Post from my blog (tenderhooligan/ wordpress)

Below is an excellent and interesting critique of the recent announcement by Dave (Cameron) et al that said that we need to halt the over-sexualisation of our young girls. Dave et al are backing several proposals (from a Christian organisation, it’s worth noting) that aim to protect children from sexual imagery (e.g., by selling top shelf magazines in brown sleeves). In predictable Tory fashion, Dave said that such change is about “social responsibility, not state control”. The conservatives are always keen to giveth autonomy with one hand and to very quickly taketh it away with the other. Whether it’s their plan or not, any measures introduced to combat over-sexualisation of young people will, inevitably, result in greater state control. But that’s an aside (for now).

Now, don’t get me wrong – over-sexualisation of young girls is a very serious issue and is unavoidably an aspect of our patriarchal objectification and sexualisation of women, and the impossible centrality of their physical appearance (they must be attractive but not too attractive because that’s inaccessible, they must be thin but not too thin because that’s emaciated, they must be curvy but not too curvy because that’s slutty and/ or fat, they must be lightly dressed but not too lightly dressed because that’s also slutty, etc. etc.) In short, they must be perfect but not too perfect  because then they’d never bang you. These norms are communicated to our young people everywhere they look, alongside the image of women as (available and willing) sex objects. So, should we do something about all of this? Yes, we absolutely should. Though we should be honest about it. If it’s about addressing the issue of pervasive sexual imagery and messages, that’s one thing; if it’s a cover for something else entirely, though, then we have a whole new problem. Laura Woodhouse from the f-word unpicks what is really going on with this conservative policy.

… the real problem with thongs and padded bras being marketed at young girls and pop culture being defined by women writhing around half naked is that it encourages children and teenagers to have sex.

…

For these right-wing, often conservative Christian types, the commercialised vision of sex being thrust in kids’ faces is dangerous because their view of “normal” has no place for anything other than sex between one man and one woman, bound together for life, who are willing to accept the tiny wee bundle of a consequence that may result. Sex for pleasure, sex outside relationships, sex that results in abortion – any sexual activity that deviates from their norm – is a sinful, threatening act that tears another rip in the moral fabric of a fading social order they are doing their darnedest to resurrect. This kind of sex is dark and dirty, while children are pure and innocent. By bringing the sinful world of sex into childhood, we defile our children.

So is it about saving our children’s innocence, protecting them from the horrid world of the patriarchy, and teaching them that they don’t have to subscribe to these messages? Or is it just that the right-wingers don’t want anyone (apart from a happily married man and woman) having sex? I’m inclining towards Woodhouse’s argument. Nadine Dorries, for example, is notoriously anti-abortion. By and large, if I may generalise, anti-abortionists are also anti-non-marital, non-procreative, sex-for-the-hell-of-it sex. But here’s the rub: sex is “normal”, teenage sex is “normal”, teenagers are horny little rascals, teenagers are walking frickin’ sexers. Teens have been having sex for as long as anyone’s been having sex. Teenagers living in a vacuum would still have sex.

Yes, girls need to know that they don’t have to be anything for anyone, that they don’t have to do anything for anyone, that the messages they see every day present a patriarchal view to which they do not have to subscribe, but if Dave’s new bandwagon is about preventing sex and little else, then the conservatives are once again barking up the wrong tree.

From my blog (tenderhooligan/ wordpress)

I’m still trying to process this particular story: girls who like rock and roll are whores(thegloss, hat tip to lastyearsgirl). One should always begin a discussion which involves the word “whore” with the question: “what is a whore”? It’s a much-used term yet I’ve never quite understood what it means. It’s generally directed at those women who have sex and enjoy sex, though if those women are married the term doesn’t apply, as I understand it. So, unmarried women who have and enjoy sex are whores. (So what about lesbians who can’t legally get married in the traditional sense? Or does it just apply to heterosexual females?) There’s also a consideration of the number of partners, I believe, although that number is entirely arbitrary and subjective. I don’t know if five sexual partners makes you a whore, or if it’s 10, or if it’s 20, or if it’s 100. Other behaviours are often discussed also; for example, if a woman likes a drink of an evening, she may be a whore. There’s probably an age consideration also, with younger women arguably more likely to be “labelled” whores than older women, and there could also be an ethnic element in the mix. And, of course, if a man whistles to a woman on the street and comments on her “nice tits” and she ignores him, it’s very likely that he will call her a whore. Because, you know, that’s a complement, right, and she’s a slut for not indulging his ego and god-given patriarchal right to objectify her. But I digress. A whore is anything or anyone you want it to be, m’kay?

