Let's talk about slut shaming

[Rosa Partizan]

I guess everyone of you knows what this is. To those of you having slept in a closet the last couple of years: It means mocking and calling out a woman for having casual sex, having had sex with several guys, being open about her sexuality, wearing cleavage, short skirts etc. As a sexually outgoing and confident woman in her mid-twenties, I have heard "slut" several times. For talking openly about my sexuality, for having one night stands, for having had more than 2 or 3 guys and so on. You know how it goes. From my own experience, from some girlfriends' experiences, from what I observe in society, I take this very seriously. Slut shaming is no myth, slut shaming is happening everywhere all the time, not only by men, but in the same way by women, kissing patriarchie's ass.

BUT I noticed that within feminist discussions, there is a discourse taking the whole concept ad absurdum. It kind of started bothering me how often it was used, but I could't call out what was so striking. Then this Miley Cyrus-thing started and made furor within feminist circles, all those blogs and so on. All of a sudden, I realized what had become so fucking annoying about it: This term was used to shut down any discussion that evolved around objectifying women. Some women were like "leave her alone with that slut shaming, she is discovering her sexuality and you give her bad names for it". So, here we go: Miley Cyrus, who used to be a teen idol, wants to get rid off this whole good girl-image. Fair enough. So, what can she do? Let's learn from other female pop stars and be as sexually provocative as one can be, rubbing your ass at some rape culture-approving douchebag's crotch called Robin Thicke (it is a shame that only she was the issue and he was ignored, being the older one and in the superior position), pretending to masturbate, hanging your tongue out all the time, all for the male gaze, making some fat, old, white label company guys richer than they've ever been before.

Rashida Jones wrote an article about it, maybe not very succeeding (http://www.glamour.com/entertainment/2013/12/rashida-jones-major-dont-the-pornification-of-everything) in her choice of words, but most def having a valid point. She got a lot of encouragement for that one, but also some critic like "don't slut shame". When did this concept of slut shaming become a method of shutting down critical opinions about woman's presentation of sexuality, sexual exploitation, objectification in the media? Those "feminists" are like "well, it's her choice, and whatever choice she makes, it is empowering for her". Would you stop bs, please? We ALL grew up in patriarchy, meaning that we internalized so many of its ideas, images and so on. Every choice a woman makes won't be equally good and empowering as long as we have this context of patriarchy and inequality. Some choices are just more appropiate to keep patriarchy alive than others. This doesn't mean that we are in the position to judge or something, but we are entitled to have an opinion about the stuff Miley, Rihanna etc do publicly to gain attention. On the one hand, I know that this is for many women the only way to get big, to become famous, to be seen. On the other hand, isn't it insulting women's intelligence to be like, well, they have no other choice, they are not aware of it?

Your thoughts, please.

[Loony Le Fist]

I guess everyone of you knows what this is. To those of you having slept in a closet the last couple of years: It means mocking and calling out a woman for having casual sex, having had sex with several guys, being open about her sexuality, wearing cleavage, short skirts etc. As a sexually outgoing and confident woman in her mid-twenties, I have heard "slut" several times. For talking openly about my sexuality, for having one night stands, for having had more than 2 or 3 guys and so on. You know how it goes.


As a male, I don't know if I can speak authoritatively on slut shaming. But I liked the points brought up in this post, and figured I'd chime in.

I hate how the patriarchy and society makes me out to be inferior, if I don't choose to act "alpha" and bed as many women as possible. Indeed I'm tired of the "alpha male" bs, myself. And it's a shame that women have to put up with it from men. And then of course suffer through slut shaming on top of it. I suppose the problem for men is the sort-of the reverse, in that we are expected by the patriarchy to be pimps with a stable or something. Of course women are trapped between a rock and a hard place. If they are sexually outgoing they are sluts, if they choose to not do so they are considered frigid. I think those conflicting things can really have a negative impact on women emotionally.

As a male, I can't claim to know exactly how it goes for you. Having observed it however, I can empathize with your situation.



From my own experience, from some girlfriends' experiences, from what I observe in society, I take this very seriously. Slut shaming is no myth, slut shaming is happening everywhere all the time, not only by men, but in the same way by women, kissing patriarchie's ass.


I agree. I had a gf that would do nothing but "slut shame". In her case, it seemed that it emboldened her, and she considered herself to be feminist. I'm no longer with this person for that and other reasons. Until you mentioned it, I didn't think about how she played into the patriarchy's game. And it makes me feel sad when women themselves choose to participate in their own objectification.



