The myth of the myth
The dominant thinking around sexual assualt and rape today centers around attempts to dispell the 'myth' that sexual assualt and/or rape is about sex. This position which is held by many professionals in the field, along with the political arena, and not to mention many, many lay people, posit that sexual assualt/rape (I'll use just rape to represent both from now) has nothing to do with sex, the sex act or sexuality, that is entirely centered around power, control and violence against women.
I have always had alternative theories about this. I have voiced my thoughts in conversations with other professionals with expertise in this area, and in the area of human psychology. I remain so suprised at the academics that I speak with who too are increasingly frustrated with this 'myth'. Why suprised? Because there are so so many people who believe this baseless argument which only provides a simplistic and superficial understanding of such an act and fails to provide a thorough insight and exploration and presentation of the covert dynamics involved.
Sex is about sex. Violence is about violence. Control is about control. Sexual violence is about sex, violence and control. Sexual violence is not simplistically about violence. Sexual violence is not just about horrible men who attack women because they are violent and want to overt power and control over them. To say this gives us a simplistic, superficial understanding.
Sexual violence does contain elements of violence, control and power - there is no doubt of this. But is also involves an element of sex, and sexuality within our culture. For many men (as we know, the majority of rape is by men) their individual personality, circumstances and beliefs can alter, but the underlying dynamic across these men who rape is a conceptualisation of a women as sexual and subservient.
Let me introduce micro and marco levels of social behaviour. When we consider rape on a micro level, we direct blame, responsibility and punishment to those men for committing a violent act upon a women. We need to hold individual men accountable for their actions, because no matter what your background, no matter your underlying beliefs and personality structure, you are responsible for actions committed against another. When we consider rape on a macro level, we begin to attempt to understand the concept of rape seperate from the individual. This is after all an enourmous societal crisis, one which is significantly underreported. We ask why? Why are our men doing this? It is all too easy to point our fingers and say "they are mongrels" (which on a micro level I agree). But when we have a social crisis we need to ask ourselves as a society what is happening to have so many men who think in these ways, who in turn violate women so proufoundly.
We can seek some answers in the dynamics of 'non-abnormal' social arenas. We can attempt to understand atrocities in human behaviours by analysing human behaviour and what elements of human behaviour and societal norms may manifest themselves in heightened ways.
In our culture women are increasingly presented as sexual objects. How far do we have to look to see a sexualised women? Not far. TV, billboards, Movies, Magazines, Newspapers etc etc,. Historically this was womens struggle - to be seen as 'people' even 'female', but not sexual objects for the demeaning gratification of men. Times have changed and it seems women do not fight with this movement anymore, but yet are willing participators. It has become normal. Some call it sexual freedom or sexual liberation. Whatever one thinks about it, whatever you call it (theres a lot to be said here too), for the purposes of this peice lets just think about what kind of dynamic it sets up.
When a women presents herself sexually, she becomes that. It is called sexual objectification because it reduces one to a sexual object, nothing more, nothing less. And for the pleasure of men, they view women as that sexual object. With an object there is a significant diminshment of intimacy and respect, for humanity. By virtue one is a sexual object that person no longer carries with them the quality of a human who commands respect. It is lost. Understanding this on a macro level, remembering that that sexual objectification of women has become extreme and normalised, what is this doing to the way women are viewed as a whole? Or the way the majority of women are generalised? What are our children learning about what it is to be a women and what it is to be a man?
There is an underlying grumbbling amonst culture that a womens position is to be sexual, to 'present'. That for men, women can be consumed sexually.
By the virtue of this understanding there is certainly a sexual compenent. There is also a power imbalance - "women for mens pleasures". Whilst this remains normal, 'innocent' in normal areanas, the more society creates amonst itself this construction the easier it will become for a man to walk to fine line between "women are there for my pleasures" and "now I'm going to take". When one creates an atmosphere of permissiveness, of imbalance, of dehumanising, we are going to see those who cross the line, who take these dynamics to the next level, owning them, one step up. Couple that with a violent society and you have a dangerous world for women.
