Category: Human Sexuality

“‘I want to show my fellow-men a man in all the truth of nature; and this man is to be myself’” (Rousseau, p.5). In an attempt to reach his audience, Rousseau in Confessions did what most would not dare in an autobiography: reveal ‘everything’. Confessions does not follow the conventions of a traditional eighteenth-century autobiography. Rousseau’s self-portrait conveyed himself through raw emotions and distorted ways and actions rather than what society expected: a presentation of exemplary qualities. For a man that admits all his wrongdoings, he wanted people to believe, must be fundamentally innocent and therefore ‘good’. Written in framework of morality, Rousseau believed that man is naturally good, and it is the environment that shapes the person. Comprised of juxtaposed stories of his sexuality and childhood traumas, the novel addresses topics that traditionally would have been regarded as irrelevant and therefore would be omitted. In Rousseau, coherence can be defined as a consistent account of both good and bad experiences whilst not omitting events that may seem small or unimportant. In Rousseau, his consistent reflection upon sexuality allows him to evaluate past events which shape his self-development.

In Confessions sexuality is at the foundation of Rousseau’s self, however not in a natural way. Growing up with his three aunts and father, their beliefs about chastity, Rousseau had confused thoughts about sexuality and had no sensual desire than what he received from Mlle de Lambercier. Mlle de Lambercier was the mother figure in his life; she cared for and similarly punished as a mother would do. “Who would have believed that this ordinary form of childhood punishment, meted out to a boy of eight years by a young woman of thirty, should have decided my tastes, my desires, my passions, my whole self, for the rest of my life, and in a direction that was precisely the opposite of what might naturally be expected?” (15). Rousseau’s reaction to his punishment of spanking was perverse. Spanking, rather than creating fear, leads to an element of sensuality. Rousseau proclaims that it was primarily his early childhood that influenced his later self and that his sexual preferences were influenced by his early childhood spankings of an older mother figure.

Rousseau’s desire to be spanked, he declares, shapes his whole self. However, it is outside his moral framework because according to Rousseau, sexuality is not natural. Often times, when children are punished, children associate their action with a negative consequence, and as a result will avoid doing that action again. Rather, Rousseau looks forward to punishment and considers this incident his entrance into adult sexuality. As his life progresses, he maintains an innocent knowledge and thinks the idea that sexual intercourse is disgusting, “Not only had I reached adolescence before I had any clear idea about sexual union, but such confused ideas as I did have always took some odious and disgusting form. I had a horror of common prostitutes that I have never lost…What I had seen dogs doing always came to mind too when I thought of how it might be for people, and the very memory was enough to sicken me” (16). Rousseau’s discourse about sexuality implies that a shameful connotation. He finds sexual pleasure in feeling guilt and shame and in the ways he first presents his sexual preferences.

As a child, Rousseau steals a valueless ribbon and when accused of doing so, blames a girl, Marion. Rousseau reflects upon this childhood moment as being the worst thing he has done. He imagines the suffering Marion must have endured as a result of his actions despite having no knowledge, “I do not know what became of the victim of my false witness…I fear too, that wretchedness and destitution were not the worst dangers I exposed her to” (83). Rousseau’s purpose in writing about the ribbon story is to allow himself to feel guilty. Rousseau imagines he caused terrible things such to happen to Marion so he can feel shame and derive sexual pleasure from that shame.

In conclusion, Rousseau’s childhood events had a lasting effect that transformed how he viewed events and causing him to have a unique perspective from others about sexuality.

Foucault begins a discussion on the history of sexuality by accusing our societies of hypocrisy and silence about sexuality and says that we are still under the Victorian rule in this Aspect. Then, he makes a simple comparison to sexual discourse in the early seventeenth century and after the appearance of the bourgeoisie. In this comparison, Foucault says that during the seventeenth century, the discourse on sexuality was freer and there was no strictness and reservation compared to the nineteenth century (after the emergence of the bourgeoisie .(

Foucault explains the change in sexual discourse after the emergence of the bourgeoisie and its causes. First, according to Foucault, with the emergence of the bourgeoisie, our sexuality was carefully besieged and subjugated only in the institution of marriage. The only one to talk about is the parents’ bedroom. Second, the natural characteristic of discourse is politeness and anyone trying to transcend would be suppressed and moreover must punish for doing it. Thirdly, since children do not have sex (as alleged by the bourgeoisie), this prevents them from talking about sex or listening to the discourse about sex, where silence about sex becomes the master of the situation. Here Foucault explains the mechanism of repression: repression acts as an injunction of silence, emphasizing non-existence, which means that nothing has been said, seen or understood.

