts of the body and brain regarding sexual orientation. Probably one of the most compelling studies for this side that has to do with the brain, found that the left hypothalamus of heterosexual men is almost twice as large as of those in homosexual men (LeVay, 1991). This experiment was based off the fact that in nonhuman primates, the medial zone of the anterior hypothalamus dealt with male-typical sexual behavior. To support that, they found out that lesions in this part of the brain in these primates impaired heterosexual behavior but did not eliminate sex drive (LeVay, 1991). Regardless of these very interesting discoveries, Byne claims that lesions in this part of the brain simply decreased mounting, and did not get rid of it (1997). Another study that involved the brain focused on the suprachaismatic nucleus (SCN) which is a key component of the biological clock that generates and coordinates hormonal, physiological and behavioral circadian rhythms (Swaab, Gooren & Hofman,  1995). The researchers studied the brains of homosexual males who died of AIDS, males with orientation not known, and heterosexual males and females who had also died of AIDS. Their findings were that the SCN was 1.7 times larger than those of the male reference group and it also contained 2.1 times as many cells (Swaab  et. al., 1995). The reason for this is most likely rooted in early brain development since the cell count of the SCN reaches its peak at 13-16 months of age and adult homosexual men are found to have roughly the same cell count as they did at this time of brain development, a.k.a. the postnatal cell death in the SCN did not occur (Hamer et. al., 1993). While of course this relationship is not causal, the correlation is interesting.

Another interesting biological correlation that was related to homosexual males had to do with certain familial constructs. A study about birth order and homosexuality found that having older brothers increases the probability in later-born males to be homosexual (Ellis & Blanchard, 2001). An interesting find from Jenkins’ report supports their hypothesis with evidence that homosexual men had about four times more homosexual brothers than would be expected if one were just looking at prevalence statistics (2010). Also, he discovered that, in reference to male homosexuality, the concordance rates for monozygotic twins was 52%, dizygotic twins was 22% and 11% for adopted brothers. This information suggests that genetics definitely play a role in sexual orientation; the environment plays a smaller, but still important role (Jenkins, 2010).  Ellis and Blanchard also proposed that this could be because of the “progressive immunization of some mothers to Y-linked minor histocompatibility antigens (H-Y antigens) by each succeeding male fetus, and the concomitantly increasing effects of H-Y antibodies on the sexual differentiation of the brain” (2001). In other words, this antibody generation alters some aspect of sexual orientation. Supporting the theory of prenatal development being where sexual orientation could arise, a study linked mothers who were stressed during their pregnancy to lead to having homosexual children.  Jenkins states that there are studies that both support and reject this hypothesis (2010). Evidence has also been found between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 (the long arm of the sex chromosome) but in males only (Hamer, Hu, Magnuson, Hu, & Pattatucci, 1993). This may be a genetic marker that could lead to homosexuality.

While searching for opponents to the question of if sexual orientation is rooted solely in biology, I found there are almost no studies that claim that biology doesn’t have any part in sexual orientation at all; for the most part, the “no” proponents of this argument were merely saying that there are other factors in addition to biology that make up our sexual orientation. Jenkins stated that the environmental conclusion that has received to most consistent findings to date has been the fact that people who turn out to be homosexual in adulthood almost always report gender-nonconformity as a child (2010). Homosexuals have reported that they were aware from an early age of their gender nonconformity and attraction to the opposite sex, but it is unclear if these feelings and actions turn into a homosexual orientation or if they are a result of a homosexual predisposition that has already been established (Jenkins, 2010). Support for this hypothesis was found in a study published in 2013 that offered the results of a longitudinal study conducted between 1983 and 2007 that assessed participants every two years on their gender-nonconformity, sexual orientation and gender discomfort (Steensma, van der Ende, Verhulst, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2013).  Their results stated that adult homosexuality was 8-15 times higher for participants who previously reported gender nonconformity (10.2%-12.2%) compared to participants without gender nonconformity (1.2%-1.7%) (Steensma et al., 2013).

A journal by K. Harbeck points out many contemporary theories regarding human sexuality that pulls from different areas in psychology.  She references the fact that environmental pollution has played a role gonad function as well as in the sex development of various species; therefore, gender and sexual orientation may be more diverse than previously thought (Harbeck, 2009).  A Social Constructionist theory that she proposes “claim[s] that gender, gender roles, and sexual orientation are labels, which society imposes upon the individual and which the individual internalizes;” therefore, suggesting that sexual orientation labels are adopted by the individual rather than it rising up within them, which LeVay supports her in saying (Harbeck, 2009; LeVay, 1991). Harbeck also delves into the fact that an individual’s self-knowledge and self-acceptance have a world to do with someone’s self-identity (2009). This alludes to the fact that someone would only “properly” label themselves as gay if they felt comfortable doing so. She points to evidence stating that some men who meet up in a public restroom for sex (“tearoom trade”) still identify with being heterosexual (Harbeck, 2009). This is just another area of support for the fact that sexuality is something that is difficult to study in the first place.  Some scholars emphasize that the individual’s self-knowledge, self-acceptance and identity that ultimately defines their sexual orientation

In journals of proponents and opponents, and especially in Harbeck’s and Byne’s journals, it was pointed out that finding any sort of explanation for sexual orientation is quite problematic because of the fact that sexual orientation is a fluid concept that can change at many point in our lives and often, what we identify out sexual orientation to be may not match up with our actual sex lives. This makes it difficult to point out any causal explanations for why we are oriented to a specific sex; the only conclusions that can be made are causal. Another troubling discovery that I made during my research was that a lot of studies contradicted what had been found in the past. The most significant studies were often later shot down as being a stretch of the truth or a misrepresentation of data. Jenkins and Byne were both adamant about finding holes in biological research in order to prove that sexual orientation involves more aspects of human life than just biology.

