Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sex and Relationships

Girls Gone Mild: Are Feminists and Prudes Rebelling Against Slut Chic?

By Anneli Rufus, AlterNet. Posted September 22, 2007.


Wendy Shalit's new book suggests there's anti-slut rebellion in the making.
41cfksgvkl
Advertisement

Wendy Shalit isn't quite shocked anymore by how eroticized popular culture is. She delved into that when researching her first book, A Return to Modesty, which defended premarital virginity and was published in 2000 when she was 23. Back then, Shalit was skewered by sundry venues from Playboy to The Nation. Hustler magazine dubbed her its Asshole of the Month. She jokes about trudging "under the heavy burden of the Scarlet M, baffled but fascinated." What startles her now -- now that she's married, with a baby of her own -- is how young the eroticization starts. She shudders at a line of bibs and onesies on display at cafepress.com that proclaim: I'm too Sexy for my diaper!

Meanwhile, a quick Google-surf yields, at speakupdesigns.com, child-size tees that read PROPERTY OF PIMP UNIVERSITY. "PIMP" is twice the size of the other words, in case passersby almost miss the point.

Hello Kitty preteen thongs and Hasbro Pussycat Dolls dolls shock Shalit, as do crimson-lipsticked Bratz Babyz and department-store padded pushup training bras.

"Being a child is no longer a valid excuse not to be sexualized" -- but the literal sexy-baby thing is just a symptom, Shalit contends, of a much crueler crisis in which young women are barraged by pop-culture pressures from My Scene Bling Bling Barbie to The Vagina Monologues, so they transform into vacuous Stepford sluts, the hybrid nightmare of both feminists and prudes. Sensual. Casual. Available. And so very eager to please.

"Not since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 has there been such bipartisan agreement that we have a problem," Shalit avows in her new book, Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self-Respect and Find It's Not Bad to Be Good (Random House, 2007), in which she posits a brewing revolution among girls who just wanna say no. Comparing Bratz Babyz to the Cuban Missile Crisis is a bit bombastic, but what prompted her to climb out on that bouncy limb was a 2006 Rolling Stone story in which Duke University students, pole-dancing in a go-go cage, said they wished they could just date. When born-to-be-wild Rolling Stone "starts to read like the National Review, then clearly something has gone very wrong," Shalit proclaims.

"On the one hand, girls are more educated and women more successful in business than ever before." On the other hand, she avows, the hookup scene is making them miserable. If we are to believe the myriad surveys she cites and Shalit's thousand-plus personal interchanges with females aged twelve to 28, many resent the randomness, the anonymity, the forced unnaturalness of what she calls "bottling up those emotions" and separating sex from love, in being warned to remain "cling-free" and in having sex only because "you can't get out of it." Today's mothers, teachers, doctors and therapists are veterans of the sexual revolution. Deluged by the advice of these adults, young girls told Shalit that they feel pressured to strut boldly through the gates their elders crashed circa 1972. They told Shalit, or so she writes, that their moms call them freaks for wearing loose-fitting, figure-hiding clothes or hesitating to lose their virginities.

So merchandisers pounce: with tees for six-year-olds proclaiming LUST, with pimp-and-ho Halloween costumes. With the $24.95 Striptease Kit, including "red sequined pasties with adhesive, sheer black scarf, body glitter, 10 fold-out cards" detailing "step-by-step routines." Politics pounces too: Shalit recounts Women's Pride Week at her alma mater, Williams College, where the campus feminist group "distributed SHAMELESS HUSSY stickers that we were all expected to wear, to prove that we were proud to be sexually active. They also distributed stickers reading F - - K THE PATRIARCHY that seemed to be in conflict with the first set of stickers (unless they meant F - - K THE PATRIARCHY literally)."