Foucault claims that our hypocritical bourgeois societies have been forced to make some concessions by keeping illegitimate sex outside the community system by creating a place to keep it under control. Foucault used the term Stephen Marcus (the other Victorians) to express these places, namely the psychologist and the brothel.

Foucault refers to the studies of Freud at the beginning of the twentieth century and describes it as a step forward in terms of freedom from sexual repression, but he does not consider such studies as a liberation because it remained within the academic and medical field and since power and knowledge and sex are linked to each other, we need than theories and medical practices to free us from oppression. Foucault sets out the steps and methods by which we can be free from this oppression: breaking laws, lifting taboos, breaking into words, restoring pleasure to reality and creating a new economy in the mechanics of power.

Foucault challenges the importance of sexual discourse. Since the discourse on sexual repression has political and historical guarantees related to the emergence of capitalism and the bourgeoisie as a dominant force – where sex is considered a kind of pleasure and that this pleasure is unproductive and therefore discourse about it is a waste of time and energy – that sexual discourse is important because of the knowledge we form is a kind of revolution of power, and in ther hand the repression itself has given prominence to sexual discourse.

Foucault considers the repressive hypothesis as an attempt to give revolutionary significance to the talk of sexual activity. The repressive assumption makes it seem challenging and paramount to our personal liberation

Foucault asks three questions about the repressive hypothesis:

1. Is it historically accurate to trace what we think of today as sexual repression to the rise of the bourgeoisie in the 17th century?
2. Is power in our society really expressed primarily in terms of repression?
3. Is our modern-day discourse on sexuality really a break with this older history of repression, or is it part of the same history?

It is interesting to note that Foucault is not interested in opposing the repressive hypothesis, but his main concern is to know how and why sexuality has become a topic of discussion. In other words, his interest is not sexual activity, but rather a quest for a certain type of knowledge and the power of knowledge.

Discipline

Foucault begins this chapter of his book Observation and Punishment by presenting two models of punishment in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the first model, Foucault describes the horrendous punitive scene of Damienz, whose father was killed, in which Damienz was dismembered in a hideous and inhumane way. He then moves on to a timetable for prisoners in the juvenile prison after the Damienes incident in 75 years. Although these two models do not deal with the same crimes, it is possible to observe the extent of the tremendous change that occurred during the period.

Foucault describes this period as a new era of justice and on the other hand the era of scandals for traditional justice. According to Foucault, in this period there is a new justification for the right of torment in addition to the liberalization of new laws and the abolition of the old laws of punishment. The most important changes that Foucault mentions are that during this period: first, the sanctions were sanctioned. Second, clear and general laws were put in place so that punishment would be commensurate with the crime to which it was attributed. Thirdly, the jury was approved and finally, it is more important to Foucault that the body was removed as a target of punishment.

Foucault discusses further changes in how punishment was imposed between the late 18th and early 19th centuries. According to Foucault, the most important thing that has changed during this period was that the criminal show was turned into a mere administrative measure and the column of recognition and defamation was canceled. These changes came as a result of the suspicion of the brutality of the punishment, which went beyond the brutality of the crime itself. Foucault attributes this brutality in the previous era to the goal of intimidating people from crime and imposing the prestige of the ruler and the judiciary. On the contrary, and unexpectedly, this method of returning people in the form of crime and therefore increased the number of crimes and became the executioner and judge criminals sold people, which created them a lot of enmities. In addition, these places (places of general punishment ) have become places of violence and punishment was the most hidden part of the criminal process.

Therefore, in this period, unlike previous periods, the trials became public and implementation became a disgrace to justice, so it was exercised to others and under the nature of secrecy, which freed the judiciary from the profession of the heinous massacres. In this way, the new type of punishment, in which the punishment r was abolished and the pain was abolished (using the guillotine) and the creation of prisons that take freedom here, can be said to be forms of punishment that have become decent and have been prevented from harming the body.

After the middle of the 19th century, although the transformation of the body was stopped and the focus on pain technique ceased as the first and only form of punishment (where there was a prison that was considered the loss of the ownership of freedom), the retribution did not work without eating the body in another way . For example, life imprisonment and hard labor were associated with rationing, sexual deprivation, beatings and solitary confinement. So there is still an element of punishment but in a hidden and limited way.