...
Then this Miley Cyrus-thing started and made furor within feminist circles, all those blogs and so on. All of a sudden, I realized what had become so fucking annoying about it: This term was used to shut down any discussion that evolved around objectifying women
...
Let's learn from other female pop stars and be as sexually provocative as one can be, rubbing your ass at some rape culture-approving douchebag's crotch called Robin Thicke (it is a shame that only she was the issue and he was ignored, being the older one and in the superior position), pretending to masturbate, hanging your tongue out all the time, all for the male gaze, making some fat, old, white label company guys richer than they've ever been before.


Well said. Being sexually outgoing and confident doesn't mean being an apologist for behavior that only works to objectify women further. It plays directly into the hands of rape-culture, and it's important for the feminists who recognize it, such as yourself, to stand up.



...
She got a lot of encouragement for that one, but also some critic like "don't slut shame". When did this concept of slut shaming become a method of shutting down critical opinions about woman's presentation of sexuality, sexual exploitation, objectification in the media? Those "feminists" are like "well, it's her choice, and whatever choice she makes, it is empowering for her". Would you stop bs, please? We ALL grew up in patriarchy, meaning that we internalized so many of its ideas, images and so on. Every choice a woman makes won't be equally good and empowering as long as we have this context of patriarchy and inequality. Some choices are just more appropiate to keep patriarchy alive than others.


Well I think you are off to good start fighting the patriarchy with recognizing it exists, and understanding how you have internalized certain ideas, expected behaviors. As a male I too have internalized a lot of it as well. As I've mentioned before, everyone loses in the patriarchy. All while the capitalists get rich taking advantage of our alligator brains.



This doesn't mean that we are in the position to judge or something, but we are entitled to have an opinion about the stuff Miley, Rihanna etc do publicly to gain attention. On the one hand, I know that this is for many women the only way to get big, to become famous, to be seen. On the other hand, isn't it insulting women's intelligence to be like, well, they have no other choice, they are not aware of it?
...


Well I think you can judge the content of people's character and call it like you see it. I think that the more women that take a stand against this sort of thing, and stop playing into the patriarchal white old rich man rape culture that generates the money, the better off you will be. But I do think it's hard to have a choice in a society like the one we have. We all know how capitalism essentially makes us all slaves. But that doesn't mean we can't do anything about it.

[Sasha]

as an openly BI male i always found the different dynamics i faced interesting, when i was younger i actually always had far more casual (and drunk) sexual encounters with women than with men, yet only when going to queerish parties if i was very flirtatious with (often a bit older than me) males (who i most often didnt even sleep with, i just like to dance and flirt when i'm drunk) i got branded a "slut" and "jailbait" and "tease" etc etc while when i showed the same behavior in a opposite sex situation (flirtatious but not actually pushing it towards sex) i was labeled a "decent guy" at best and "weak" at worst.
i think thats very exemplary for how women a treated (though for women it must be even a lot worse), if your sexually assertive in a situation society demands you to be a doe eyed introvert madonna you get attacked, while in a reversed situation... etc etc
its all very much enforcement of patriarchal societal norms.

[Loony Le Fist]

This is a question more directed at the females. What are some of things men can do to be a little more pro-active against slut shaming?

I'll give you an example. Say I'm in a social situation and I see someone being slut shamed. What would you like to see a pro-active male, that is against this kind of thing, do in this kind of situation? Would intervening in and of itself be misogynistic? In that, if I intervene, I'm merely acting as if women are incapable of taking care of themselves? Is it better to just let the parties be? Should men even get involved in situations like this?

My gut tells me to intervene (as in pulled the guy aside and had a little private chat). And I have done so in the past. But, I wonder if that can also be disempowering. Thoughts?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I get called 'ratchet' a lot, does this count?

[radiocaroline]

Hegemonic ideologies in the media do more than anything.

Men seek to earn "lad points" by having casual, no commitment sex with women, often whilst indulging in alcohol and drugs - which is seen as the desirable image of the youth.

Whereas for women to do it as you say, they are branded slags, sluts and all sorts. Its all to do with attitudes and the patriarchal media superstructure. It glorifies the sex, drugs and rock and roll culture of the male youth, pushing them into a life of neglecting females.

