Women Who Treat Women as Sex Objects
By CareyRoberts Posted in User Blogs — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sometimes the most amazing things happen in the name of female liberation. Carey Roberts tells all.Advisory: This week¡¦s column contains adult language. And nothing is made-up.
Picture this image: 18,000 women line up at Madison Square Garden in New York City. They pay as much as $1,000 apiece to witness the spectacle. For the audience warm-up, the women are bombarded with the word ¡§Vagina!¡¨ Soon, the Vulva Choir is singing the praises of their inner-vagina.
The play features a series of vignettes, including one about a 13-year-old girl who is plied with alcohol and raped -- by a woman. At the end, the girl revels in her new-found liberation from heterosexuality: ¡§I¡¦ll never need to rely on a man¡Kif it was a rape, it was a good rape.¡¨
This actually happened on February 10, 2001. Nothing here is made-up.
The play, known as the Vagina Monologues, wins the prestigious OBIE Award. The New York Times hails playwright Eve Ensler as ¡§the Messiah heralding the second wave of feminism.¡¨ [www.zetetics.com/mac/ifeminsts/2002/0212.html]
Since then, the Vagina Monologues has been staged in front of hundreds of thousands of coeds at college campuses around the country. Listening to women talk about their genitalia is their way of celebrating Valentine¡¦s Day. Some of them wear self-reassuring T-shirts that say, ¡§I love my vagina.¡¨
On September 13 last, feminist Eve Ensler invited former Playboy bunnie Gloria Steinem and others to star in an event in New York called ¡§Vaginas Vote, Chicks Rock.¡¨ The event was designed to encourage voter registration among Democratic-leaning women. Here are a few gems from Ensler¡¦s address:
fÞ ¡§Are there any registered vaginas in the house?¡¨
fÞ ¡§Step into your vaginas and get the vagina vote out!¡¨
Her speech concluded with this heart-warming appeal: ¡§Vulva! Vulva! Vulva! Vote!¡¨
Ensler¡¦s event was successful. Seven weeks later, women turned out in record numbers. Many of them voted for George W. Bush.
Most mental health professionals would regard Miss Ensler¡¦s obsession with her crotch as a treatable condition. But now, a whole generation of women has come to believe that all manner of lewd and indecent behavior is acceptable -- just so long as it can be justified with feminist buzz words such as ¡§liberation,¡¨ ¡§empowerment,¡¨ and ¡§choice.¡¨
Here are some recent examples:
In California, attorney Liana Johnsson reached this insight (note the liberation theme here): ¡§At some point, men¡¦s breasts became liberated and women¡¦s didn¡¦t.¡¨ So now Johnsson is pushing the California Legislature to pass a law allowing women and girls to ¡§drop their tops¡¨ at California beaches and parks.
Growing numbers of women enjoy viewing pornography, and now represent 30% of all online porn visitors. Holly Moss, founder of Women In Adult, explains this trend: ¡§As women have more choices in life and purchasing power, they are choosing what they want to see and how they want their porn.¡¨ [www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=1161]
Did you spot the skillful use of both the ¡§choice¡¨ and ¡§power¡¨ motifs in Miss Moss¡¦ remarks?
But there¡¦s more. Last year a teenager marched into her school cafeteria in South Hadley, Mass. wearing only a bra and sweat pants. According to principal Melodie Goodwin, ¡§We had girls fall out of their shirts in the sixth grade.¡¨ Now the Michael E. Smith Middle School has tightened up its dress code. [www.masslive.com/chicopeeholyoke/republican/index.ssf?base/news-8/1107593
19912580.xml]
Now, liberation even extends to the Soccer Mom set. USA Today recently reported on mothers who parade around the house with cleavage on full display and cook breakfast for junior wearing three-inch heels. According to reporter Olivia Barker, mom ¡§doesn¡¦t want to check her sexuality at the picket-fence gate anymore.¡¨ [www.usatoday.com/life lifestyle/2005-01-26-hotmoms_x.htm]
Finally, let¡¦s not forget to mention those TV soft-porn hits like Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives. No surprise, these shows are watched mostly by women.