With the end of the nineteenth century, the punitive process was associated with a number of developments, The first and the most important is ‘quantity’. Where there was less amount of pain and a greater amount of humanity, that is, the transition from physical punishment to spiritual punishment. At this stage, many crimes are no longer considered as crimes because they are linked to a kind of religious authority or economic life. For example, ‘infidelity’ is no longer considered a crime, and theft from the home is less dangerous and less punishable.

The second development of the criminal process is the appearance of mitigating circumstances: it enters the decision of the judge based on the work (the will of the actor and the extent of knowledge of the crime and linking the act to the criminal past of the actor). This development (through the introduction of psychiatry and anthropology) aims to rehabilitate criminals and turn them into law and order-respecting people. Here is the beginning of the judiciary in Europe to rule on something other than crimes, but on the spirit of criminality: The question is no longer a question what the consequences of this violation, but became a question what is the most appropriate way to reform this individual and the prediction of the development of this individual.

Punishment

In this section, Foucault begins by defining punishment as a painful and painful punishment by Goucourt, in which the pain is aggravated and the punishment is inexplicable but at the same time systemic and non-brutal. And the process of punishment at this stage was codified as there were standards of punishment and was not random: First, the amount of pain should occur if not measurable it can be estimated. Second, the quantity and momentum of the pain is equally correlated with the gravity of the crime. Thirdly, the punishment must be eye-catching and everyone must be assured. If punishment is a form of imposing prestige and the power of justice.

Under the Royal Crown of the year 1670 all procedures, including the judgment, must be confidential even for the accused himself, who has not been allowed to know the charges, the allegations, the witnesses and no lower to defend him. Foucault argues that such secrecy was intended to reduce unrest and violence against judges, which means that the king and the supreme authority cannot return to the general public to make a decision. But this secrecy did not prevent the restriction of some rules, since there was a system that imposed what should be the laws of medicine.

According to Foucault, punishment at this stage is understood as a political ritual because it constitutes a form of the governor’s own celebrations. In the classical era the offense was directly related to the ruler, even if it did not harm anyone. It is a violation of the image of the law. At the same time, it is a violation of the ruler because it is the image of the law. Therefore, punishment has a legal political image: in addition to restoring the natural balance is to restore the image of sovereignty that has been distorted. Foucault adds that the punishment is a kind of imposition of prestige instead of direct killing is linked to something else: because of disease, famine and periodic massacres, the scene of death became familiar.

Foucault claims that after the transition of the general punishment scene inside the prisons was not intended to be humanitarian, but was caused by fear of the disturbances that accompany these scenes, as the people (who was called as a witness to the punishment and terrorism) was able to reject the punitive power and Execution of the sentence is prohibited if it is deemed unfair. It has become a privilege for the public to be punishment d to listen to the words of the person who no longer has anything to lose (especially if the sentence is carried out by a member of the general public for a crime against a nobleman), which would encourage the revolution against the ruler.

Twelfth Night, or What You Will is one of the most challenging Shakespeare’s plays, as it explores issues of gender identity and sexual orientation, interrogates traditional representation of gender roles and suggests same-sex love and attraction between most of the characters, issues, which unfortunately, nowadays, almost 400 years later, are little debated or even considered taboo topics. Twelfth Night is with no doubt a play ahead of it is time. The innovative Elizabethan play, disturbs heteronormativity, which is the belief that heterosexuality, based on the gender binary, is the only valid sexual orientation. Binarism is imposed by society, as every human being is framed into two complementary genders: male or female, which have a natural role in life. Therefore, biological sex, gender identity and the social role attributed to each gender organize any person into masculine or feminine norms. Twelfth Night achieves to turn upside-down all these conventions, which are natural and righteous for a great amount of people and shows not only the disruption of heteronormativity but also the ambiguous and constructive essence of the gender.

Twelfth Night can be interpreted from the constructive gender theory view, which is the belief that gender is an essentialist construct. People do not born with a specific gender, it is not natural or permanent, otherwise it is built. Moreover, as binarism is also disrupted, this changeable gender does not need to be polarized into male and female and can be something in between or outside this dichotomy.