Its also similar when looking at the treatment of openly gay males in society. Men seem to get so pissed off when gay men have camp accents and "openly gay" mannerisms. Often claiming that "its alright for men to be gay, but don't be in my face about it". Media has promoted the ignorant, hegemonic behaviour of men which has created a view of xenophobia to other sexual orientations and genders.

[FSL]

Though I'm not too well read on the subject I think this "Miley's finding her sexuality" thing is a result of the so called third-wave feminism?


See how women are finding their sexuality though. 50 shades of grey is a book about a female masochist that became so wildly popular women would read it in the subway. And it started as fanfic (?) from twilight, which shouldn't be a surprise. I've read many people thinking that's a celibacy-abstinence story but it seems more like an equally masochist story where the girl is afraid her much more powerful partner will devour her despite his love.

So women finding their sexuality is twerking and then phantasizing some guy beating them up. Which I guess is the same kind of sexuality you'd find in the average bedroom in the 50s or if not there, then surely in the halls of a roman emperor.


There is of course a huge difference between that and wearing short skirts but many women do aim at that and not just at being or feeling attractive. Some women have developed a very male-oriented view of their sexuality and this is much more prominent in the media than it is in actual life (so it will be getting more prominent in actual life in the coming years).


Rashida Jones is awesome!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I wasn't overly enthused on the Rashida Jones article, to be perfectly honest. It's negative use of "whores" (without any contextualizing framing) seems to reflect the tone of the article generally. It's too bad, because her general point (there's more than one way to be "sexy") is a pretty good one - it could have stood some elaboration, especially since "sexiness" in pop culture often has so much racist baggage, such an obsession with certain body types, etc.

That, in my mind, is at the crux of this: White pop-culture feminists rush to defend Miley Cyrus (a rich white woman who acts out appropriative caricatures of racialized sexualities), while failing to grapple seriously with those whose sexualities are criminalized (the aforementioned "whores" - and particularly the most marginalized "survival" sex workers), while failing to confront the implicit white supremacist attitudes in performances like Miley's, and so on.

"Slut shaming" of course, remains a serious problem - women's autonomy is constantly attacked - but, in many cases, it is not the problem. As long as the discourse of "slut shaming" is rooted in affirming the "right" of rich white women to exercise their privilege at the expense of other women, it will remain useless. Which is frustrating, since, of course, it isn't rich white women whose sexualities are by any means subject to the strictest regulation.

The situation in Canada is instructive: indigenous women continue to risk being thrown out of their bands (or having their children or grandchildren loose status) based on their sexual and procreative choices. Where are the "Slut Walk" organizers in anti-colonial struggle? Etc.

[Rosa Partizan]

awesome, keep going, I like the way this thread develops.


This is a question more directed at the females. What are some of things men can do to be a little more pro-active against slut shaming?

I'll give you an example. Say I'm in a social situation and I see someone being slut shamed. What would you like to see a pro-active male, that is against this kind of thing, do in this kind of situation? Would intervening in and of itself be misogynistic? In that, if I intervene, I'm merely acting as if women are incapable of taking care of themselves? Is it better to just let the parties be? Should men even get involved in situations like this?

My gut tells me to intervene (as in pulled the guy aside and had a little private chat). And I have done so in the past. But, I wonder if that can also be disempowering. Thoughts?

That totally depends on the type of woman. I'm pretty good when it comes to verbal defense, but I wouldn't feel patronized if a guy helped me out. I like helpful people in general and I LOVE guys being aware of sexism and willing to show their support.


Though I'm not too well read on the subject I think this "Miley's finding her sexuality" thing is a result of the so called third-wave feminism?


See how women are finding their sexuality though. 50 shades of grey is a book about a female masochist that became so wildly popular women would read it in the subway. And it started as fanfic (?) from twilight, which shouldn't be a surprise. I've read many people thinking that's a celibacy-abstinence story but it seems more like an equally masochist story where the girl is afraid her much more powerful partner will devour her despite his love.

So women finding their sexuality is twerking and then phantasizing some guy beating them up. Which I guess is the same kind of sexuality you'd find in the average bedroom in the 50s or if not there, then surely in the halls of a roman emperor.


There is of course a huge difference between that and wearing short skirts but many women do aim at that and not just at being or feeling attractive. Some women have developed a very male-oriented view of their sexuality and this is much more prominent in the media than it is in actual life (so it will be getting more prominent in actual life in the coming years).


Rashida Jones is awesome!

This is GREAT! Don't know where to start, you mention a lot of good stuff.