Confusion swirls when girls casually greet each other with "Hi, slut!" -- and "prostitot" is not really an insult. The line is hair-fine between liberation and exploitation. The refrain to a swelling pro-promiscuity chorus, Shalit writes, is that "being publicly sexual has become the only acceptable way for girls to demonstrate maturity." It stands in for identity, replaces emotional intimacy. And it's easier than thinking or talking: a kind of autopilot.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: wendy shalit, girls gone mild, sexualization, youth

Anneli Rufus is the author of several books, including Party of One: The Loners' Manifesto.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wendy Shalit is Israeli and, I believe, an Orthodox Jew. Her perspective on sex is...differant.
Posted by: yellow on Sep 22, 2007 1:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to quote from an article by Ms. Shalit which I found researching her ideas.

Orthodox Jewish Women, it seems to me, strike a more reasonable balance. There husbands can be found in the delivery room but always sitting by the wifes head or to the side saying prayers and giving encouragement-but never actually watching the baby come out in our favored full frontal position. This is specifically prohibited by Jewish law, for the connection between seeing the birth itself and diminished male desire has been understood for thousands of years. In Judaism, preserving the intimate relationship between husband and wife, is thought to be more important than worshiping at the alter of the Totally Involved Spouse Who Must See Everything...To some Orthodox women will always be repressed and Orthodox men will always be sexist. To be sure, Orthodox men do not objectify women with the male gaze, but on the other hand they don't touch other women except family and their own wives..."

I know that many find religion to be "liberating" in a world of porn, violence and disrespect for women, and objectification. Stories abound from the first Gulf War of American Women converting to Islam because they found the dignity of the Burkha a refreshing change from menacing and intrusive male stares and catcalls. This is especially understandable considering the condition of women in the US military. The contemporary female retreat to the safety and dignity of religion is only testimony to the heavy price extracted by male sexism for women's liberation and striving for equality in a man's world. Shalit's perspective is not really a healthy one but preferable for most women to the undignified world of objectification and the cheapening of love and sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Who says? Posted by: heid
1.1
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Sep 22, 2007 3:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is some of the most horribly-written, trendy, incoherent babble I have seen in a while.

Furthermore, I think this is a fake issue. Just like prostitution is the oldest profession, I think "Have young women become too slutty?" must be the oldest discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 1.1 Posted by: clvngodess
the corporations which steal the innocence of children almost make the
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 22, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
corporations which "only" rob us of job security and a clean environment look good.

There is probably a connection between parents with stressful lives and children with slutty t-shirts.

My parents were able to give me a happy family childhood on one very average salary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» oh boy is this true Posted by: deborama
Fluff
Posted by: Urgelt on Sep 22, 2007 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's disingenous to imply that a spike in teen suicides is the product of sex-without-love pressures. Where is the evidence, aside from the author's active imagination?

A more plausible explanation is off-label prescriptions of antidepressants, which became widespread until suicides starting spiking among teens and was linked to those very antidepressants.

Another factor may be food additives which are psychoactive: caffeine and aspartame stand out but are not alone. Industrial food has been linked (thus far) to antisocial behavior, increased aggression, and emotional disturbances, is certainly a factor in obesity, and may even be a factor in the dreadful psychological illness Anorexia Nervosa, which is essentially a slow-motion suicide.

I would hope for a more thoughtful evaluation of the problems facing teen girls, but it's plain I will not find it in this book. This review warns me away from pure fluff. Thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Offensive and misleading - minimizes a genuine issue.
Posted by: heid on Sep 22, 2007 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this article offensive in the extreme. False statements are made as if they're unarguable.

"Deluged by the advice of these adults, young girls told Shalit that they feel pressured to strut boldly through the gates their elders crashed circa 1972." What?! Since when did women fight for the idea that our bodies are supposed to be made available to any and all males? This is pure trash.

". . .their moms call them freaks for wearing loose-fitting, figure-hiding clothes or hesitating to lose their virginities." Bullshit! This is simply unbelievable, except in the rarest of cases. To claim that such treatment of girls by their mothers is routine is utterly absurd.

goaskalice.columbia.edu, which is supposedly quoted, doesn't appear to exist. I've tried to find it, but the server can't be found.

