Below are exchanges I've had with former psychiatrist and moderator
of the defunct Yahoo Human Ethology group Jay Feierman on ectogenesis
and sex. Also, is a brief article I wrote on obscenity. Peruse them at
your leisure.
Sincerely,
Michael Ragland
Jay R. Feierman: Having
delivered hundreds of Navajo babies, and having worked in pre-natal
clinics in the Indian Health Service, and having seen the joys of being
pregnant with a wanted child and carrying the pregnancy to term and then
delivering the child out of a woman's own body, the picture below, from
my perspective, is grotesque..
Michael Ragland: Jay, I have posted many articles on the advantages of human artificial wombs or ectogenesis. One of the articles stated, "Ectogenesis will remove the compulsion to have vaginal intercourse: Once
ectogenesis becomes a common and accepted way of making babies, vaginal
intercourse will no longer be seen as the only way to have children and
will then lose its status as a supposed necessity for the survival of
humanity.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
There is already "artificial insemination" where a man's
masturbation-produced ejaculate is inserted into a woman's vagina.
That's how some lesbians get pregnant. It is also how women get pregnant
by using semen from a "sperm bank." What's wrong with 'the compulsion
to have vaginal intercourse? That statement reminds me of something from
a Woody Allen movie. Diane Keaton says to Woody Allen, "Sex without
love is an empty experience." Woody Allen responds, "Yes, I agree, but
as an empty experience, it is certainly one of the best." If you were
selling a product to men that "removed the compulsion to have vaginal
intercourse," how well do you think your product would sell. You have a
solution for something that is not a problem.
Michael
R. [NEWER]: Artificial insemination requires a woman to become
pregnant; an artificial womb doesn't. Currently, vaginal intercourse is
necessary for the reproduction of humanity. Once a human artificial womb
becomes available that will no longer be the case for some. As a
result, vaginal intercourse will no longer be necessary in all cases for
the reproduction of humans. A human artificial womb may not remove the
compulsion to have vaginal intercourse but it will certainly moderate
it.
Michael Ragland: This
will not prevent people from choosing to practice vaginal intercourse,
but will open up the possibility for gentler, non-penetrative sexual
acts to be seen as acceptable alternatives, not as “incomplete” forms of
sex.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]: There
are already many non-vaginally penetrative ways for a man and woman to
have sex and both have an orgasm. Only the Roman Catholic church
believes that an ejaculate anywhere other than in the vagina of a
non-artificially-contracepted woman is a Mortal Sin.
Michael
R. [NEWER]: Are you referring to anal sex? Other than the vagina that
is the only penetrative way for a man and woman to have sex and both
have an orgasm. I only had anal sex with a woman once and right
afterwards she had to run to the bathroom to take a dump. In many cases,
the women takes an enema before having anal sex. Unlike women, many men
find anal sex pleasurable because it stimulates the prostate gland.
However, some women do experience orgasm(s) by having anal sex. I do not
consider oral sex between a man and woman "penetrative" unless he is
violently shoving his cock into her mouth and ejaculating in it. I
haven't done research but I'd be willing to bet most men and women who
have sex end up having vaginal intercourse. However, a man and women can
engage in foreplay and both orgasm. This can be achieved through oral
sex. For some sexually sensitive men, foreplay without oral sex can
result in premature ejaculation. Mutual masturbation between a man and
woman can also result in orgasm. Most sex between a man and woman is for
recreation, not procreation. However, the fact the human race is still
dramatically increasing its population demonstrates that sexual
intercourse is still procreative. If human artificial wombs were widely
used by humans this would greatly diminish the procreative act of sexual
intercourse. Vaginal intercourse is generally required for procreation
except in cases of artificial insemination and as I've already
mentioned, artificial insemination can result in a pregnancy; an
artificial womb is not a natural pregnancy. Currently, foreplay may be
considered an incomplete sex act; vaginal intercourse may be considered
the completion of a sex act. In many cases, there is vaginal intercourse
without foreplay; this speaks to the compulsion to have vaginal
intercourse. I doubt many would consider just vaginal intercourse
without foreplay an incomplete sex act. Vaginal intercourse can be both
for recreation and procreation but it is currently necessary for
procreation except in the minority of cases where there is artificial
insemination. A human artificial womb would cancel out the procreation
of vaginal intercourse. It arguably would result in gentler, non-penetrative sexual
acts to be seen as acceptable alternatives.