During the former Reign of Patriarchy, men sometimes regarded women in terms of their female anatomy. Most persons agreed that wasn¡¦t a very good thing. But it happened.
Then feminism came along and disposed of the Patriarchy. Men were told to stop objectifying women.
So what happened? Women began to objectify women.
Here¡¦s the amazing part ¡V many intelligent women became convinced that it was good to be treated as sex objects. In fact, they were willing to part with good money to see a play that celebrated the rape of a 13-year-old girl.
In the past, the sexual degradation of women was confined to the bedroom and the brothel. But now, gender objectification permeates our culture. It is flaunted at college campuses, on the Internet, on prime-time TV, and during Super Bowl half-time shows. And it is done at the behest of women.
This has really happened.
Maybe the Patriarchy wasn¡¦t so bad.
...at Eve Ensler's crass commercialism for a "cause" and a thorough analysis of the Vag. Monologues phenomenon, see:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16959
by Jon Sanders, jsanders@popecenter.org
belief that desires are constitutive of personal identity, and the notion that "this is just the way I am", continue as elements of the popular culture, especially among the groups relevant to this discussion, that minority of homosexuals inclined to this sort of awfulness will be able to claim that they were born with those desires, and some of them will, unfortunately, act on them. What the majority of homosexuals may say against such conduct will mean little compared to the logic of popular assumption and beliefs concering desire and identity.
A healthier way of approaching life - healthier than simply regarding desires qua desires as consitutive of identity - is to grasp the distinction between the way we are and the way we ought to be. Your statement never was far-fetched with regard to the cultural logic to which these pedophiles will appeal; that cultural logic is what renders the drawing of lines so difficult, so fraught with the appearance of arbitrariness.
One could argue, and deconstructionist thought does indeed posit, that ALL morality (and everything else), is arbitrary, driven by the socio/politico power substate of the times. This, of course, is both the main point of contention and its' major cause. And since you mention it, inherent, or even genetic, determinism of homosexuality is the sine qua non of the cultural logic to which you refer. Although it has no basis in science or empirical support of any kind, and contrary opinions, read politically incorrect, not likely to receive encouragement from one of the prime movers of basic research, i.e. govt. funding, it has gained currency as a consequence of its' introduction and repetition by the very interest group whose behavior it is designed to exculpate -- namely practicing homosexuals.
I would be the first to admit that likely most members of the gay community do not endorse pedophilia and are not so inclined. Anecdotally, most of the gay crowd I know are mature, productive, gentle and friendly people. That notwithstanding, the cultural impetus has been and is being put forward by a media-driven, advocacy juggernaut no longer under anyone's ability to control and is perpetually inflammed and invigorated by any number charlatans and opportunist able to turn such ideas into cash (a.k.a the Vag. Monologues).
So in sum, "the logic of popular assumption and beliefs concering desire and identity(.)" have become a predicate for the creation and perpetuation of what have heretofore been considered unsavory philosophies and movements, regardless of the degree of separation from their inchoate intent. However, their cultural impact will remain huge, and in my opinion, destructive. A kind of culturally irresistable inertia from all quarters, either tangential or immediate, will ensure the eventual societal legitimacy of what is essentially an unproven and possibly unprovable theory and by design or accident, all its' tertiary correlates and bizarrely logical consequences.
Others, far more articulate than myself, have put it succinctly and colorfully, e.g. "Defining Deviancy Down", Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or "Slouching Towards Gommorah", Judge Robert Bork.
Others have
At a first read of this thread I found myself offended - being pro-gay marriage and having many gay friends, as well as being a woman who didn't quite mind the Vagina Monologues and loves Desperate Housewives. However, I'm never quick to pass judgement and took a second look. The concept of desire vs. identity is an interested one - we legitimize homosexuals because they claim "this is what I am"..what's to stop legitimizing pedophelia for the same reason? I get it.