While many journals did point to the fact that biology has something to do with sexual orientation, most had trouble pointing out exactly where the marker or point in development that is most responsible for sexual orientation. Most of the studies like those done by LeVay, and Swaab, Gooren & Hofman find significant correlations between specific homosexual behavior in men, but of course these are only correlations, and further, there is evidence in later studies that suggest these findings may not be significant at all. Probably the most statistically sound biological evidence had to do with the birth order and sibling ratio for homosexual men. There is no doubt that there were significant correlations found in both Ellis & Blanchard’s and Jenkins’ studies regarding this, but again, it was difficult to point out why this occurs. Furthermore, Jenkins’ evidence regarding twin studies and homosexuality points to the fact that genetics definitely has something to do with sexual orientation, as pointed out in Hamer, Hu, Magnuson, Hu and Cohen-Kettenis’ work dealing with the X chromosome as well. Perhaps prenatal development is the most critical period for development of sexual orientation, as Jenkins’ suggested.

The biggest hole by far in homosexual research to date is that men are studied far more than women are, so can any real conclusions be drawn from these findings if they only apply to men? More research definitely needs to be done on women who identify as lesbians in order to come to any real conclusions about the origin of sexual orientation. This did not seem to be true for studies that I found that focused on factors other than biology that played into the development of sexual orientations. While most of the information presented there was based upon theories rather than actual empirical evidence, the study alludes to the fact that the information presented could apply to both males and females that identify as homosexual. Another problem I had with the research was that many times, the sample size was far too small and specific. With Swaab, Gooren and Hofman, their sample was only of 41 participants, only 6 of which were confirmed heterosexuals for the control group. Furthermore, they used AIDS patients for the experimental group of homosexuals. I do not think that their information could apply to the population as a whole because of these faults.

While I do agree that the environment must have something to do with sexual orientation, I agree with the fact that, homosexuality at least, definitely has a deep root in biology. This is in large part to the lack of evidence for biology having no part to do with the development of sexual orientation at all. It is very difficult to design a correlational, let alone experimental, design that could conclude which factors lead to homosexuality. Another difficult part about choosing a side in this debate is how fluid the definition of sexual orientation is and how fluid it can be in just one person. It was stated many times throughout the literature that the sexual orientation that someone may identify with may differ from what their actual action are, so the question remains: where do you draw the line? In “Can Anyone Tell Me Why I’m Gay?” they offer a definition of sexual orientation that helps alleviate some of the confusion around what sexual orientation actually means. They use the operational definition of “whether one is primarily aroused by same-sex or opposite-sex stimuli, independent of the sexual behavior engaged in by that individual.” (Jenkins, 2010). I believe that this should be the definition that researchers use in the future to filter through their results to find ones that match up with this in order to have a more clear set of results. It would be ignorant to suggest that biology has nothing to do with sexual orientation as there has been too much evidence to the contrary, but since the results of these studies cannot pinpoint where and how this arises, I must result to determining that there are other factors that play into its development as Harbeck suggests. Hopefully, further research will be done using lesbian women, testing out the biological factors and narrowing down factors outside of biology that contribute to the development of sexual orientation.

Works Cited

Ellis, L., & Blanchard, R. (2001). Birth order, sibling sex ratio, and maternal miscarriages in               homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Personality And Individual Differences, 30(4),    543-552. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00051-9

Hamer, D., Hu, S., Magnuson, V., Hu, N., & Pattatucci, A. (1993). A Linkage Between DNA Markers           On The X Chromosome And Male Sexual Orientation. Science, 261(5119), 321-327.

Harbeck, K. M. (2009). Contemporary Theories of Sexual Orientation. Research Starters Sociology            (Online Edition.)

Jenkins, W. J. (2010). Can Anyone Tell Me Why I’m Gay? What Research Suggests Regarding The Origins               of Sexual Orientation. North American Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 279-295.

LeVay, S. (1991). A Difference In Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual And Homosexual                 Men. Science, 253(5023), 1034-1037.

Steensma, T.D., van der Ende, J., Verhulst, F.C., & Cohen-Kettenis, P.T. (2013). Gender Variance in          Childhood and Sexual Orientation un Adulthood: A Prospective Study. Journal of Sexual             Medicine, 10(11), 2723-2733. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02701.x

Swaab, D., Gooren, L., & Hofman, M. (1995). Brain Research, Gender and Sexual Orientation. Journal of                 Homosexuality, 28(3/4), 283-301.

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.