This article portends to be a book review - but instead of reviewing it, the book's ideas are simply promulgated without any thought.

The issue of sexualizing young girls is of enormous concern, but an article like this one, with such obviously errant claims about behavior and documentation from a website that apparently doesn't exist, does not serve girls well. Rather, it makes it that much easier to trivialize them and the serious issue of demeaning, dehumanizing, and objectifying girls and women.

Further, it turns the clock backwards by giving the strong impression that girls - in this article, just stand-ins for women - want to be treated in the good girl-bad girl dichotomy and that this is a good thing. If it's true, this could only be tragic, as it would mean a return to the bad old days when women's sexuality was treated as taboo.

Yes, there's an enormous problem in sexualizing preadolescent girls - but this article does nothing to illuminate or educate. Rather, it obfuscates the real issue and seems to suggest that returning to the time before the women's movement, giving the impression that giving up our sexuality is the solution to the hypersexualization of the marketplace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You didn't try very hard: Posted by: supercrisp
» RE: Excellent points, BK Posted by: Blondinista
» RE: xcellent points, BK Posted by: Blondinista
Sensationalism sells
Posted by: supercrisp on Sep 22, 2007 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why can't folks distinguish between sex-positive and sexually profligate? Is it really so bad to tell young women they can use a vibrator? And isn't that different than telling them that they're just a slot for men's tabs?

And what's this crap about the role of a woman in Orthodox Jewry being so great? Is this author some sort of closeted Pat Robertson? Does she wear a burkini?

The sad fact is that I'm just like everyone else, a pitiful moth drawn to the open flame of sensationalist bullcrap. I'm ashamed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hmmmm
Posted by: Jeo567 on Sep 22, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My take on what we have here: a legitimate issue couched by reactionary horseshit, extreme as norm cherrypicking of facts, wholly lacking in causal links (suicides).
Yes, children are sexualized too early. Yes, our commercial culture has cheapened sex. But the answer isn't a rejecting an essential part of one's identity.
Nowhere in this article do I see much of anything about the need for realistic, honest sex education. And parents are only mentioned briefly as part of the problem.
I'll check the battlecry website next time I want to read something like this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Someone tell me, what is a slut?
Posted by: SalB on Sep 22, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A woman who enjoys sex? With many partners? Why should we care? Sex is fun for grown ups, we enjoy it, it makes us feel good. Abstaining from sex until a ceremony to create legal kinfolk is just sensory deprevation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Someone tell me, what is a slut? Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Someone tell me, what is a slut? Posted by: lepidopteryx
Virgin is not a bad word -- especially for a feminist
Posted by: oldwoman on Sep 22, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Etymology provides some interesting insights into the history and evolution of ideas -- or devolution in some cases. The word "virgin" once meant "beholden to no man" (or woman for that matter). Another way of expressing this older and wiser meaning is "one who belongs to herself alone." Among the "Virgin Goddesses" of ancient Greece were Athena--preferring intellectual pursuits and enjoying the company of men, Artemis--protector of wild or "virgin" (in the sense above) nature and avoiding the company of men, and Hestia--keeper of the hearth, home, and family--a companion of men but only within those parameters. Aphrodite has also been included in the "Virgin Goddess" category in some works--sexual activity as archetypal as one can find, but on her terms leaving her beholden to no one and always owning herself. What an excellent model for a "modern" understanding of virginity for both women and men--at any age. Also, perhaps more in connection with the article about pornography in this issue, looking up the "Sacred Orgasm" might broaden both discussion and understanding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Equality was a HUGE step down
Posted by: ubertext on Sep 22, 2007 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is acting just like a man- wanting bimbos, not having enough time to spend with our families, ignoring the needs of our families and children to pursue our own thing, being preoccupied over sex cdonsidered valued traits? I am horrified how Feminism became "acting just like a man", despite the obvious weaknesses of their sex. A woman is strong not because she can take a mans job away from him, but because she has depths of emotional resolve and understanding that they in a warrior society don't have. When a woman can fire 50,000 people making them lose thier jobs- this is a triumph of Feminnism? When a 7 year old can proclaim they are a slut, this is triumph?
Woman have strangths which men will never have- there are 2 sexes only & I think we are supposed to help & honor eachother as valued people, not objectify one another even more. My being able to see a man as a sex object does not make me a better person- The humanity of woman is sadly being marginalized, and that is good for the corporations.
& PS- No guy ever liked you less for saying "no". If he did you know he wasn't worth it anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is sexist BS. Posted by: yellow
» RE: quality was a HUGE step down Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: quality was a HUGE step down Posted by: lepidopteryx
mistaken reference
Posted by: theallegro on Sep 22, 2007 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
fyi- i think you're a little confused about what the garments muslim women wear to cover their faces and bodies are called. overall, such garments are referred to as "hijab" collectively, which is also what men's garments for "modest dress" are called.