It's like providing a breeding ground for nasty things to happen. For want of a better analogy - just like in science when we take certain ingredients that seperatly seem innocuous, and then we mix them all together, we can get a very different reaction, sometimes an explosive one.
This 'myth' is a 'myth'. It is society's attempt to explain a complex, and scarily large crisis of social relations and humanity, and the ongoing battle for the place of women within soceity as respected human beings, not meremly sexual beings. Pehaps it is still so dominant because the academics are not being heard. Perhaps because it is easier to point blame at certain individuals and call them mongrels. Perhaps it is too scary for us to acknowledge these dymaics. After all, if we did it would mean reconsidering what millions of people identify with in their 'normal existence'. It is always easier as human beings, as society to reduce complex social behaviours in simplistic ways, just like it is easier to believe that 'ferrel, junky people have drug addiction problems' rather than acknowledging the numerous problems within society that impact and intrude on peoples lives. Just like its easier for us to believe that people with mental health problems are 'crazy freaks', who are 'not like us', rather than once again acknolwedge the numerous problems within society and human relationships that impact on the health and wellbeing of ALL people. Just like it is easier to label someone as having a 'Bordeline Personality Disorder' rather than acknowledging the high likelihood of the trauma they have experienced in their lives from other people - another societal problem. Its easier for us to see that person as personality disordered. And, its easier to believe this 'myth', that violent sexual acts are all about men who are 'mongrels' that are violent towards women, rather than acknowledging a proufound dysfunction of human relations. That would involve all of us.
I have always had alternative theories about this. I have voiced my thoughts in conversations with other professionals with expertise in this area, and in the area of human psychology. I remain so suprised at the academics that I speak with who too are increasingly frustrated with this 'myth'. Why suprised? Because there are so so many people who believe this baseless argument which only provides a simplistic and superficial understanding of such an act and fails to provide a thorough insight and exploration and presentation of the covert dynamics involved.
Sex is about sex. Violence is about violence. Control is about control. Sexual violence is about sex, violence and control. Sexual violence is not simplistically about violence. Sexual violence is not just about horrible men who attack women because they are violent and want to overt power and control over them. To say this gives us a simplistic, superficial understanding.
Sexual violence does contain elements of violence, control and power - there is no doubt of this. But is also involves an element of sex, and sexuality within our culture. For many men (as we know, the majority of rape is by men) their individual personality, circumstances and beliefs can alter, but the underlying dynamic across these men who rape is a conceptualisation of a women as sexual and subservient.
Let me introduce micro and marco levels of social behaviour. When we consider rape on a micro level, we direct blame, responsibility and punishment to those men for committing a violent act upon a women. We need to hold individual men accountable for their actions, because no matter what your background, no matter your underlying beliefs and personality structure, you are responsible for actions committed against another. When we consider rape on a macro level, we begin to attempt to understand the concept of rape seperate from the individual. This is after all an enourmous societal crisis, one which is significantly underreported. We ask why? Why are our men doing this? It is all too easy to point our fingers and say "they are mongrels" (which on a micro level I agree). But when we have a social crisis we need to ask ourselves as a society what is happening to have so many men who think in these ways, who in turn violate women so proufoundly.
We can seek some answers in the dynamics of 'non-abnormal' social arenas. We can attempt to understand atrocities in human behaviours by analysing human behaviour and what elements of human behaviour and societal norms may manifest themselves in heightened ways.
In our culture women are increasingly presented as sexual objects. How far do we have to look to see a sexualised women? Not far. TV, billboards, Movies, Magazines, Newspapers etc etc,. Historically this was womens struggle - to be seen as 'people' even 'female', but not sexual objects for the demeaning gratification of men. Times have changed and it seems women do not fight with this movement anymore, but yet are willing participators. It has become normal. Some call it sexual freedom or sexual liberation. Whatever one thinks about it, whatever you call it (theres a lot to be said here too), for the purposes of this peice lets just think about what kind of dynamic it sets up.