This fluid, ambiguous and constructed gender is perfectly reflected in the character of Viola. Viola does not renounce to her female gender identity when she becomes Cesario, indeed, we do not actually know. Rather, she easily switches between genders and takes advantage of this mobility to her favor in the situations that comes in her way, such as win Olivia’s attention or conquer Orsino. Viola’s blending into genders suggests that male and female are exchangeable identities, ergo equal to each other. Viola and Cesario are two characters at the same time, two different person in one single voice, she is both or neither. There is a clearly gender disruption when Viola said “As I am man / As I am women” (Shakespeare, Twelfth Night. II.II. 36-38), you cannot make a distinction between male and woman in the play. It is impossible to separate gender, to separate Viola and Cesario. Viola’s words can be attributed to the three levels (Viola, Cesario and the actor), we never know to what extent is her acting. Viola’s performance of male gender as Cesario demonstrates the fluidity and uncategorical nature of gender.

Viola manages to transform her gender, whether in the masculine, in an intermediate or in a fluid one, through disguise. Disguise is equally to gender, something you can wear, pull on and off. Dressing like a man, automatically makes you a man. A simply change of costumes demonstrates that gender, indeed, is only a performance.

Moreover, when Viola decides to assume her supposedly late brother identity by cross-dressing, she acquires exactly the same physical appearance and become indistinguishable from Sebastian. The ease that Viola has to become her brother is another evidence of the duality and ambiguity of gender, as Viola said “I am all the daughters of my father’s house / And all the brothers too–and yet I know not” (Shakespeare, Twelfth Night. II.IV.120-121), and suggest that gender is flexible and not necessary binary.

Further, the fact that Viola was played by a man in the theatre back in Elizabethan era, adds another level of gender identity. Viola was three level gender character: a man playing a woman playing a man. The audience in the theater was convinced that Viola, in fact, was a woman playing a man, and not just a man (the actor) playing another man (Cesario), this confirms that gender is a mere performed role.

Since binarism is rejected and there are not categorized genders, heterosexual attitudes are not possible, which leads to a disruption of heteronormativity. Both Orsino and Olivia desires Viola, but as her gender preserves ambiguous, it implies homoerotic traits between the three of them. Since we do not know the gender of Viola, or as far as her performance goes, we do not know if Orsino is really attracted to Viola, or if it is an homoerotic relationship with Cesario, just as we do not know if Olivia is sexually attracted to Cesario, or presents lesbian attraction towards Viola. Although some scenes suggest that, what most attracts Olivia of Cesario are his ‘feminine’ characteristics. Olivia praises Cesario’s beauty highlighting typically feminine beauty traits.

In addition, the fact that the entire cast was male, adds double homoeroticism to the play and further destroys the heteronormativity of the time. The sexual tensions between Orsino and Cesario, or Olivia and Cesario, were visually two men attracted romantically, which is completely subversive.

It is worth mentioning that the characters of Sebastian and Antonio, unlike Viola or Olivia, are two actors playing two men, that have a romantic relationship. Nevertheless, at the end of the play, Antonio’s fate is ignored and unresolved, as he is one of the few characters that remains solitary and unpaired, out of the heteronormative matrix.

At the end of the play, it seems that the heteronormative status quo is restored with the final pairings: Viola is finally together with Orsino and Olivia accepts her marriage with a completely stranger, Sebastian, just because he looks exactly like Cesario, which is completely improbable and even absurd. Almost everyone ends happily (and heterosexually) married and the order is re-established. A classic ending to a classic comedy appropriate for the Elizabethan era.

However, if we make a more detailed examination, there are some scenes that maybe suggest that these couples were not paired to restored the heteronormative but to challenge, one last time, gender roles and sexuality. We cannot overlook that in the Elizabethan era, sodomy was penalized even with death, so a comedy play with an homosexual ending was unthinkable. Perhaps, Shakespeare did not serve a normative ending with heterosexual marriage, but in a subtle and indirect way, he challenged these conventions. Paying attention to the actions and very well chosen words of the characters, it is noticeable that their actions belies these conventions.

In the very last part of the play, when Orsino discovers that Cesario is a woman, Viola, he stills refers to Viola, as a man “Boy thou hast said to me a thousand times / Thou never should’st love woman like to me” (Shakespeare, Twelfth Night. V.I.260-261). Either Orsino does not care about the gender of Cesario and yet decides to love him/her, or else, Orsino keeps the homoerotic relationship he had with Cesario and ignores Viola’s gender revelation “Cesario come – /For so you shall be while you are a man ;/But when in other habits you are seen ,/Orsino’s mistress , and his fancy’s queen” (Shakespeare, Twelfth Night. V.I. 372-375).

