2.30: Human Sexuality
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
- Susan Rahman, Prateek Sunder, and Dahmitra Jackson
- CC ECHO
Human Sexuality as an academic field studies the ways in which humans express themselves as sexual beings. This epistemology is interdisciplinary in nature utilizing biology,medical research, sociology and psychology. The science of human sexuality approaches understanding as multilayered. Pulling from these varying disciplines, the field is able to look at sexuality from multiple lenses. While there have been many approaches to the study, its foundation lies in the heteronormative white male perspective. As exclusionary as its roots are,there is an ongoing demand from scholars in the field and much has been written about the need to be more expansive. Understanding Human Sexuality in its totality demands a wider lens.
Whether it was biology or medical research or any of the disciplines that fall under the wide umbrella of an interdisciplinary approach to Human Sexuality, there is a tendency towards an explanation of human sexuality in terms of a false binary that informs the creation of knowledge in the field which is often scientifically inaccurate. Repercussions of this result in varying levels of invalidation of lived experiences of students in the field to highly abusive practices in research and medicine. Historically, the field of Human Sexuality int he United States has been chronically underfunded due to the puritanical roots inherent in the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) foundation. Particularly, the study of female or non-binary bodied persons and research findings, stated conclusions, and best practices about sexuality have often been determined with a white, misogynistic, heteronormative lens.
There have been well documented examples of ethical violations that stem from both individual and structural racism reaching back to the development of the field up until present day. We begin this section with the case of enslaved woman, Sara Baartman. Today she is seen by many as the epitome of colonial exploitation and racism, of the ridicule and commodification of Black bodies. Sarah Baartman was brought to Europe seemingly on false pretenses by a British doctor, stage-named the "Hottentot Venus." She was paraded around "freak shows" in London and Paris, with crowds invited to look at her large buttocks. Baartman died on 29 December 1815, but her exhibition continued. Her brain, skeleton and sexual organs remained on display in a Paris museum until 1974. Her remains weren't repatriated and buried until 2002(Parkinson, 2016).
Dr. J. Marion Sims has been heralded as the father of modern gynecology. It has long been asserted that Dr. Sims perfected the first consistently successful operation for the cure of“vesicovaginal fistula, a catastrophic complication of childbirth in which a hole develops between a woman's bladder and her vagina and leads to constant, unremitting, and uncontrollable urinary incontinence” (Wall, 2006). He did so by practicing on slave women without the use of anesthesia which clearly raises questions regarding Dr. Sim’s medical ethics and his perceptions surrounding the human rights of enslaved persons. During Simm's tenure, women suffered horribly from this condition and a race for the cure was critical. Dr Sims' use of slave women was well documented historically. By the very nature of their enslavement, these women were unable to consent. He performed surgery on them as test cases, and then performed more surgeries later on some white women without anesthesia.
The use of anesthesia was new during this time, and anesthesia did not become commonplace until he was routinely performing this procedure on white women. (Wall, 2006).He later described white women complaining of pain while enslaved Black women did not, and used this anecdotal evidence to make assumptions about differing pain thresholds as inherently based on race,rather than other possible factors for their differing responses, such as enslaved women’s likely fear of punishment for expressing said pain. Some argue it is not because Dr.Sims was racist, but rather that anesthesia was not widely used; however, whatever biases Simms had about pain thresholds and racial identity allowed him to make assumptions about how the women he worked on experienced the procedures.
There is much controversy surrounding the practices of Dr. Sims and the ethical considerations factoring in despite the invention’s historical significance. A Vesicovaginal Fistula (VVF), rendered women greatly incapacitated during the time Dr. Sims was in practice. It was considered a fate worse than death for many. Prior to Dr. Sims’s breakthrough there had been no consistently effective procedure to repair the fistula and there was not a field of gynecology per se at the time; in fact, examining women’s organs was considered repugnant by male doctors. From 1845-1849, Dr. Sims performed experimental surgery on 7 enslaved Black women in his small backyard hospital (Ojanuga, 1993). He performed his experimental surgery on his first patient Lucy in front of 12 male doctors watching as she crouched on her hands and knees and endured the hour long procedure without anesthesia. The surgery was a failure and she almost died. Another patient, an enslaved woman named Anarcha endured 13 operations without anesthesia with limited success (Ojanuga, 1993). Dr. Sims attempted his procedure on white women but as previously mentioned, found that they could not endure the pain. In the minds of many who look at the history of this particular doctor and his practices, Dr. Sims was not merely a product of his time but rather his infliction of pain on Black women was unethical,cruel and callous.
Sadly, the pattern of white male doctors who callously practice unethical procedures on women and people of color does not end with Dr. Simms. Well into the 21st century, forced sterilization of women in California correctional institutions was a consistent practice (Jindia,2020).
A state audit and prison records reveal nearly 1,400 sterilizations between 1997 and 2013. In addition to people sterilized during labor, an unknown number of cis women and trans people were sterilized during other abdominal procedures (Jindia, 2020).
These sterilizations took place without consent or under coercive circumstances. Despite ethical mandates and procedural efforts to make sure research participants are protected, there remain recent examples of gross violations. As we take a look at these,we often find that marginalized populations are the ones most at risk. There seems to almost be permission to test on incarcerated people like they are lab rats. From high risk cancer treatments, to testing skin cream and cosmetics, they have been used for non-consensual medical testing as if their human rights are not valid. These forced sterilizations of incarcerated women in California prisons are the topic of the new documentary, BELLY OF THE BEAST . This film highlights the ways in which the lives of incarcerated people are not their own, and basic human rights to choose and autonomy of their bodies were grossly disregarded. But it is not just the incarcerated, the institutionalized as well have been sterilized against their will. A recent expose highlighted the decades long practice of forced sterilization and castration of men and women who were living in the Sonoma home, one of many homes for the mentally ill/disabled that practiced this type of forced medical intervention (Barber, 2021). The decisions by medical directors to undertake these sterilizations were based solely on their prejudiced attitudes towards the people whose care they were charged with. The unfortunate truth is that white supremacy, sexism and ableism were deeply entrenched in the mindsets of the medical community that made these decisions without consent and this influences the science and decision making practices of the medical community to this day.
Just as the enslaved women could not consent, incarcerated and institutionalized people face similar lack of rights and threat of increased sentences if they fail to comply with authority. The legacy of structural racism, sexism and heteronormativity are part and parcel of the field of Human Sexuality. It is the hopes of this author that a deeper dive will be undertaken by the readers to explore the ways in which what is otherwise a rich field that’s value stretches far beyond the walls of the academy has to reckon with it’s problematic past and present.