When a women presents herself sexually, she becomes that. It is called sexual objectification because it reduces one to a sexual object, nothing more, nothing less. And for the pleasure of men, they view women as that sexual object. With an object there is a significant diminshment of intimacy and respect, for humanity. By virtue one is a sexual object that person no longer carries with them the quality of a human who commands respect. It is lost. Understanding this on a macro level, remembering that that sexual objectification of women has become extreme and normalised, what is this doing to the way women are viewed as a whole? Or the way the majority of women are generalised? What are our children learning about what it is to be a women and what it is to be a man?
There is an underlying grumbbling amonst culture that a womens position is to be sexual, to 'present'. That for men, women can be consumed sexually.
By the virtue of this understanding there is certainly a sexual compenent. There is also a power imbalance - "women for mens pleasures". Whilst this remains normal, 'innocent' in normal areanas, the more society creates amonst itself this construction the easier it will become for a man to walk to fine line between "women are there for my pleasures" and "now I'm going to take". When one creates an atmosphere of permissiveness, of imbalance, of dehumanising, we are going to see those who cross the line, who take these dynamics to the next level, owning them, one step up. Couple that with a violent society and you have a dangerous world for women.
It's like providing a breeding ground for nasty things to happen. For want of a better analogy - just like in science when we take certain ingredients that seperatly seem innocuous, and then we mix them all together, we can get a very different reaction, sometimes an explosive one.
This 'myth' is a 'myth'. It is society's attempt to explain a complex, and scarily large crisis of social relations and humanity, and the ongoing battle for the place of women within soceity as respected human beings, not meremly sexual beings. Pehaps it is still so dominant because the academics are not being heard. Perhaps because it is easier to point blame at certain individuals and call them mongrels. Perhaps it is too scary for us to acknowledge these dymaics. After all, if we did it would mean reconsidering what millions of people identify with in their 'normal existence'. It is always easier as human beings, as society to reduce complex social behaviours in simplistic ways, just like it is easier to believe that 'ferrel, junky people have drug addiction problems' rather than acknowledging the numerous problems within society that impact and intrude on peoples lives. Just like its easier for us to believe that people with mental health problems are 'crazy freaks', who are 'not like us', rather than once again acknolwedge the numerous problems within society and human relationships that impact on the health and wellbeing of ALL people. Just like it is easier to label someone as having a 'Bordeline Personality Disorder' rather than acknowledging the high likelihood of the trauma they have experienced in their lives from other people - another societal problem. Its easier for us to see that person as personality disordered. And, its easier to believe this 'myth', that violent sexual acts are all about men who are 'mongrels' that are violent towards women, rather than acknowledging a proufound dysfunction of human relations. That would involve all of us.
posted by Personal | 6:02 AM
10 Comments:
oh, rape does indeed combine sex and violence...its not all about domination, its not all about sex, it is about both for certain...
but blaming (for lack of a better term) 'sexualized women' for rape? (which I am not saying you are doing, but...) elminates yet ANOTHER choice from women as a whole. Men have the right to present themselves as merely attractive sexual creatures, and no one bats an eye (male models, male strippers...) yet a woman does it and it is wrong, dangerous, corrosive.
Why?
If a woman chooses to wear a short skirt and flaunt her breasts and engage in casual sex, she is critizied and told she is asking for trouble and an embarassement to women. If a man wears tight jeans and flaunts his pectorals and engages in casual sex it is no big deal. Why? Because men are 'supposed' to be studs and women are taught to be ashamed of sex, sexuality, and their bodies. I think that is crap, and it sickens me to see so many feminists calling women sluts, whores, whatever because of what they wear...sure, do some women dress revealing and behave boldly sexually to please men? Yes. Do some women do the same things to please themselves? Yes. And I think it is sad that the ones who do it for themselves, who stand up and do what they want dispite the names and the rapists and such are insulted for it. A woman, just like a man, should be able to wear and do what she wishes...and rape will happen regardless. Perhaps if women were as physically large and strong as men rape would cease, but that is not the case, and were it, I suspect one might find more female rapists as well.
RE:
"Men have the right to present themselves as merely attractive sexual creatures, and no one bats an eye (male models, male strippers...) yet a woman does it and it is wrong, dangerous, corrosive."