Michael Ragland: This is good news for the many women for whom vaginal intercourse is risky, painful or just not pleasurable.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]: Risky
for what? The most common cause of dyspareunia for non-medically-ill,
pre-menopausal women is lack of vaginal lubrication. That has many
causes just like erectile dysfunction has many causes. If non-painful
penile-vaginal sex is not pleasurable for a woman, and she is
heterosexual, she needs to find another partner.. For most people,
inter-personal sex with someone to whom you are sexually attracted is
the most pleasurable thing on the planet. Natural selection was smart.
It feels so good so that people will do it.
Michael
R. [NEWER]: Sex occurs in the brain, not in the sexual organs
themselves. As somebody who has masturbated a lot most of my life, I
have found it totally unnecessary to have interpersonal sex to achieve
orgasm.
Michael Ragland: Ectogenesis will also encourage the view that sexual activities are strictly optional.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]: Sexual activities are optional now. No one has to have sex with others or themselves unless they want to.
Michael
R. [NEWER]: Sexual activities may be "optional" but the human race is
doing an awful lot of fucking and having babies. The current world human
population is 7.2 billion and in 2050 it is projected to be 9.6
billion. Do you still consider sexual activities to be "optional"? I
would say for much of the human race sexual procreative acts are
"obligatory". The widespread use of human artificial wombs would change
that.
Michael Ragland: This will enable sexual acts to be seen as a way of expressing love and creating mutual pleasure, not an obligatory burden.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]: If
sex is an "obligatory burden," the person should not do it. Just tell
the other person "no." If a husband expects his wife to have sex with
him whenever he wants, irrespective of what she wants, she should find
another husband. However, that's in the USA and other industrialized
democracies.. In some countries in the world wives (often plural) are
treated like property and are obliged to satisfy their husbands
irrespective of their own feelings. For unmarried people they have more
flexibility. Forcing someone to be sexual when they don't want to is
considered rape and can be punishable as such. In some jurisdictions,
even a wife has the right to say "no."
Michael
R. [NEWER]: As you point out in some countries in the world vaginal
intercourse for women is an obligatory burden. It wasn't so long ago in
the U.S. a man could rape his wife and there would be no criminal
prosecution. I predict the usage of human artificial wombs will first
occur in the industrialized democracies.
Michael Ragland: Do you still find ectogenesis gross?
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]: Apart
from sex a la carte, which is sex not associated with love, sex in the
context of love, where a baby is made, to me is a sacred act, as is the
delivery of the baby from the mother. I don't find extogenesis gross. I
find it sad as it removes one of the most profound human to human
interactions one can have in one's lifetime. I also consider vaginal
delivery a human to human interaction between the mother and her newborn
baby who she brought into the world. Other than the fact that I have
seen it hundreds of times, I have no idea what it must be like for a
woman to hold a newborn baby in her arms that just came out of her body.
Irrespective of human bi-parental care, mothers have a different
interaction with their offspring than fathers. She knows that person,
even when an adult, "came out of me."
Michael
R. [NEWER]: I recently read 20% of women who have babies don't
experience the loving interaction with their newborn babies. Certainly
not all women who have babies experience a loving interaction with their
newborn babies. Some mothers don't even want their babies. Some give
birth to it in a toilet, throw it in an incinerator, or place the
newborn infant in a garbage bag. However, I would agree with you such
procreative sexual acts are not in the context of love.
Michael Ragland: I find the way sex is practiced by many to be "gross".
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
Thanks for sharing. "Gross" is relative. Anything that two people do
sexually together, as long as it mutually agreed upon with no coercion,
is not gross to them. Yet, other people's sexual practices could be
considered gross to an "outsider."