a covering for a woman's face in islam is called "niqab". in most of the middle east, the rest of the garment is called an "abaya". a "burqa" is a garment like the afghan "chadri", which covers the entire body, including the entire face with a screen for the eyes.

if american women were embracing islam after the war in the gulf (which certainly did happen), it would be highly unlikely for them to be wearing a "burqa". they're relatively rare outside of the indian subcontinent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mistaken reference Posted by: theallegro
» RE: mistaken reference Posted by: crazyquilt
Proving her point
Posted by: winterinashes on Sep 22, 2007 1:53 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh my god. The ignorance here only serves to prove her point. You can not blame her views on her nationality or being an Ortodox Jew. I'm an Atheist born into a Methodist Christian family and I agree with her. So we can toss out that needlessly racist blame-the-Jews theory, okay? Girls should NOT be allowed, forced, pressured or coerced into being sex objects! Not at 5 years old, not at 10 years old, and not even at 15 years old! I think the slutty clothes, fashions, music, dolls, toys, etc. for children is horribly, HORRIBLY sick and wrong, and in my view, anyone who doesn't have a problem with it is as guilty of child ponorgraphy as the 60 year old man down the street with kiddie porn on his computer. There is NOTHING feminist, individual or empowering about a girl who is nothing but a flash & blood blow-up-doll, living her life only to be there to spread her legs for anything with a pulse. NOTHING about that makes a woman feel like a worthwhile and accomplished person, no matter how hard you try to tell yourself that sleeping around makes you better than everyone else. But alas, Americans don't think for themselves; we are a people so eager to do anything in the name of conformity and percieved normalcy - like lemmings jumping off of a cliff you all are. You're all completely shocked and offended that anyone wouldn't let their 6 year old dress like a slut and give blowjobs to all the little boys in school. You people are SICK. Sick and so grossly blind to the world around you that you don't deserve the oxygen that you're breathing. It really boggles my mind!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What?, that your cold as ice? Posted by: messedup
Glad I had boys
Posted by: Jeanne on Sep 22, 2007 7:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a twist. If girls are performing sex acts with the kind of emotional and mental disengagement this article describes, then I guess Bill Clinton saying he "did not have sex" with Monica could well be true. I don't know what can be done, except to minimize girls' exposure to media and marketing. As parents, we always pointed out the motives behind the marketing our sons were exposed to on TV, etc. Is it different to inoculate girls against the b***s*** messages perpetrated in magazines, on TV and in movies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