I guess the biggest and only response to that is that there is a HUGE imbalance - I mean, what would it be -seriously - 1000 women to 1 man?. When you take into account the sex industry - porn, stripping perhaps moreso, or even if you look at the general public - I don't know that stats - but yes - men do strip, money for sex, sexualise themselves etc - but there is such a huge gap between numbers that there is a power imbalance. And beyond numbers the pressure on women to look a certain way - anything from breasts and buts to lips to eyes to wrinkles to clothes to nails to hair to handbag to shoes to eyelashes - i could go on - everything!!. Sexualisation is not "something that we all do so why are women looked down upon for it', the problem is that it is women in the main, with pockets of men. It is women in the main that has become 'the norm' - many many women identify with needing to be sexual to be a women (with differing extremes), but this is not the case for men - it is only pockets of men that do so. Men are more so identified with 'to be a man I look at women - they are there for me' not 'i make myself sexual for women to look at, I am there for them'.
I agree that when it comes to sex there still is the mentality that a man is a stud and a women a 'slut' - which is crazy. But I don't agree that women are taught to be ashamed of sex, sexuality, and their bodies. Yes, in past times - and sure, still by some pockets in society today. But in the main, women are being taught now that their sexuality is something to be 'shown' 'put out there' 'if you've got it flaunt it' etc etc - and the fact that women are so sexualised today and identify with it shows that shame is not part of many women today. It seems that from those times of shame womens' sexuality today has swung to the other extreme.
"A woman, just like a man, should be able to wear and do what she wishes...and rape will happen regardless."
I agree - we SHOULD - we all should - but there is a difference between saying I should and what actually is. The world should be fair and just - but it isn't. People should be nice to others and not hurt each other - but their aren't. The world should be safe for everyone - but it isn't. We should be able to do, say and be who we want -but sometimes we can't - because it has implications for us and others. If we choose to not care about those implications than we have to live with the consequences. So, if a women says 'i should be able to wear what I want' and be accepted for that - (on many levels I agree) - then the reality is that people will think things, say things, take her and perceive her in different ways - because every single behaviour has implications in other peoples' minds and that can't be changed. So what is she to do? She can keep doing what she does - but needs to be able to deal with and be ok with such consequences, or she can change and 'command' what she wishes to have. RE - I've said this specifically on your post I think - but in general - to command is to evoke how you wish to be perceived, treated, etc. To demand is different - to demand is to do what ever you want and 'demand' - request that people see it your way - the world does not work that way. People don't work that way. Something that i particulary hate for eg: is when women have cleavage hanging out and then get angry at men for looking - I mean - come on! A pure example of I should be able to..without men looking. If your going to hang them out - people are going to look - so if you don't like the consequence don't do it. If you mo-hawk your hair an colour it purple and pink and walk in public - many will look. Simple.
"Perhaps if women were as physically large and strong as men rape would cease, but that is not the case, and were it, I suspect one might find more female rapists as well"
This is a very interesting statement. It has got me thinking - I will have to ponder this one. Stay tuned for some thoughts!
So does that mean if a man wears fitted jeans and keeps the top two buttons of his shirt undone so a little chest hair is showing, then he shouldn't be surprised if he gets jumped by some dude in a back alley who got hard at the mere sight of him? I mean if he dresses sexy, that makes him a sex object and therefore his ass is fair game.
What about all the elderly and pre-pubescent rape victims? Are you saying that grandma was asking for it or that sluts are congregating in school playgrounds?
Women will never experience equality unless we can be sexual and sexy without relinquishing our autonomy over our bodies. Men should be able to look at a sexy woman and know that they cannot have her without her consent.
There are ads geared towards making people think that owning a mercedes will provide them with the respect and enjoyment they want in life; but no one thinks that a commercial that creates a desire to own a certain car makes it okay to steal it. If you're wearing a nice suit and expensive watch are you asking to get mugged?
If rape is caused by women who dress provacatively and pornography, then how do you explain all the Rapes that occur in Sub-Saharan Africa? Do you think that the guerilla armies wreaking havoc in Rwanda read Playboy before carring out their brutal sexual assaults? If so, why do they only carry out these horroriffic attacks on women who are not from their own village?