Either way, the heroine Viola, and the genius writer behind her, shows throughout the whole play that gender is not innate but constructed, that gender can be reduced as a simply performance, how binarism is dismantled and gender maintains ambiguous, and how this disruption of gender leads to a disruption of the heteronormativity, through disguise, sexual preferences and behaviors.

In this essay, I will be exploring Satz’s egalitarian argument for why we should limit markets in female reproductive labour. I will argue that Satz’s thesis is compelling, with regards to the assertion that contract pregnancy promotes the control of women’s bodies and behaviour. I will also argue that contract pregnancy exploits certain women with intersecting identities, specifically within the sphere of international surrogacy arrangements. Although I agree with Satz’s argument that contract pregnancy is counter to women’s liberation, I do not think surrogacy should be illegal. In a utopia, surrogacy would not face the limitations discussed, however, we do not live in said utopia. For now, we must place restrictions on the market to decrease the risk of exploitation. We must also examine cases of international surrogacy with particular scrutiny, to ensure women with intersecting identities are not used to satisfy the positive rights of largely white, wealthy couples, from the west.

There are two types of surrogacy arrangement. In gestational surrogacy the surrogate is artificially inseminated with the embryo of the contracting couple. The surrogate shares no genetic material with the child (Surrogacy UK, 2017). Contrastingly, in traditional surrogacy, the surrogate mother’s eggs are used, thus, she is genetically tied to the child she carries (ibid). Furthermore, a surrogate can be altruistic, wherein she is not paid for her work, but her expenses are covered by the contracting parents. This form of surrogacy is legal in the UK. Alternatively, commercial surrogacy involves both payment of expenses and a wage for the surrogate’s service. This form of surrogacy is illegal in the UK, however it is legal in the US and countries such as India and Ukraine (Sensible Surrogacy, 2018). Therefore, within the market of contract pregnancy lies a multitude of other factors which may affect our attitudes towards it. Due to the largely controversial nature of the market, there are a number of arguments for the moral impermissibility of the market. I will firstly explore some essentialist arguments for the impermissibility of the market, before arguing that Satz’s egalitarian argument is more compelling.

Subsequently, Satz’s asymmetry thesis, argues that there is a certain asymmetry between the reproductive market and other forms of labour (Satz, 2010). There is something instinctively different about the selling of women’s wombs, to other forms of labour. Essentialist arguments claim the reproductive market is inappropriately valued. Essentialist arguments claim women’s wombs are treated as a ‘mere commodity’, and that the market reflects attitudes that women’s reproductive labour has no non-instrumental value (Brennan & Jaworski, 2015: 1058). Satz cites Pateman, who argues a woman’s ability to reproduce is integral to her sense of identity and personhood. Pateman focuses on the contracting of women’s bodies in prostitution, and concludes that our sexuality should ‘not be treated as an alienable commodity’ (Satz, 2010: 120). However, Satz argues we cannot place weight on this argument considering the existence of other forms of work in which people sell things which are also integral to their personhood. For example, Satz argues a Rabbi sells their services, but would consider their religion an integral part of who they are (ibid). In addition, this argument could also be applied to sperm donors. A sperm donor is selling a by-product of his sexuality, however, this is largely an uncontroversial market, whilst surrogacy is contentious.

Subsequently, essentialists also argue that surrogacy is a means of disrespecting the female body and its capacities. Some argue that the process of surrogacy is more invasive and restrictive than other forms of work. However, refuting this, Satz argues athletes are restricted in what they eat and how much sleep they get (Satz, 2010). Thus, contract pregnancy is not unique in its invasive and restrictive nature. Further support for Satz comes from Nussbaum, whose argument for the impermissibility of prostitution can be applied to contract pregnancy. Nussbaum compares a ‘colonoscopy artist’ and a prostitute, claiming the artist ‘permits an aperture of her body to be penetrated by another person’s activity’ and ‘runs some bodily risk’ (Nussbaum, 1998: 706). Although this is an imaginary occupation, we can visualise occupations similar to this, such as volunteers for medical trials (ibid). It is also hard to imagine a world in which this labour would be deemed immoral. It may be viewed as an undesirable occupation, and thus may be heavily regulated, but it would not be deeply disputed. Further to this, Brennan and Jaworski (2015) claim essentialist arguments to contract pregnancy rely on semiotics. Essentialist arguments assert that even in the absence of exploitation and so on, surrogacy is always wrong. We give negative meaning to women’s sexuality and reproductive capacities. However, this only leads us to constrain our options and live narrowly (ibid). To depart from essentialist arguments, relying on the claim that the market is inherently disrespectful or abuses integrity, we are left to ‘revise our interpretive schemas whenever the cost of holding that schema are significant’ (ibid: 1077). By subjecting our semiotics to a cost-benefit analysis, our views on surrogacy can change. Surrogacy provides childless parents with their positive right to have a child, and so making this market illegal on essentialists grounds is immoral.