great piece
Posted by: This Username is Taken on Sep 22, 2007 7:38 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am really happy you are writing about this. I'm liberal and I'm sick of everything oversexualized being promoted just because of 'freedom.' This is harming girls and I'm glad to hear there's a backlash. Re: the commentator who doesn't know about Go Ask Alice, hello, just google it, you'll get a zillion references.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: yes, but... Posted by: realmuzik
Act like a whore....
Posted by: dwatkins9 on Sep 22, 2007 11:07 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and you'll be treated like a whore. This is news? Nothing has changed in 5000 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Act like a whore.... Posted by: naryaquid
Mike Males
Posted by: mmales on Sep 23, 2007 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is more reactionary Alternet worship of junk-pop, corporate-media sensationalism and trivialization of girls' real issues. This author doesn't bother to actually study or critically examine mainstream media or right-wing-author distortions--isn't Alternet supposed to be an ALTERNATIVE publication?--but just regurgitates mainstream anti-youth dogma exploiting meaningless crap like "hookups" (a worthless term denoting anything from an email to an orgy). Example: in the latest year, 2004, there were 96 suicides among 10.2 million girls ages 10-14, the LOWEST rate of any group in society, tragic for that 96, but hardly representative of a whole generation (there were 900 suicides in 2004 among adult women ages 40-44, their mothers, far more of an influence on girls than some thong or ad). That this sad, irrelevant culture-war fluff on girls is featured in Alternet shows once again that there is no real alternative, analytical media on youth, just cloned condensension and false fear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'll take trivial. Posted by: messedup
» Little girls learn from the .. Posted by: messedup
Good!! There needs to be one.
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Sep 23, 2007 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not that I have anything against nudity, I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is getting women that have had too much partying and get them to do crazy shit. Alchohol and these kinds of films together spell one thing DISRESPECT FOR WOMEN. Guys watch this crap and think 'All I have to do is get a girl messed up and WOW!" Get enough booze in a girl and then you get all the other fun that goes along with being at a drinking party. Beatings,molestations,rapes,and killings.
All thanks to booze. They could'nt do the same film in a group of women that were just getting stoned,they still have their wits about them and would send the GGW twits packing.
Right on to the anti-slut league!! Keep up the fight you'll be getting back what we've lost to the rich perverts...RESPECT.
Draft Jeffrey7 for PREZ '08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I read Alternet to get away from this crap.
Posted by: Luther Blissett on Sep 23, 2007 3:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That said, I read the article anyway, mostly so I could participate in the discussion. Sure, this article was pure drivel, but there have been many interesting and insightful comments and criticisms posted as a result.

The problem here is that the capitalist patriarchy has completely defeated feminism. The ideas that women can be anything and do anything they want and that men shouldn't control women's bodies were bullets fired at the patriarchy. But they've been deflected right back at women in the form of thongs for preteens, among the other things mentioned in the article--because looking and acting like a sex object that exists only to pleasure men is somehow "empowering".

Corin Tucker of Sleater-Kinney said it better in their song "#1 Must-Have":

"Bearer of the flag from the beginning
Now who would have believed this riot grrrl's a cynic
But they took our ideas to their marketing stars
and now i'm spending all my days at girlpower.com
Trying to buy back a little piece of me"

Would it be a triumph for feminism, for instance, if Hillary Clinton were elected president? She's nothing more than an honorary man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, it could be. Posted by: Coleman
BLACK BOOGEYMAN HAS TO BE FOUND, FIRST?
Posted by: Malcus Garvey on Sep 23, 2007 6:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like the Boxing and the NFL pension industry's criterias weren't directly challenged until Blackmen were in charge of them (Don King, Gene Upshaw), the porno industry will need the same fate.
No white or Blackwomen will challenge the white male at his money-making schemes, regardless of their immoralities, since they fear the consequences. Yes, more than Thee Almighty's consequences to them, for fearing man over Him.
Until a Willie Horton of the adult entertainment industry can be found, the white man can cause the rapes, murders, molestations and progressive immoralities of all the youngsters he wants--women are made to only challenege men with minimal 'power.' In these cases; poor Black heads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

time to act
Posted by: Missing Piece on Sep 23, 2007 10:56 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://video.google.com/videosearch?num=10&so=0&q= A+Crude+Awakening+-+The+Oil+Crash+duration%3Amedium&start=0

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why?
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Sep 23, 2007 11:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is poor, the book (if anything like this article), will be useless and religion is the death of reason.