I agree that men have the right to eye a woman's breasts as she walks down the street just as they have a right to stare at your ass and mentally remove your jeans and undershorts. But they don't get to cop a feel without expressed consent, and if/when it becomes clear that their advances are unwelcome they should cease and desist.
A person who enjoys his or her sexuality is under no obligation to fulfill the sexual desires of anyone who finds him or her attractive.
FrenchKiss:
Hi there. Thanks for visiting.
I have to begin by saying that I think you missed the point, well, pretty completely…because I agree with all that you say…
“So does that mean if a man wears fitted jeans and keeps the top two buttons of his shirt undone so a little chest hair is showing, then he shouldn't be surprised if he gets jumped by some dude in a back alley who got hard at the mere sight of him? I mean if he dresses sexy, that makes him a sex object and therefore his ass is fair game…There are ads geared towards making people think that owning a mercedes will provide them with the respect and enjoyment they want in life; but no one thinks that a commercial that creates a desire to own a certain car makes it okay to steal it. If you're wearing a nice suit and expensive watch are you asking to get mugged?”
No, absolutely not – too all of this. I agree. And this is were I can only assume you missed the point of the whole piece. When I differentiate between micro and macro levels. On a micro level – that is what you are talking about. Micro meaning an individual level – an individual level of ‘what she’s wearing’ and ‘what he does’. As I say in the post, I absolutely agree – in this situation (women wears x; man has right to take etc) - this is not ok. No matter what anyone looks like no one is entitle/encourage etc someone to rape/steal etc. I never ever said, nor will say that someone is ‘asking for it’ – EVER EVER EVER – just making that clear. What I am referring to in this post is looking at this issue on a macro level – that is a societal level. Trying to understand this stuff on a bigger level, looking at what is happening in society…looking at they way women are portrayed, thought about; understanding what that means for people, understanding what that means for what we are teaching our children about what it means to be a man or women…and considering all of that…what impact it has: and that is were I say if we live in a society where women are sexualized, men aren’t, men are the main players in consuming sex/buying women, etc etc – what does that mean? Well, its pretty simple to me that following from this it is not a far shot to begin to understand why women are abused in this way by men. I’m saying in this way sex, sexuality, how we see sex and relate in a sexual way has a whole lot to do with rape.
”Women will never experience equality unless we can be sexual and sexy without relinquishing our autonomy over our bodies. Men should be able to look at a sexy woman and know that they cannot have her without her consent. “
I agree. I do. But in our world I don’t think that is going to happen – not in this culture anyway. I mean, how to you begin to start with that? We’ve been saying for years that men just ‘shouldn’t’ do that, that they ‘should’ be able to look at sexy women and know they cannot have her without her consent. Does anything in this world change just because we know that it should/shouldn’t happen? Not a lot. Once again, I agree, but then what do you do with that? Just keep on telling men that they shouldn’t and hope they will change? – doesn’t work. What I am talking about is a culture of ‘permission’, that ‘women are there for men’ sexually, teaching society, men and women how we view each other.
”If rape is caused by women who dress provacatively and pornography, then how do you explain all the Rapes that occur in Sub-Saharan Africa? Do you think that the guerilla armies wreaking havoc in Rwanda read Playboy before carring out their brutal sexual assaults? If so, why do they only carry out these horroriffic attacks on women who are not from their own village?”
No once again making it clear that I do not think rape is caused by women who dress provocatively or pornography…but I think it all has a part to play in the way men think, feel and treat women, and they way women think, feel and treat themselves. I think it is part of a machine in our world that keeps men powerful and women subservient. So, just like rapes in Sub-Saharan Africa, guerilla armies in Rwanda , and anywhere else that does have a different culture to the western world, women are still considered in other ways to be ‘lesser’ than men, and men abuse women all around the world – that’s for sure. Once again, I think its all part of the machine, and there would be so much to comment on in regards to other issues around the world, no doubt. I’m merely using on avenue to understand a social crisis, which I happen to believe in our culture, it is an very influential avenue.