Subsequently, although Satz does not argue that these markets should be made illegal, she makes a compelling argument for why it might be harmful to women. Satz argues that we should not defend the asymmetry thesis on internal or essentialist grounds, but on external grounds. The essentialist arguments rejected above do no more than perpetuate gender stereotypes further. The supposition that surrogacy is degrading or demeaning, or demeans the importance of sexuality for our personhood, is only consolidated with appeal to existing cultural values (Satz, 2010). Placing such importance on female bodies only reflects ‘society’s attempts to control women and their sexuality’ (ibid: 121). Subsequently, Satz’s egalitarian argument blames the perpetuation of gender hierarchies and the control of women for the harmful nature of contract pregnancy. Satz argues there is a ‘female ghetto’ present in almost all societies, in which women are constrained to roles such as secretarial work and childcare (ibid: 128). Although this is changing, with more women pursuing the fields of science and law, contract pregnancy arguably keeps women from escaping female stereotyping. To argue this, Satz first looks at the control over a woman’s body during pregnancy, and the restrictions placed on her. A woman’s behaviour is monitored and controlled for 9 months, and after birth her product is taken from her. Although other forms of labour, such as military service, require the same commitment, there is not the same stigma attached to military work. In addition, women’s gestational work is seen as equal to the work of males in the formation of a child. Momentary ejaculation and carrying a child for 9 months should not be equated. Thus, surrogates are viewed as ‘incubators of men’s seeds’ (ibid: 131). The control over women’s bodies and importance placed on her womb, only serve to create an image of women as ‘baby-machines’ (ibid: 130). The contracting of women’s wombs is occurring in ‘a society that historically has subordinated women’s interests to those of men’ (ibid:128). Satz argues under suitable restrictions and in the right environments, surrogacy could simply mean that a woman’s reproductive power can provide a childless couple with what they desire most. However, the conditions under which this could happen must be stringent. This is also where I believe international surrogacy arrangements and the exploitation of poorer women is of significance.

Furthermore, Panitch argues there is an asymmetry between surrogacy in the western world and in India. A commercial surrogate in the west is usually a high school graduate, has freedom to pursue other interests, and is paid £25,000 to £50,000 for her work. (Panitch, 2012). In India, a surrogate is usually undereducated, has a family to provide for, and is kept in a compound in which all behaviour is strictly monitored (ibid). Perhaps more illuminating is that Indian surrogates are paid anywhere from £1,500 to £5,000 for their service (ibid, 2012). It is clear to see that the gender hierarchy is more complex than that between men and women, but within this is a hierarchy between women themselves. Panitch argues ‘global surrogacy serves to satisfy the positive reproductive rights of infertile first-world women’ (ibid: 274). The intersecting identities of Indian surrogates, with their black and minority ethnic (BAME) identity, and working class status, means these women are being exploited through contract pregnancy arrangements. Panitch argues when global surrogacy takes place, ‘wrongfully, albeit mutually advantageous exploitation occurs’ (ibid: 284). Panitch expands on Satz’s egalitarian argument through asserting that not only is gender tied up in issues of surrogacy, but also issues of race and class. Rather than perpetuating a patriarchy, contract pregnancy fuels the kyriarchy we live in. In order for surrogacy to no longer be a threat to the flourishing of women, we must firstly ensure equal opportunity for men and women. We must also further the counter-attack on gender, racial and classist stereotypes. Allowing the positive reproductive rights of women seems to ‘commit (some class of) women to a form of indentured servitude’ (ibid: 285). The negative rights of the surrogates must be protected above all.

To conclude, it is not ipso facto that contract pregnancy is morally wrong. Satz’s argument claims that it is the perpetuation of gender stereotypes and the patriarchy which means we should limit the market. Panitch takes the argument further and illuminates the existing kyriarchy we face, and the discrimination between women in the world of contract pregnancy. However, the spheres of prostitution, pornography and arranged marriages also perpetuate the same stereotypes. Rather than making the market illegal on the grounds of stereotyping, we must focus on minimising the risk of exploitation. Only once we give the same respect to women from developing countries to those from western societies, can we begin to change the language surrounding female sexuality and surrogacy.

