luvluv

Okay Michael, it was the use of the n- word and the word "whore" that I was afraid would offend people. I hope nobody does run me out of town, becaue if it is too offensive to anyone I'll change it. No need to get the rail.

(edited to correct spelling of "Michael")

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>

bonduca

How is it truly sexual freedom, if it is only sexual expression based on what you think proper for them?

What if they simply wish to have sex for the sake of sex, and they do not feel that this is degrading, so long as it is their choice? Is that part of the freedom you envision?

luvluv

No doubt that it could be bonduca, and that would be part of the overall context of the intent of my post: namely, the elimination of women as sexual objects. I guess I overstepped the bounds of the post when I suggested that sex ought to only occur between committed partners. That is my belief but that is probably not necessary for women to have sexual freedom.

I do (personally) happen to think that if a woman persues sex solely for it's own sake that she is still using herself as a sexual object. She is using her body as a means for gratification. Even though the gratification is her own, it is still using the body for something less than what it actually, in it's fullest sense, is: the vehicle of the soul (or the self, if you will).

But that is just my personal opinion. I object only to the objectification of women. If a woman wants to pursue sex for it's own sake, in privacy and not for public consumption, I see that as being not at all in violation of sexual freedom or with the goals of feminism. (though at a certain point I consider it a violation of themselves, but that's my opinion and might not always be true.)

There may be a limit to that, because even simply sleeping around for personal gratification, if it becomes publicly known, might still reinforce the image of women as a sexual object, at least until men have really gotten that idea thoroughly out of their heads.

bonduca

"Probably" leaves me with some sense of doubt as to your meaning. Does your vision of sexual freedom for women allow them to pursue sex for the sake of sexual gratification, or does it mean they must confine their sexual union to a committed relationship?


Please tell me why you feel this is wrong and how it would be detrimental to the soul you feel resides in the body.

Do you think that believing women to be more emotional in sexual matters than men is a sort of objectification?


For argument's sake, what if she were somewhat of an exhibitionist?

Why should she hide such things? Do you feel she should be ashamed?

But if she is only seeking sexual gratification, it is possible that she would not wish to be seen as a potential partner for a relationship. That could be seen as allowing the man to have false expectations. That would be unkind, wouldn't it?

vixstile

I agree that stripers, porn stars, playmates, and to some extent, models, achieve the exact opposite of what is trying to be achieved by the feminist movement. The whole point of feminism was to try to change the way men viewed women, to get men to perceive women as equals of equal worth, and not as objects, or as mans servants.

You will never change that negative image men have of women as be less than men, by gyrating your crotch in his face.

Being a striper may empower the striper, but it doesnt empower the striper in the eyes of men.

Viti

luvluv as a happily married woman who was a stripper for two years I feel you are teetotaling here, and with your "all or nothing" labels, are furthering objectification. I don't think you mean to be this way, but your attitude is more demeaning than the industries and people you are criticizing. Any job is only one aspect of person's life.

If a woman chooses to be an exoctic dancer, porn actress, or even a prostitute (please note I only refer to legal brothels here...street hookers is a whole nother ball of wax) thet does not become their only definer. A stripper may also be a wife, mother, student, friend, volunteer firefighter whatever. The definition of a life is all of its aspects combined, my dancing was nothing more than a well paying job, after which I went home to the rest of my life and hobbies.

I'll tell you one more thing, I have been sexually harassed to some degree at every "real" job I ever had...I had a boss show up at my apartment drunk in the middle of the night when I was 19, I was propositioned when hubby was on a business trip, I had clients comment on my breasts....you name it and I had to either take it and remain polite to clients, or choose between starting a big legal broohaha or stop the harassment myself in the cases of coworkers and supervisors.

When I was dancing I was in control, if a customer was rude or crude, I walked away....I didn't have to spend time with or dance for anyone I didn't want to. Any man that tried to touch or proposition me was physically thrown out by bouncers and banned from the club. It was more honest and straightforward than anything I have done before or since....no innuendos about "really wanting to keep my job", no "accidental" brushes, bumps, or gropes in a small storeroom, not water cooler talk about my bra size. Simple "I think you are attractive and will pay to see you topless".

I will never regret the experience and it has served me well in my new career as an executive. I embrace and use my femaleness and sexuality now instead of hiding it away under layers of clothes and shame and always wondering if I was "asking for it" when someone tries to demean me. I truly own myself and my body for the first time in my life. I no longer have to strive to get people to recognize my intelligence; instead I use their snap judgements that "big boobs equal small brains" to my advantage.

luvluv...you don't understand and probably cannot understand. I think you think you are being an advocate for women, but you are simply putting us in a different box....one where we have to be protected and defended and sheltered instead of allowing us the power to protect and defend ourselves and be seen for who we are...strong, intelligent, and sexual all at the same time.

bonduca

LadyShea:

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

luvluv

"Does your vision of sexual freedom for women allow them to pursue sex for the sake of sexual gratification, or does it mean they must confine their sexual union to a committed relationship?"

My vision of freedom would allow them to seek sex for the sake of gratification, not my vision of the truest and best expression of sexuality. I assume that we have in common the first goal, but not the second. That's fine. I am not asking you to agree with me about what is the truest and best expression of sexuality, but inasmuch as we both desire to see the end of the objectification of women, we might agree that pornography prevents that from being achieved.