However - and maybe the discussion was a bit above my head - why are we bemoaning the legitimization of homosexuality as being the cause for this? I understand the point of the original post - although I don't quite agree completely with the examples, I am disgusted by the crass culture that celebrates promiscuity of both genders. What does homosexuality or gay marriage have to do with that? If we're talking about the argument that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, beastiality, and the like, I have to say: although I am not a fan of polygamy, if it works for consenting adults, it works. Bestiality and any type of pedophelia involves non-consenting
non-adults. By the law, that's not in danger of happening. Yes, laws can be changed - but I don't see America advocating any harm to a child or to an animal anytime soon.
Also, in my opinion, sexuality itself is not something that is bad, and neither really is promiscuity...I just believe that misrepresenting the connection between sexuality and emotional bonds is hurting the western psyche and undermining marriage, the building block of a society.
the legitimization of homosexuality and pedophilia is simply the vulgar assumption that desire is identity, along with the faux-compassionate resolve never to condemn someone for "who they are" or claim to be.
The consent question is not the massive hurdle that many suppose it to be. You are doubtless aware of Peter Singer's defense of bestiality? As for children, the sad reality is that children are quite malleable, even apart from the ability of adults to question the meaning of "is". A child exposed to certain influences or experiences will be conditioned to respond to them, and will be able to "consent" in much the same way that they can decide whether or not to join in a game of dodgeball. If desire is identity and we simply are the way we are, it follows that notions of consent are artifacts of particular desires given the force of law. Change the desires, or substitute others, and you will, sooner or later, yield a different conception of consent. Check back with me in twenty years, and I will happily resurrect this dialogue.
No one is saying that sexuality per se is bad. There are no manicheans here. We're only debating the proper expression of sexuality. Promiscuity, on the other hand, is a fling too far; if marriage is the foundation of society - and it is - then promiscuity is a bad thing, as, by its very nature, it will weaken marriage and the will to pursue and remain in it.
The consent question is not the massive hurdle that many suppose it to be[...] the sad reality is that children are quite malleable, even apart from the ability of adults to question the meaning of "is". A child exposed to certain influences or experiences will be conditioned to respond to them, and will be able to "consent" in much the same way that they can decide whether or not to join in a game of dodgeball.
That's exactly why the consent issue is such a massive hurdle to those seeking to perniciously extrapolate legitimization of homosexuality to pedophilia: because children are incapable of giving informed consent, there is no room for adult-child sex to ever be acceptable. Different states draw the line between child and consenting adult at different ages, but the central point is that homosexuality is between two consenting adults and pedophilia by definition cannot ever be.
I agree that promiscuity is not a good thing for society or the individuals involved, although the definition is probably open to considerable debate.
leaves out jsut that portion which gives life to my contention that, given certain influences, a child can become "informed" and capable of giving "consent": all a theorist or advocate has to do is cite the role of desire in personal identity, mouth the commonplace conceit that "we are the way we are" and mix in a little Foucault, with the notion that law is the enacted desire of those who possess power, and the equivalence-by-reduction is complete. That doesn't mean that I see no difference between homosexuality and pedophilia; this is a matter of the intersection of bad pop-psych canards and theory. That stuff is already out there.
Even if a child appears like they are capable of informed consent at a younger age than is currently allowed under law, they usually aren't unless we decide to change what we consider "informed consent"... which seems to defeat the whole purpose of the law in the first place. It's pretty obvious by now that an adolescent's genitalia mature faster than their powers of higher-order cognition.
assumptions will conspire to make these laws appear arbitrary. And our culture is not one to respect the arbitrary. It becomes derided as taboo, deconstructed as an artifact of power, and discarded. Reject the puerile notion that desire is identity, and the problem evaporates. Getting an entire culture to do just that is the problem.
My point about consenting adults was focusing more on the adult - by law, children are not considered capable of giving consent (see: statutory rape), nor are animals.
I did also acknowledge that those laws may change over the generations and that the current laws seem arbitrary; however, I also made the point that I don't see that happening. Of course, that's just an opinion and I don't have a crystal ball - I think no-fault divorce is bad for children but the focus is all on the parents, not the kid, these days.