Abstract

In the Bible, God made sexuality the core of human experience. He created Adam and Eve to not only be a help mate to one another, but to also “fill the earth and subdue it.” The two main purposes of sex were for procreation and marriage. There are various passages throughout the Bible that, in general, state they run from all kinds of sexual immorality. Solomon’s Song praises the lovers ‘ sexual pleasure, while Paul explained that marital marriage reflects Christ’s relationship with his church. Christians of today face a society that idolizes sexual pleasure through pornography, entertainment, and advertisement, while undermining its unitive and procreative energy by removing it from relationships. Evangelicals are struggling in this context to teach and live a biblical sex theology that centers on the marital covenant between husband and wife, affirming the playful, non-procreative dimensions of sex.

Love

Love is the world’s most powerful force (Rouse & Slade, 2016). Loving is what a child needs in their lives more than any other verb, and that loving is needed as soon as they enter the world (Campbell, 2015). It’s not just what a child needs, but what every human on the planet needs (Ingram, 2016). Happiness has been the driving desire of the soul of God since the beginning of time. There’s one word, which is love, in 1John 4:8 describes God.

God’s love is unconditional, meaning that his love does not rely on success, and the world is desperately searching for this unconditional love (Ingram, 2016). The universal solution is to understand that there is an all-knowing, all-powerful, infinite point of reference ready to offer love, forgiveness, healing, and support (Ingram, 2016). The universal problem is that the love of God exists simply because it exists and the love of man is conjured up and worked on (Rouse & Slade, 2016). The disconnection between the love God provides and human love has caused many to look for cheap alternatives in the form of money, power, beauty, and sex (Higton, 2008).

By speaking about reality, there can be no discussion of love. Jesus is asked in three of the four Gospels, ‘Rabbi, what commandment is the greatest in the law? Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy spirit, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might,’ he said to them. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like that,’ You’re going to love your neighbor like you. All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments (Matthew 2:3-40).

There are those who are full of grace, and forgiveness comes to them easily, and there is no subject that can’t be forgiven by the grace that God provides. On the other side of the coin are those who are full of truth and point out sin and sometimes consider themselves holier than you and have more of a negative effect for the Gospel than a positive effect. Only one person has ever walked the earth who embodied both grace and reality. John chapter one tells us that both grace and reality are made of Christ (John 1:14). Love is the driving force that brings together those who are in opposites and bring fundamentally divided individuals together (Tillich, 1954). Jesus was not only filled with grace and reality, but he was also filled with love and beauty.

Sex

From a Biblical perspective, gender is supposed to be in the marital union between one man and one woman. Within the book of Genesis, God saw that Adam’s human development was fine, but incomplete, so he caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep and created Eve from a rib bone. Marriage was the purpose of God, and it was told to be fruitful and multiply to Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:28). God is not only the author of love and marriage, but he is the creator of sex in a world where sex is saturated (Ingram, 2016). It is evident from the bible that gender has a procreation intent, but sex also has an intimacy function (Akin, 2003).

Not only does spiritual intimacy matter to the marriage relationship, but there is no total marriage without physical intimacy (Piper & Taylor, 2005). In 1 Corinthians 7:5, Paul reminds his readers that a marriage deprived of sex is condemned to be a marriage vulnerable to Satan’s temptation;” Do not deprive one another, except perhaps for a limited time by consent, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not threaten you because of your lack of self-control” (1 Corinthians 7:5).

Paul then goes on to discuss the powerful pull and attraction sex has on the human race by suggesting that if a burning desire to have sex is not evil, but if that desire continues, then marriage should be in a person’s life’s windshield as having sex within the sense by which it was built. Sex is built to bind coupes together, and the intimacy and connection created during sex provides stability agents during challenging marriage times (Ingram, 2016). When this relationship is formed with someone outside the marriage, it is unstable and generates baggage in the form of rejection and pain (Ingram, 2016).

Sexuality

One topic on the rise in the U.S. is gender identification. The United States saw a dramatic increase in the prevalence of sexual orientation and health issues accompanying this rapid increase between 1998 and 2008 (Saewyc,2011). A 2016 survey of 81,000 adolescents in the state of Minnesota found that 3 percent of teens identify as transgender or non-conforming (Tanner, ND). Although harassment is a by-product of those who do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth, the 2016 study also revealed that the mental and physical health of transgender teenagers is worse than those who are not confused with sex (Tanner, ND).