In the case of the linked piece, Men’s Health – that pinnacle of philogyny – reports that women are whores if they like rock and roll. Women who listen to Nirvana are more likely to “put out” on the first date than women who listen to Coldplay.* (Yes, seriously!) And why? Because of the lyrics, of course. Cobain was a shagger and Martin is, well, he’s not a shagger. (They do make a semi-interesting point about normalising different sorts of behaviours but it’s impossible to take any of it seriously when it’s all intended to slut-shame.) It is admitted that the study is unscientific. Ahem.

–

In somewhat related news, Psychology Today reports that Princeton researchers have found that sexy women are more likely to be seen as sex objects. Why? Because some male brains neurologically deny sexualized women “humanity”. When these men viewed pictures of scantily clad women (that’s the study’s definition of sexiness, by the way), their brains did not perceive them as being fully human. (Other studies have found, you may be interested in noting, that such women are less moral, likeable and intelligent!) A couple of things. First, these men can’t help themselves if they dehumanise a sexy lady because it’s all to do with their brains and their cognition over which they have no control. Irrelevant, it seems, is the patriarchal culture which has permitted them to dehumanise women in the first place. Second, sexy ladies, you only have yourself to blame if you’re not given the respect you deserve; again, remember, it’s the poor menz brains going all awry when they see you. Third, perhaps you just shouldn’t be sexy at all, for your own sake. And, by sexy, don’t forget that we mean scantily clad. If nothing else, you should have a care for what your appearance is doing to these poor blokes whose brains are fried every time they turn the corner. Not a bit wonder they see you as sub-human, you flipping harlot! Psychology Today there, always good for larks.

–
* Women who listen to Coldplay have a whole other term in my book but it applies to men also.

From my blog (tenderhooligan/ wordpress)

We all  need to speak out about this. Nadine Dorries, the now notorious anti-choice, anti-women Conservative MP, is calling for the sex education bill to be amended to require that sex education in schools include content promoting abstinence to teenage girls. Only girls.

Two things:

1. We know that abstinence-only education does not prevent teenage pregnancies or the spread of STDs in that demographic (google it; this post is brief because my time is brief), so introducing it for any reason is pointless. Realistic, honest and respectful sex education is the only approach worth considering.

2. The sexism of targeting young girls for abstinence-only education is astounding, and reinforces the centuries-old convention that women and girls should not want or be allowed to have non-procreative sex (and should be prevented from doing so, if necessary), while men and boys can do as they like (they have their wild oats to sow, after all).

Speak out (in whichever way you can) against this misogynistic MP and her offensive, puritanical proposals now.

facebook: Stop Dorries’ abstinence for girls sex education bill

theyworkforyou: Sex Education (Required Content)

thelastgreatpoolparty:

Are You a Woman Who Views, Reads, or Listens to Pornography, Erotica, Romance Novels, and/or any other Sexually Explicit Materials?

If so, please share your experiences!

Complete a Short Survey (30 min or less) and Contribute to a Scholarly Understanding of Women’s Experiences with Sexually Explicit Materials

My name is Kari Hempel and I am a female psychology graduate student who is doing my dissertation research on women’s experiences with sexually explicit materials. For too long women’s real experiences with these materials have been ignored. My goal is not to judge anyone’s experiences, but to accumulate surveys from as many women as possible around the country about their positive, negative, and/or mixed experiences with sexually explicit materials, and to present the differences and commonalities in a scholarly, respectful fashion.

Your Participation is Completely Confidential

Any identifying information that is asked for in the completion of this study will be kept completely confidential and will be destroyed once the study is complete.

You Qualify for Participation If:

• You are a woman (at least 18 years old)
• You currently view, read, or listen to any written, audio, visual, or audio-visual material that is sexually explicit (including but not limited to films, magazines, novels, and audio-recordings)
• You currently live in the United States

To Participate Go To: 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/womens_experiences

If you have any questions or concerns, please call or email me. I am happy to address them!
Kari Hempel, MA
503-208-4083
karihempel@yahoo.com

The survey is trans and queer inclusive, so get cracking!

(Source: annajcook.blogspot.com)

Ladies, be warned: Your pussies are causing the downfall of society. If we keep posing for nude photos, sucking cock (and enjoying it), and getting Brazilian bikini waxes, our hard-won feminist gains will disappear, according to the latest generation of scolds and alarmists, writers like Ariel Levy (Female Chauvinist Pigs), reality show rabbi Shmuley Boteach (Hating Women: America’s Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex), and Pamela Paul (Pornified). To them, fucking freely is bungling our climb toward equality. These well-intentioned prudes proffer a false choice: Be the next Jenna Jameson or support Hillary for president. There’s no room for a lusty woman in office (never mind Mary Carey’s political ambitions), and certainly no credence given to strippers or adult performers, who they see as airheaded sluts.