Why are you wasting my time with this drivel?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Objectification of Youth for Profit !!!
Posted by: GrizzleBee's on Sep 24, 2007 4:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on!! At no point should we condone through inaction the degredation of our youth. Our young people have enough on their plates. Why allow these corporations to exploit them for profit? Who are these parents who purchase such obvious mechanisms of objectification? It is time for us to put an end to Perversion for Profit. We have to be the change we hope to see in this world. Especially for our childrens sake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why just (young) women?
Posted by: davmills on Sep 24, 2007 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why all this talk of immodesty and loose behaviour limited only to women? Could not the author of the book in question or the reviewer (and others) ask that (young) men act and dress modestly as well? If this is recommended for women--and since we supposedly live in an age of gender equality--then males should not be exempt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why just (young) women? Posted by: hagwind
Left and Right convergence on commercialization/sexualization
Posted by: Roger Bybee on Sep 24, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given the the reactionary, poorly-written views of Wendy Shalit, it is hard to extract a valid point amidst the debris of right-wing cultural myths. But Wendy Shalit indeed properly points to the hyper-sexualization of culture that injects sex into the lives of younger and younger audiences all the time. She deserves credit for correctly observing an obvious and disturbing trend.

But what seems to be missing from Wendy Shalit's analysis--and more broadly, from the Right's--is any comprehension that this force-feeding of sex into the minds of young kids is driven by the very capitalist machine they so deeply admire. Sexualization of children and their culture is inextricably linked to the growing corporatization of every nook and cranny (no crude puns intended) of our culture. This disturbing trend has institutional roots in the conduct of corporations that Shalit and Co. are so loathe to regulate.

Thus, Shalit's strategy of promoting individual "modesty" is likely to be just as effective (that is, counter-productive) as Bush's much-heralded abstinence programs, which studies have shown to be correlated with increased sexual behavior. All of Shalit's hectoring will merely trigger a backlash among teens and pre-teens striving to assert their independence from adults seeming to curb their freedom. "Modesty" culture will be overwhelmed by the continuing torrent of sexualizing/commercializing messages flowing from Corporate America.

Instead, what is needed, in line with the media reform movement launched by the Left, is the assertion of democratic controls over our mass media so that TV and video programming for kids is age-appropriate. If this pressing concern for parents, teachers, and society is handled properly, we could develop a vast Left-Right coalition to begin to reclaim our popular culture. Roger Bybee, Milwaukee

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women as our own worst enemies
Posted by: Kym525 on Sep 25, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a staunchly proud feminist who is simply appalled at the anti-sex backlash coming from my liberal sisters. Had I not known this was alternet, I would have sworn I had accidentally popped onto Focus on the Family.

Firstly, sex has NEVER been the problem here. Sex is a normal and healthy, life-affirming part of who we are as human beings. The REAL problem(s) are an outdated, Judeo-Christian guilt-filled view of sex that has poisoned even the healthiest expression of eros between consenting adults. Women have come under fire for breastfeeding in public--because gawd forbid someone might get offended by a nipple (remember Janet Jackson's nipplegate?). The flipside of this guilt is Madison Avenue and a porn industry that feeds our need for sex. We know it's bad for us, but we buy what they're selling anyway. Of course advertisers are selling sex to kids--why not--they're an easy market because parents with too much disposible income don't know how to say "no". (Isn't it amazing that Target--the same chain that refuses to carry Plan B--is willing to sell little girl thongs)?

What really bothers me about this essay is the onus of "good" behaviour once again falls to women, playing right into the hands of chauvinistic religions that blame women for all the evils in the world, and yet gives men a free pass. Why aren't we asking for men to hold up the mantle of virginity and restraint? If you're truly a feminist and believe in equality, then it has to go across the board. If we're going to insist that young women dress modestly, we should insist the same for young men. If we're going to try to wrest sex away from those who exploit it for financial gain, we need to insure men hold up their end of the bargain too. We need to make virginity just as "cool" for guys as we seem to believe it is for women.