Michael
R. [NEWER]: That is funny Jay. I think it is the "grossness" of many
sex acts which entices people. I think killing people on film for sexual
satisfaction is "gross". I think violently thrusting one's fist and arm
into an anus "gross". I think eating turds is "gross". However, I have
seen films where men and women consent to eating each others vomit and
shit.
"What state governs the issue of obscenity when the
Internet can reach multiple areas? Interestingly, the Miller Test is
based on what is offensive in a certain "community," not the United
States as a whole. For example, what's offensive to someone from New
York City may differ from what offends a person in Topeka, Kansas. But,
the Miller Test's basis of "community" becomes blurred with the advent
of the Internet; a state can define a community as the state as a whole,
a county, a city or another geographic area. The geographic area of the
Internet, however, is nonexistent, and geographic boundaries are
essential to the "community" definition for the Supreme Court's Miller
Test.
As technology redefines our communities and our world, the
Internet will more than likely be the source of more obscenity trials
landing in front of the Supreme Court. Many believe the Court may have
to challenge the current state of the Miller Test as it relates to
electronic obscenity. What will happen in the future? Like Justice
Potter Stuart famously said about pornography decades ago, "I'll know it
when I see it."
NOTE:
I think the Supreme Court's 1973 Miller v. California on obscenity is
non-applicable when it comes to the Internet which transcends geographic
boundaries. Without the Internet obscenity is determined by community
standards; for example what offensive to someone from New York City may
differ from what offends a person in Topeka, Kansas. The article states,
"As technology redefines our communities and our world, the
Internet will more than likely be the source of more obscenity trials
landing in front of the Supreme Court. Many believe the Court may have
to challenge the current state of the Miller Test as it relates to
electronic obscenity.." I don't see how this would be possible. In the
absence of community standards, how could obscenity be defined? in the
case of Miller v. California obscenity is appeals to the "prurient"
interest (i.e., an unhealthy and degrading interest in sex or the
depiction or description of sexual conduct in a patently offensive way
and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value).
However, this is based on community standards. As an avid consumer of
pornography, I have seen and masturbated and climaxed to most forms of
pornography except homosexual pornography and snuff. There have been
some forms of pornography such as severe whipping and caning and snuff
which I have been psychologically attracted to but in which I was not
sexually stimulated. I've obtained intense sexual satisfaction from
bestiality and women, scat involving women or men and women, vomit and
women, spit and urine involving men and women. It goes without saying
none of this material has any literary, artistic, political or
scientific value. Pornography is intended to get one's rocks off, not to
have any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. As
Jay has mentioned sex and aggression are proximate moods and many sex
acts involving aggression have sexually stimulated me. There have been
forms of pornography which have sexually stimulated me but in which I
would not actually participate in. Some countries, such as China, the
government seriously controls the content of the Internet. it does this
for political reasons largely unrelated to online pornography. So,
theoretically if many other countries followed China's example this
would severely limit online pornography. As long as a person is over 18
pretty much anything is considered permissible when it comes to
pornography, except for child pornography and snuff. I think the
definition of obscenity needs to be scrapped. instead, sexual acts
including serious physical harm and death (murder on tape) of people and
child pornography should continue to be criminalized. It can be argued
adults having coercive sex with children has negative psychological
effects on the children. Causing the murder of people on tape for sexual
satisfaction is sadistic and should be considered a psychiatric
disorder. Adults who coerce children in sex acts should also be
considered a psychiatric disorder. In the Diagnostic Statistical of
Mental Disorders having a "prurient" interest in sex (unhealthy and
degrading interest in sex or the depiction and description of sexual
conduct in a patently offensive way or that lacks serious literary,
artistic, political or scientific value) is not listed or considered
psychiatric disorders. Although an adult woman vomiting or defecating in
the face or the mouth of a man may be sexually offensive to many
people, it is not a psychiatric disorder and no physical (and I would
argue mental) harm results in such practices. Paraphilias are not
considered mental disorders unless they cause harm or distress