”I agree that men have the right to eye a woman's breasts as she walks down the street just as they have a right to stare at your ass and mentally remove your jeans and undershorts. But they don't get to cop a feel without expressed consent, and if/when it becomes clear that their advances are unwelcome they should cease and desist.”
I’m not so sure about ‘men have the RIGHT’ – hey, I know it happens, I’m not saying it should/shouldn’t happen – couldn’t control that if you wanted anyway! – I just don’t like the word ‘right’ – that a man has a ‘right’ to eyeball me – he’s going to if he wants to, I may or may not care – even if I don’t care I don’t think he necessarily has the right…anyway – just semantics. Otherwise, I agree. Hopefully I’ve explained/clarified above. – I’m not talking about ‘this level’.
”What about all the elderly and pre-pubescent rape victims? Are you saying that grandma was asking for it or that sluts are congregating in school playgrounds?”
As I’ve mentioned, looking at it on a macro level, it effects all women – not just ‘sexualised one’s’…because it is about how we view women in general. As for pre-pubescent rape victims, well there is another dimension to that, really – we do sexualise them. We dress young girls up to look like women in beauty pageants, we put makeup on them (resembling the aroused female), we sell G strings to pre-pubescents, our society does not care anymore about the sex and sexual images we are ‘feeding’ our young ones – and then we are surprised that this happens? We’re creating children so that we see them as sexualised beings then we wonder why some people ‘go there’ (pedophilia) ? – our society already ‘goes there’. I’m not saying this is the only reason – but certainly another big one. Further to this, Just the other day a new bit of information was made available to me. That our children are going through puberty early and earlier. This piece of research looked at western girls and eastern girls, and found that a large part of the variance of women going into puberty earlier was because of the way our culture has become so sexualised, and our endless amount of sexual images are actually biologically triggering off young women early to ‘get ready’ for sex, for childbirth. We are very much sexualising our children, not just in a physical sense, but also a very real biological way.
Do you have a link to this research about girls going into puberty earlier? I find it very hard to believe that sexualized societal norms could affect anatomical development. It sounds like unsubstantiated hogwash to me.
I don't believe that women today are getting raped in greater numbers than they were in the early part of the 20th century. They may be reporting it more, but rape has occurred since the dawn of humanity; long before women took control over their sexuality.
In the 1940's and 50's, there was a commonly held belief among men that a woman said "no" when she really meant "yes," because if she didn't play coy, she'd look like a slut. So by forcing his date to have sex with him, a man could give her what she wanted while preserving her image.
Things never change just because they should; but things do change when public opinion changes and societal standards shift into another direction. It's a slow process, but we've come along way from clubbing your future mate over the head and dragging her back to your cave. Even in recent times we've done away with such crazy notions as: if she wasn't a virgin, then it's not really rape; and rape cannot occur between a husband and wife.
A woman can be powerful, be independent, command respect, and be sexually promiscuous if she likes. Sure, some men will label her a slut or call her trash, but so what? If we let men dictate how we behave, what we wear, who we fuck- then how liberated can we be? Until we take control of our own lives and stop caving in to certain mores and norms, we will forever be second class citizens.
Frenchkiss:
No, I don’t have the link to the research at the moment…but if you give me some time and stay in tuned I will track it down and post it, because as I mentioned, the information ‘became available to me’ – that is I have not read the literature either, and myself am interested to do so. But I did come from a conference presented by a Dr & Clincial Psychologist – so no, I don’t believe it is hogwash. Second to that though, it makes sense to me anyway. It seems pretty straightforward to understand this from an evolutionary adaptation perspective. I mean, we know that all things of this earth adapt to their environment; creatures of all kinds have changed anatomically in response to their environment – so if our society is increasingly sexualized I don’t think it is so ‘far fetched’ – actually not at all far fetched to understand that our young people are adapting to their environment.
I agree that rape has been around for a long time. I think that ultimately, we will never know true numbers of women and sexual assault – sure it has been unreported in the past, and still remains so now, although perhaps it is being reported more now. But we will never ever be able to get a grasp of that – there is not way to, all we can do is speculate.