In 2015, I worked at an at-risk youth facility. There were a couple of kids there who were born one gender but felt that they identified more with the opposite gender than they were born. One of the kids in my cottage was sent out to different groups. One of the groups involved other kids around her age that felt that they didn’t identify with what they were born as. She talked to me all the time including placement for other kids like her. Years prior to this, I worked for a state prison that housed inmates that were going through the sex change. One inmate had the state paying for his surgery and we were not allowed to call him “him” or “he”.

One reason why they (the church) shy away from subjects like masturbation, same-sex attraction, pornography, and sexual addiction is because the church is unable to agree on what God has to say about such issues, and even when it is discussed, it is typically judgmental (Slattery, 2018). One of the church’s biggest shortcomings are Christians with no convincing approach to sexuality in society and culture (Yancey, 2005). The Bible is accessible, frank, and openly addresses gender, sexuality, and sexual desire (Newsom & Ringe, 1998). Sara cries at the prospect of sexual pleasure in her old age (Genesis 18:12). Isaac caresses Rebecca his wife (Genesis 26:8).

Satan and his plot

Satan has attempted to distort and transform into something bad just like anything else that God has made. Sexuality and sex are no exception to the law of what is to be done behind the curtain. When it comes to sex and sexuality, the battle is as spiritual as it is physical (Slattery, 2018). Scripture tells us that in order to live an abundant life, God provides everything necessary, including sex. In Satan to gain a foothold in relationships, sexual sin opens the door (Slattery, 2018). The average Christian spends much more time considering the signs of sin than the root cause of sin.

Satan takes full advantage of those who are sexually abused by telling them that not only is their sexual history something that God despises and can never forgive, but it will also determine their future. When I was sexually assaulted, I felt as if I was being punished by God. Satan had me to believe that everything was my fault. Nothing could be beyond the facts. The God of the Bible is readily available for anyone who is sexually broken to begin a process of peace and restoration. Often, those who are broken will start the restoration process through a person or group. Jesus said Christ’s body was to be his hands and feet as he was gone, and that’s exactly how broken children, girls, men and women started the process.

Chapter six of Galatians says; Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are religious ought to restore him in a gentle spirit. Be vigilant not to be tempted, too (Galatians 6:1, ESV). In other words, if someone is sexually violated and in need, it is Christ’s body’s moral responsibility to restore such a person with gentleness and compassion (Ingram, 2014). So Paul warns his readers in the next verse that it will not be easy to recover someone who is trapped in sexual sin or someone who is spiritually damaged, so he asks them in verse 2 to bear each other’s burdens and thus fulfill Christ’s rule (Galatians6:2, ESV).

References

1. Akin, D. L. (2003). God on Sex: The Creator’s Ideas about Love, Intimacy, and Marriage. B&H Publishing Group.
2. Campbell, R. (2015). How to Really Love Your Child. David C Cook.
3. Higton, M. (2008). Christian Doctrine. Hymns Ancient and Modern Ltd.
4. Ingram, C. (2014). Love, Sex, and Lasting Relationships: God’s Prescription for Enhancing Your Love Life. Baker Books.
5. Ingram, C. (2016). The Real God: How He Longs for You to See Him. Baker Books.
6. Newsom, C. A., & Ringe, S. H. (1998). Women’s Bible Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press.
7. Piper, J., & Taylor, J. (2005). Sex and the Supremacy of Christ. Crossway Books.
8. Platt, D. (2017). Counterculture: Following Christ in an Anti-Christian Age. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.
9. Rouse, D., & Slade, D. (2016). Love Defined Workbook. Lulu.com.
10. Slattery, D. J. (2018). Rethinking Sexuality: God’s Design and Why It Matters. Crown Publishing Group.
11. Tanner, Lindsey, More U.S. teens identify as transgender, survey finds. (n.d.). Retrieved November 11, 2018 from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/05/more-u-s-teens-identify-transgender-survey-finds/306357002/
12. Tillich, P. (1954). Love, Power, and Justice: Ontological Analyses and Ethical Applications. Oxford University Press.
13. West, C. (2018). Good News About Sex & Marriage (Revised Edition): Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching. Franciscan Media.
14. Yancey, P. (2005). Designer Sex. Inter Varsity Press.