![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mainstream propaganda
Aug. 27th, 2005 11:50 amI am all for sex and I am equally all for abstinence, assuming that the individual making the choice is informed, under no coercion, and is making the choice for his/herself. In our messed up sexual culture you (particularly women) are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Although the media would still have us beleive that if you have a flat stomach you should be out having mind-blowing sex most nights of the week. As a feminist, I don't want to participate in sex based on an attitude of "well, if the men can do, why can't I?" becuase really, just because men are doing something (like playing around, emotionally disconnected sex, and objectifying others) doesn't mean it's worth doing. As a feminist I think women should or should not ahve sex as they choose and form mutual healthy and satisfying relationships.
Which brings me to this dumb article. I should've known better: it comes from USA Today. Still, I thought a feminist take on abstinence would be good to read. Instead, it is neo-conservative/Christian abstinence rhetoric without god-language. So disappointing. There needs to be feminist dialogue around abstinence. Unfortunately, only the Right makes claim to it and the positive outcomes abstinence can have; the Right turns it into a choice made out fear and defensiveness. This article, written by a 32 year-old woman, says sex outside of marriage creates false intimacy. Does she not know that it can be false and completely un-intimate within the bonds of marriage too? She also demeans men. She thinks any man at a bar that expresses interest in her or thinks she's pretty wants to have sex with her, and if they do it's only because she's hot and not because she's interesting. Some guys are like that, some guys want to have sex AND a conversation. What I find especially demeaning to men is this excerpt:
Regardless of why the relationship died, you are now one of many women whom he could point out on the street. "See her?" he can tell his buddies. "She's cute, huh? Yeah, I had her." I never want to be "her."
Couldn't she say the same thing? She could. Does she really think that after a break up men console themselves by bragging "Well at least I had her." If it was a meaningful relationship with a healthy sex life chances are he's even more hurt over the breakup and a lot less likely to consider the woman an item to be "had." These arguments discredit the many reasons people choose not to have sex, whether that's only for a time or until they get married (or relational equivalent). By calling herself a neo-feminist and using such stereotyping arguments, the author discredits feminism. I wonder if this article wasn't written with exactly that kind of propaganda in mind, the editors thinking that by putting "neo-feminist" in the title they'll reach women that the Right wouldn't normally and will gain some kind of cache of coolness. I hope feminists will see right past this pretence.
Which brings me to this dumb article. I should've known better: it comes from USA Today. Still, I thought a feminist take on abstinence would be good to read. Instead, it is neo-conservative/Christian abstinence rhetoric without god-language. So disappointing. There needs to be feminist dialogue around abstinence. Unfortunately, only the Right makes claim to it and the positive outcomes abstinence can have; the Right turns it into a choice made out fear and defensiveness. This article, written by a 32 year-old woman, says sex outside of marriage creates false intimacy. Does she not know that it can be false and completely un-intimate within the bonds of marriage too? She also demeans men. She thinks any man at a bar that expresses interest in her or thinks she's pretty wants to have sex with her, and if they do it's only because she's hot and not because she's interesting. Some guys are like that, some guys want to have sex AND a conversation. What I find especially demeaning to men is this excerpt:
Regardless of why the relationship died, you are now one of many women whom he could point out on the street. "See her?" he can tell his buddies. "She's cute, huh? Yeah, I had her." I never want to be "her."
Couldn't she say the same thing? She could. Does she really think that after a break up men console themselves by bragging "Well at least I had her." If it was a meaningful relationship with a healthy sex life chances are he's even more hurt over the breakup and a lot less likely to consider the woman an item to be "had." These arguments discredit the many reasons people choose not to have sex, whether that's only for a time or until they get married (or relational equivalent). By calling herself a neo-feminist and using such stereotyping arguments, the author discredits feminism. I wonder if this article wasn't written with exactly that kind of propaganda in mind, the editors thinking that by putting "neo-feminist" in the title they'll reach women that the Right wouldn't normally and will gain some kind of cache of coolness. I hope feminists will see right past this pretence.