You know, I don’t have ‘the answers’. I guess no one does really. All I do is try to make sense of ‘what’s happening in the world’, and have an opinion. You know, in the past women were oppressed. Women weren’t supposed to be sexual. The were hidden and ‘kitchen bound’ and didn’t have a lot of rights in the home and in society. Not surprisingly, women were abused and ‘kept in their place’. Referring to this in a sexual way – in the past women couldn’t express their sexuality, they didn’t ‘own their sexuality’ – we all know this. But it seems that these days women and sexuality has gone ‘full swing in the other direction’; in the past women weren’t allowed to express themselves sexually, now they do it all the time – selling it, exploiting it. In the past, women had to be ‘fully covered’, now it is normal for women to dress provocatively, show flesh – and the outfits are getting tinier and tinier. We’ve gone from one extreme to the other. I’m not against women being independent sexually, but I think that in an effort for women to counteract the oppression in the past they have taken it to the extreme – and in my view this is an extreme that dis-empowers them – just the same as in the past, just in a different way. Instead of being governed by men we are now selling ourselves and exploiting ourselves. For what? To say we ‘own our bodies’ – who owns them if they are being sold?
Yes of course women, just as man, just as any human being, needs to take control of their own lives – I just wonder if women and the cultural view of selling sex and sexuality serves this purpose. I guess that’s part of the reason for this post – that what we (ie women) are doing with our bodies and sexuality has wider implications. The answer? You know what – I hope I’m wrong – because that would mean that your view is going to be an empowering thing for women in this world, and that the ‘sex culture’ we have at the moment is not going to be damaging to women. Unfortunately, obviously, I think it is (damaging, that is). Yes social standards need to shift – but I don’t think that this can be done when we allow ourselves to be bought and sold…I mean, how to you truly respect something that can be sold – when it is a core of who we are? I don’t think that selling people can ever be a good thing – theoretically and practically.
Regarding this: “A woman can be powerful, be independent, command respect, and be sexually promiscuous if she likes” – I agree – I am not referring to sexual promiscuity. I have no ‘opinion’ on what men or women do in their own bedrooms, so to speak. I just have an ‘issue’ with how we (society) thinks about sex, views sex, sells sex, and exploiting women in a mans world. I repeat again: how the h*** are women ever going to be treated with respect when our culture uses them as sex objects? And what effects does that have? These are the questions I am interested in.
Lastly: regarding “Until we take control of our own lives and stop caving in to certain mores and norms, we will forever be second class citizens”
See, now I know that what I am going to say gets some people angry, because we all like to think we are in control of our lives – but I’m going to say it anyway because it has great validity. If women are sexualizing themselves and calling it their choice than I challenge that choice because it is our norm. By virtue of the fact a women sexualizes herself she is caving in to certain norms – because that is what we teach our children about what it is to be a women these days – it is our ‘job’ to be sexual creatures. We are all socially constructed, and our children for example, are learning from an early age not to make choices about themselves and ‘what kind of women they want to be’, but to be sexualized and provocative – they look up to their ‘role models’ and this is how we construct them.
Maybe this has something to do with the fact that you live in Australia and I live in the United States, but I don't see society as being overtly sexual. Over here we tolerate violence on TV, but no nudity. Our last Attorney General even spent thousands of tax dollars to drape fabric over the breast of a statue in the Hall of Justice. We have been known to kick mothers out of restaurants and shopping malls for breast feeding their babies, as if that is somehow an indecent act.
While it may be true that all living species of animals elvolve to adapt to their environment, the theory you mentioned still sounds highly improbable. For one thing, the average age of the onset of menses is around 12. It varies from one girl to another, but the average has been 12 pretty consistently, at least for several generations (dating back to when sex was taboo and women typically saved their virginity until marriage).
A more probable explaination for why western women typically start menstruation at a younger age than their eastern counterparts is that they are less likely to suffer from nutritional deficiencies. Also, certain races enter puberty younger than others. White girls tend to start menstruating later than black girls. It is possible that Asian women start even later.