On the the young girl who gave her guy friends BJ's while they were playing video games--hmm, did any of these "friends" realize that what she was doing wasn't right, or did any of them refuse? Maybe one was going to but was under pressure from his buddies to 'just do it' even though he might not have enjoyed it. Where is the support for teenaged boys who aren't ready for sex and who don't view girls as sex objects?

Funny thing is, I see this entire 'girls gone mild' thing as a trend that will pass. It doesn't address the root causes of a culture that has taken things a little too far, nor does it seek to redress these issues. It does exactly what some men want to do--restrict the sexual expression of women under the guise of protecting us.

I'm moving to Europe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A better choice is Ariel Levy's "Female Chauvinist Pigs"
Posted by: cheressemm on Sep 26, 2007 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This book and article reminds me of a much better read: Ariel Levy's "Female Chauvinist Pigs." It does a much better job of a similar topic--the way women are hyper-sexualized in our society and the ways we play into it ourselves. I highly recommend it instead of this book, and Levy does not mistake "The Vagina Monologues" as something bad. This author obviously knows nothing about Eve Ensler's play and her endless work through V-Day of raising money for abused women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think this may be an important book
Posted by: UP58 on Sep 26, 2007 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hesitated to write a comment here. I have pretty much given up reading the comments to AlterNet articles. Too many of them reflect the writer's own agendas and interpretations rather than reflecting reasoned, thoughtful analyses of the issues raised by a particular article. But, in the end, I overcame my hesitation and decided I had to write something.

I am not a prude; I have never been one, and I am 70 years old. I celebrate the open appreciation of healthy female sexuality that has occurred over the past 40 years. However, I have become increasingly appalled by the demeaning of the latter through the expanding "sexploitation" of younger and younger girls by the media and advertising, in which they are portrayed - yes! I'll use the word! - as "sluts," who are cast as the toys and tools of predatory males.

What many of the people who have posted here seem to have missed is that Shalit's book is focused on the plight of preteen and teen-age girls, and it is based on interviews she conducted with thousands of them. I taught university courses in adolescent development for nearly 25 years, and one of the topics I always included was human sexuality. One of the major tasks of young girls is to develop a real sense of their own self-worth, which includes a healthy respect for their own bodies and their own sexuality. They need to value themselves for what they are and can be, not as the objects of others' lusts and desires. The constant barrage of the cheapened view of feminity and sexuality that they see all around them does not help them achieve this purpose. On the contrary, it presents them with a demeaning and debased view of themselves. This may be what Shalit is trying to get across. I'll know better when I actually read the book.

This comment from one review has the following to say on this issue: "It is so ironic that in trying to liberate herself, the modern woman falls even deeper into the pratfalls of appealing to male sexual desires. As a high school teacher, I see this every day. Girls feel empowered if they seduce their way to the top, not noticing that they are losing more and more of themselves each time that they do."

I truly hope this person is wrong. There are many, many young women who are amazing, creative, comfortable with themselves, and accomplishing wonderful things. Unfortunately, we are making it too difficult for many of them to do likewise and to really value themselves in all aspects of their humanity.

Incidentally, Shalit is a Conservative, not an Orthodox, Jew, and she lives in Canada.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rightwing Libertine Weighs In
Posted by: jtruman on Sep 27, 2007 1:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure how I ended up on Alternet (a few wrong turns on google and wikipedia, perhaps?). But I'm a mostly conservative (ardently pro-death penalty; fan of Giuliani) guy whose involved in the adult industry. I've met a number of women in porn who struck me as sharp, independent and very self-aware about their career (and life) decisions. They seem (no one can really ever know another person's mind) to have a strong grasp of what it takes to both survive, and thrive in porn by asserting control over their careers.