I understand the link you're making between homosexuality and the get-what-you-want phenomenon...I'm just hitting a mental block because of my acceptance of homosexuality and am sensitive to it's being used as a scapegoat for the undercurrent of selfishness and identity politics in our culture.
But yes, from a completely objective point of view, I concede that present day developments are an example of this mentality. I've actually made similar points myself but use the example of gay dads leaving their families - I don't care how ok I am with homosexuality , if you made a committment to a family and to your children, you stick with it.
Consent isn't relevant to a discussion of animal sex.
That's arguably the weirdest thing I've typed all day, and I made an allusion to a toy line and cartoon from the 1980s in another comment.
Is there a law against bestiality? 'Cuz if there ain't, I may take up the banner and do something about it.
..I guess I hafta become a vegetarian first, though, before championing animal rights with any legitimacy. <sigh> Maybe I can enlist our favorite veggie Republican doverspa in the cause.
:-)
as a hindrance to the exercise of the right to define for oneself the meaning of the universe, even the notion of consent - which I think is a very weak, nominalistic reed to use as support for an ethical concept - will prove malleable. The problem is the way we view desire. If desire is a value in itself, such that the distance between man-as-he-is and man-as-her-ought-to-be is collapsed, and is central to identity, we end up in a version of the utilitarian conundrum: if the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the goal, given the obvious differences among men as to what brings them happiness, how are we to differentiate a cultured happiness appropriate to men from the sort of filthy happiness appropriate to brutes (the critique of utilitarianism as a pig-philosophy)?
On the other hand, dreaded reactionaries like myself hold that desire, taken in itself, means little or nothing, indeed, is nothing. A desire is valuable if its object is worthy; by itself, it tells us nothing, and is just the incompleteness of the person longing for something that will bring completion or fulfillment. It is an emptiness. A void is not a value.
None of this has anything to do with being mean towards homosexuals. Homosexuals did not cause this cultural decay around the ideas of desire and identity; they have merely made use of them. One could well argue that heterosexuals have done much more with them, what with the divorce culture and its appalling indifference to the needs and well-being of children. It's not a gay thing; it's the culture. It's pretty tough to scapegoat a few hundred-million people.
I am solidly in favor of laws against animal cruelty and bestiality, and to my mind, pizza without meat is a crime against humanity.
Most states retain laws against bestiality. I'd wager all do, but I hope everyone understands that I don't spend a lot of time researching the issue.
From a certain point of view, of all the sexual deviancies (if you will), bestiality is the one the law has the least authority to prohibit: Animals are mere property, and one should be free to do with one's property what one would, so long as no human is harmed.
. . .may be the best justification for anti-bestiality laws. There are a substantial number of nasty diseases that jumped from animals to human beings for the first time because someone took a "creative" approach to alleviating sexual frustration.
That seems a thin reed to stand on. I prefer the ordinary gross-out factor and the "that's utterly depraved" factors. But I'm not averse to legislating morality, not least because we do it all the time.
A few days ago (1/28/05), I was engaged in a discussion on an RS blog called "In A BInd" by Paul J. Cella. While focusing on gay marriage, I stated that the logical conclusion of such a stretch of received morality would eventually be political pressure to legitimate the sexual availability of children.
This particular dialogue was between myself and a "Gengisdon," who stated:
"All I see are a parade of horribles, none of which seem likely to come to fruition. I think there are sound arguments against same sex marriage, arguments which I disagree with but can be wrestled with in the public sphere. Arguments about the role of marriage in procreation are well received and I consider them seriously.
Screaming pedophilia in a crowded bridal shop is something else entirely."
Well, well. Guess what? FEMALE homosexuals are the first to make a move toward using youngsters as sex objects. Who da thunk it?
Maybe the Vagina Monologues will convince skeptics of my original point -- that the natural consequence of legitimizing homosexuality is to render licit child sex the next frontier of LIBERATION, CHOICE, & EMPOWERMENT -- for adult homosexuals. of course.