Who sells their body? I know I certainly don't. I don't even rent my body, since that would imply that men who pay me can do whatever they please with it during their allotted time. I may take their wishes into consideration, but it's up to me to decide what I will and won't do, how I'll do it and with whom. If a client tries to push me into doing something I don't feel comfortable doing, I can (and have) ended it right in the middle, and refunded the amount I thought was fair.
I can assure you it is no more dehumanizing, no more degrading and no more disgusting than scrubbing toilets for a living, but it pays significantly more. Sometimes it's really fantastic though; I've had far more fun and been treated much better than in any office job I've held.
Frenchkiss:
"Maybe this has something to do with the fact that you live in Australia and I live in the United States, but I don't see society as being overtly sexual. Over here we tolerate violence on TV, but no nudity. Our last Attorney General even spent thousands of tax dollars to drape fabric over the breast of a statue in the Hall of Justice. We have been known to kick mothers out of restaurants and shopping malls for breast feeding their babies, as if that is somehow an indecent act."
Your right, maybe it does have something to do with the seas that separate us: interestingly though it is American Cultural that is greatly influencing Australian culture – for example, American TV shows are proliferate here, especially on our pay TV channels, an I can tell you many are highly sexual – especially with women, as always. I suppose when I say sexual, I don’t mean just ‘full nudity’; I guess that’s a good question too – when you say ‘no nudity’ are you referring to ‘full nudity’ or ‘any kind of nudity’ – so women’s top halves etc.? I also think that ‘overtly sexual’ has become normal now – I mean, I see many shows where women are half clad, being suggestive with their cleavage etc, which is so proliferate is seems now normal and unnoticed – but all in all it is sexual. I didn’t know about the statue in the Hall of Justice or kicking mothers our of shopping malls for feeding – I agree that is ludicrous.
”While it may be true that all living species of animals elvolve to adapt to their environment, the theory you mentioned still sounds highly improbable. For one thing, the average age of the onset of menses is around 12. It varies from one girl to another, but the average has been 12 pretty consistently, at least for several generations (dating back to when sex was taboo and women typically saved their virginity until marriage).”
But I guess that is exactly the point – that yes it has held steady over such time but the new literature is suggesting otherwise – the new research studying the average age of the one of menses is showing it is getting earlier. I guess whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you; as I’ve mentioned I do because a/ the information was given to me by someone experienced and reputable in the field; b/ theoretically it does make sense in the realms of evolution – we do evolve (which is the point: it has been such an age for so long but now is seen to be changing); all I have to do now is c/ - find the actual study and assess its validity – but I guess that goes back to a/ - it must be valid because it is what is being presented at conferences.
”Who sells their body? I know I certainly don't. I don't even rent my body, since that would imply that men who pay me can do whatever they please with it during their allotted time. I may take their wishes into consideration, but it's up to me to decide what I will and won't do, how I'll do it and with whom. If a client tries to push me into doing something I don't feel comfortable doing, I can (and have) ended it right in the middle, and refunded the amount I thought was fair.”
Question: What are you selling then?
A service.
frenchkiss:
RE: selling a service
Well, I guess we have different pespectives. Perhaps I can elaborate on mine:
In any job, sure, we can all say every job sells 'a service' - I guess to say that we all sell a service is a general term - but the question is what service? What is being bought and sold?
A bartender - provides a service - they sell drinks. Sure, part of some of the service is a smile and perhaps even a conversation (not always of course) but really, they sell drinks to people.
A counsellor? - they provide a service. They sell knoweldge really. Knoweldge about what we know about people, thoughts, feelings, people and problems, and dispell that knowledge to help that person help themselves.
A...uh... i don't know - taxi driver - they provide a service...but they are selling transport.
The list could go on and on - but now to:
A sex worker - selling a service, sure. But they are selling sex, selling their body, or body parts.
You know, I guess in my view another reason I find that sex work is much different from other types of work is that (and I can't remember if I said this on my blog or someone elses)is that you make sex a commodity: you make the human body something that can be bought and sold...and I think the implications of this is incredibly dangerous for men, women, and the whole of our society and the way we value people.
Post a Comment
<< Home