"Please tell me why you feel this is wrong and how it would be detrimental to the soul you feel resides in the body."

I really can't in any terms you would accept. To use your body in any sense that is not a total acceptance of everything it is to be human is to objectify oneself. I think the same thing of someone working on an assembly line: he is an object of labor, a mere commodity. I also object to it on the grounds of the emotional repression I described above. I believe that if you cannot commit your emotions (that is all I mean by soul) to an act then you are failing to live fully as a person. At any rate, we aren't going to agree on this point probably and I hope we can avoid further discussion of it as it will drag the thread down. There was a reason I prefaced the statement by saying these were my personal opinions.

"Do you think that believing women to be more emotional in sexual matters than men is a sort of objectification?"

No, if the belief is incorrect it is merely an illusion. It is not considering the woman's worth to be solely based in her body and in her ability to gratify men. Even if fallacious, it is based in concern for the woman.

"For argument's sake, what if she were somewhat of an exhibitionist?"

To the extent that she was seen by men, and seen solely as a sexual object and not as a total person, it would be reinforcing the image of the woman as a sexual object. Freedom is NEVER total, it must always be used responsibly if one wishes to maintain it or promote it. Obviously, if women chose to use their freedom to constantly have sex in public it would be difficult for them to escape objectification in the minds of people who were watching them.

"Why should she hide such things? Do you feel she should be ashamed?"

No, but if she slept around and it became known, she would be reinforcing the "whore" image. Whether she considered herself to be one would have no real bearing on whether she was promoting the image (though of course, it would be better if she did not consier herself a whore). If women are to be considered as less than sexual objects they cannot treat themselves as such. That entails that at a certain point some of their sexual desires may have to be sacrificed for the greater good, just as some of African-Americans desires for social mobility had to be constrained by their desire of how their people are to be regarded as a whole. Freedom, for blacks Americans, could indeed include the activities of a man like, for instance, Steppin Fetchitt, but a responsible free black man would never behave like Steppin Fetchitt even if he could benefit from it temporarily for the sake of the overall position of African Americans in society.

"But if she is only seeking sexual gratification, it is possible that she would not wish to be seen as a potential partner for a relationship. That could be seen as allowing the man to have false expectations. That would be unkind, wouldn't it?"

Yes unless the man had the same intentions. But that is outside the context of the discussion we are having about women's objectification. In that case she would be using the man as an object, which, of course would also be wrong. However, men being abused as sexual objects is not a problem as severe as the problem of women being used as sexual objects.

You're going to find a way to pick a fight with me over this no matter what I do, aren't you?

luvluv

Lady Shea, if I as a black man were to, on those same grounds, buck my eyes and speak in "sho-nuffs" and "yessah-boss" and do a little two-step dance for every white man who would thus pay to see me do so, would I be empowering or exploting myself?

There are jobs (entertainment for one) where it is still profitable for a black man do play the role of the nigger. There is not enough money in the world for me to do it.

Similarly, I too have had experiences analagous to your experiences on the job on the basis of my blackness. I endure all kinds of demeaning insults and petty comments, and I too largely ignore it and try simply to navigate around it peacefully on the grounds that those who have those kinds of feelings racially aren't really worht the trouble of confronting.

However, it would be a very cold day in hell before you would ever see me just say "oh well, they just see me as a nigger so I am just going to use it to my advantage". I will never, EVER, step into someone else's degrading image of me for profit or gain. I refuse to proffer my dignitiy for loose change. I am worth more than that. And so are you.

To the extent that you objectifiy yourself or let yourself be objectified you are reinforcing mysoginistic attitudes. There is no way around it. No matter how much money you get out of objectifying yourself, women everywhere are poorer everytime you do it.

bonduca

I cannot agree with you about pornography, because I cannot agree with the reasoning behind your objecting to it. We had a poster on here not long ago who objected to the closing down of an adult bookstore, though he personally did not support the bookstore's message. My position is similar.

We apparently disagree on the meaning of being human. I see no reason to accept your definition over mine, and you have not been able to provide me with motivation to do so.

How is it emotional repression to fully recognize and gratify one's desire to have sex? Please explain this.

I am addressing certain comments you made within the context of this thread. Perhaps you should not include them, since it is not readily apparent which you consider relevant to discussion and which are merely window dressing?


If your concern is based on inaccurate assumptions, perhaps your well-intended remedies will do as much harm as good.

Is it you or the woman who decides how best to responsibly use this freedom?

Reference LadyShea's excellent post.

A woman who has sex for reasons other than love is considered a whore? By whom?

I do not consider myself a whore, and neither do any of my past associates. Do you consider me to be one?

Please explain this statement in further detail.

I will be happy to discuss upward mobility in a largely white-controlled society in a different thread.

Unless Mr. Fetchitt is naked and has female genitalia, let us confine ourselves to the behavior of the women.

I am sorry that you see my taking exception to some of your statements as "picking a fight." However, as a woman, I feel I must speak up when I feel equally damaging stereotypes against my sex are being perpetuated, how ever well-intentioned the messenger.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>