But I've started to notice a disturbing number of younger girls getting into the industry who quickly get sucked into a downward spiral of drugs, alcohol, and willingness to do "anything" on screen for a buck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In their deepest fantasies
Posted by: mike_burns on Sep 29, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
every slut wants to be treated like a lady.
But, the lady wants to be treated like a slut.
Everybody wants what they can''t have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did Vagina Monologues seriously deserve to be attacked in here?
Posted by: calynne on Oct 1, 2007 7:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since when has Eve Ensler and the Vagina Monologues deserved to be equated to a “pop culture pressure” or Barbie Dolls or PIMP Shirts or Ludacris or Jane Magazine?
Such statements reveal a very limited if not ignorant perspective on the revolution of female sexual independence. I have no problem with the offering of the idea that to be strong we don’t have to push it to the other extreme of sexual liberation, and that true sexual freedom is the right to choose where you want to be on a large spectrum of options in terms of actions, image, etc. But seriously, when on earth did the Vagina Monologues become the equivalent of “vacuous Stepford sluts?” Have Eve Ensler’s works even been read here? Ensler can hardly be described as “singing the same song” as Ludacris when her life’s work deals with eliminating violence against women across the world. Yes, she calls for reclaiming a female, personal ownership of the vagina and sexual activity, but only to advocate that this is an integral part of a woman’s body and that a woman does not have to be sexually submitted to anything unwanted, from rape to everyday objectification. When complaining about the inflatable vagina at Arizona State, it seems that the vagina to her is only considered to be a sexual organ for the purpose of male pleasure, and not the instrument of birth, nor individual female pleasure much less a vital fact of women’s physical existence and that this is an act not of promoting sex but of placing women into the public sphere, a place where the penis already resides pretty openly, and not only as a sexual object.
I really take offense to this comparison and find it hard to respect the other good things she may say. I think it’s important to remember that it is a corporate, commercialized, patriarchal world behind the marketing of sex to youth, who happen to be negatively co-opting the feminist revolution to sell a product of submission and degradation to young girls. For her to negate a really strong, positive women’s movement such as V-Day out of ignorance seems to be working with the bad guys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who's buying?
Posted by: lepidopteryx on Oct 6, 2007 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How long has Barbie been on the market now? I see toddlers with Barbie dolls all the time. Most little American girls have their first Barbie before they're toilet-trained. If you buy Barbie (or Bratz or any of the other so-called fashion dolls) for your preschool daughters, don't complain because they see that as an ideal of female beauty as they get older. You started it.
Babies don't select their own wardrobes or buy themselves "I'm too sexy for my diaper" t-shirts. So who's buying them and dressing babies in them? If you buy this crap and dress your baby in it, then the clothing manufacturer isn't sexualizing your newborn, YOU are.
Preteens don't generally have their own income or transportation, so who's taking them to the store and buying them "PIMP" t-shirts and padded training bras? if you buy this crap for your daughter, don't gripe because she wears it. And don't tell me that you have to buy it because she wants it - you're writing the check, you have the power to decide what gets bought and what stays in the rack. Be the PARENT, for crying out loud.
As for bikini panties and thongs, I'm 43 and I wear them because I like them. My teenager wears them because she likes them. I won't wear granny panties - anything with a waistband that comes to my navel bugs the crap out of me. Neither of us will go near a push-up bra - having your breasts mashed together and shoved up under your chin is painful, and neither of us is particularly masochistic. There is nothing more annoying than uncomfortable underwear.
Some of my clothes are sexy, some aren't. What I wear depends on the occasion. I don't wear the same clothes to work in the garden, to go shopping, to go to work, and to go to a nightclub. I've been known to attend outdoor festivals in nothing but a sport bra and a pair of shorts. So has my daughter. I see nothing wrong with that.
By the time my daughter was old enough to have her own income and started buying her own clothes, she had a good idea of what SHE liked and didn't like, and bought accordingly. She's 17 now and some of her clothes are sexy, some aren't, and she knows when to wear what.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]