We’re in the middle of a culture war around sex, and it goes beyond left vs. right. Many of the voices quick to excoriate you for buttfucking, baring your boobs, having a threesome, or public sapphic smooching come from the left. Levy argues that women have to (and want to) out-‘ho ourselves to fit into our increasingly raunchy, male-identified sexual culture. She cites Paris Hilton as a lead “pig.” That the devil-may-care heiress wasn’t chastened for her slutty ways irks those who think women should never flaunt their bodies—even voluntarily. Blogger Twisty of I Blame the Patriarchy (blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com) incited feminist ire when she wrote, “There’s a reason that deep-throating a funk-filled bratwurst makes a person retch.” Holier-than-thou pronouncements of sexual superiority don’t scream “sisterhood” to me.

Worthwhile post addressing some of Stephen Fry’s claims about female sexuality.

Stephen Fry has claimed that straight women only go to bed with men “because sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship”.

He is quoted in the Guardian today: “If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas.”

Of course this is rubbish, as Rosie Boycott (what a wonderful name for a feminist!), said:

“Women are just as capable as men are of enjoying sex. We don’t go cruising or cottaging on Hampstead Heath because we don’t need to. Cottaging on Hampstead Heath is presumably a hangover from the days when, sadly, [homosexuality] was illegal…”

However, I would add to – or rather amend – Rosie’s argument.

Women do not ‘need to’ any more or any less than men do. Women do not enjoy sex any less or more than men. We are all individuals. There is no scientific evidence to show that there is a gender difference in enjoyment or need.

This is not about enjoyment or need; it is about power and tradition.

Women do not go cottaging for men on Hampstead Heath because:

1. Women fear physical violence (a way that some men control women; it rarely happens the other way round).
2. There are few men willing put themselves in the vulnerable position of allowing women to completely dominate them sexually; in other words, the men just wouldn’t be there waiting on the heath.
3. Women’s enjoyment of sex has traditionally been a taboo; women have not been vocal about it and have been condemned (called a slut, for example) if they have. Women have also traditionally been kept strictly inside the home; so there is no history of their venturing out to the heath.

Hephzibah Anderson’s excellent response to the recent comments by Stephen Fry on female sexuality.

First off, I should apologise to any ex-boyfriends. According to Stephen Fry, I’ve made you feel that you and your urges disgust me. Sex is something I’ve endured, along with the rest of womankind, in order to extort a relationship or – cover your ears – commitment. You’d apparently far rather have been off cruising for strangers to “shag behind a bush”.

Twitter has a lot to answer for, not least Fry’s transformation from a tweedy English archetype to a man convinced he’s qualified to sound off on subjects as far removed from his own experience as women’s sex drive and the erotic yearnings of straight men.

Still, for anyone missing the old Fry, his views are comfortingly retro: while we ladies are lying back and fantasising about big fat weddings, men are as sex-crazed as teenage boys. It’s hard to decide who is most maligned.

But for all their strutting absurdity, his comments illustrate some overlooked sexual truths. There have always been women who’ve used sex to barter with (and that doesn’t mean they didn’t also enjoy it), but if it’s mistakenly used today to secure emotional engagement, that’s because it’s become downright eccentric to insist on commitment before hopping into bed with someone. Men have long sought to control female sexuality and, despite endless talk of G-spots and foreplay, the sex that surrounds us today is of a decidedly masculine sensibility. According to Fry, a woman may only prove that she’s not a frigid man-hater – that she’s enlightened enough to be fully in touch with her female sexuality – by catering to male peccadilloes. Gay male peccadilloes at that.

But for men and women both, permissiveness has grown restrictive. We’ve lost the sense of sex as a uniquely personal expression. While sex appears to be everywhere, it’s a highly defined, increasingly one-dimensional experience. Visually, it’s illustrated for us by choreographed, cinematic sex scenes, while how-to guides in mid-shelf magazines centre solely on technique, emphasising that it’s something that can be done rightly and, therefore, wrongly.

Nothing is left to the imagination and sex suffers for it, as that most intimate and personal of human encounters becomes standardised and… well… neutered.

A while ago, I did actually elect to go a year without sex. It wasn’t easy, Mr Fry, but it was rewarding. The unremitting sexualisation of everything from friendship to Nandos chicken ads becomes desensitising, but in tuning that out, I rediscovered the sensual thrills of delayed gratification and the tantalising potency of the private and the modest. If sex is simply going at it with some nameless dude on Hampstead Heath, plenty of us – male, female, gay, straight and everyone in between – would probably rather pass. (Cottaging is, you could say, the sexual equivalent of a tweet.)

Then again, were legions of women to take the heath by storm, they’d expect to be spurned by the (gay) men they find there. By Fry’s logic, you could say that those guys just aren’t that into sex. If we can allow for different sexual orientations, we should also allow for the fact that while some get off on al fresco risk, security and smart sheets do it for others.