To me, 50 shades of grey was total garbage. This wasn't a healthy (BDSM)-relationship at the same level, but rather a guy having power over a woman, her sexuality, her obsession about him. NOT okay. Female sexual submission is a very interesting topic. As a feminist, you come across that if you yourself enjoy being submissive and what it means in the context of patriarchy, (humiliating) porn and so on. I guess it's kind of important to deal with your own sexuality and be aware of the fact that such preferences may partly be a product of society, environment, experiences in the past and so on. I'm not against females being sexually submissive (I myself am), but I am against kind of a laisser faire-attitude towards oneself. Reflect yourself, reflect your actions, reflect everything in the context of this patriarchial, unequal world and be aware of why you like what you like.

And THIS is where third wave-feminism fails: They have this term called sex-positive, which is total crap to me. According to my attitude towards sex work, female presentation of sexuality, porn etc I would be sex negative as fuck, which is ridiculous. As I mentioned above, not everything a woman decides for i equally empowering, equally free from patriarchal influence, equally well-reflected. You don't have to think that gangbang porn, Miley Cyrus, strip clubs and so on are awesome in order to have a sex positive view. This term is annoying and misleading as fuck. And of course, all of this is not restricted to media. Women do this in everyday life, you know, adapting this male gaze. Dieting all the time, getting dressed up although they sometimes don't feel like it, all this stuff to look good. But let's be clear about two points: I myself do this stuff, I'm not judging. You won't find me without make up and in washed-out jeans in the city. I AM aware that this has influence on me and that I'm not only doing this for myself. And well, yeah, sometimes women can be the toughest competition. You know, wanting that other females notice you, that they realize you look great. But what for? What's the higher aim? Getting the best guy? There are societies in which the worth of a woman is defined by what kind of man she marries. So, if she doesn't marry at all, she's weird at best or even worthless.

[Loony Le Fist]

...
To me, 50 shades of grey was total garbage. This wasn't a healthy (BDSM)-relationship at the same level, but rather a guy having power over a woman, her sexuality, her obsession about him. NOT okay.


I've never read 50 shades of grey (but I am familiar with Twilight--and hate it :lol:), so I'm certainly not an SME when it comes to that. BDSM relationships can be healthy if this is what both partners enjoy. It isn't my cup of tea, but there are studies that show that people in those types of relationships have lower stress levels. And there is no requirement that any particular partner play a given role. Though it is true, that in those relationships, women tend to be the sub.

As long as everyone understands that it's a sexual role-play that doesn't translate into real life, I don't think it has to be degrading. And it helps if partners switch roles once in a while. So I've heard. BDSM is not really my area of expertise, nor is it something I plan to partake in. ;)

Nonetheless, I see where your coming from. In the sense that if that kind of relationship is translated into real non-sexual life it would definitely be degrading and humiliating.



Female sexual submission is a very interesting topic. As a feminist, you come across that if you yourself enjoy being submissive and what it means in the context of patriarchy, (humiliating) porn and so on. I guess it's kind of important to deal with your own sexuality and be aware of the fact that such preferences may partly be a product of society, environment, experiences in the past and so on. I'm not against females being sexually submissive (I myself am), but I am against kind of a laisser faire-attitude towards oneself. Reflect yourself, reflect your actions, reflect everything in the context of this patriarchial, unequal world and be aware of why you like what you like.


Well I think it's good that your drawing a distinction between submissive and humiliating. This is something that I think people often times have a problem with.



And THIS is where third wave-feminism fails: They have this term called sex-positive, which is total crap to me. According to my attitude towards sex work, female presentation of sexuality, porn etc I would be sex negative as fuck, which is ridiculous. As I mentioned above, not everything a woman decides for i equally empowering, equally free from patriarchal influence, equally well-reflected. You don't have to think that gangbang porn, Miley Cyrus, strip clubs and so on are awesome in order to have a sex positive view. This term is annoying and misleading as fuck. And of course, all of this is not restricted to media. Women do this in everyday life, you know, adapting this male gaze.


Could you elaborate some more on your attitudes "towards sex work, female presentation of sexuality, porn"? I'm not particularly familiar with the in-language of feminism and how sex-positivism and negativism fit in here.



Dieting all the time, getting dressed up although they sometimes don't feel like it, all this stuff to look good. But let's be clear about two points: I myself do this stuff, I'm not judging. You won't find me without make up and in washed-out jeans in the city. I AM aware that this has influence on me and that I'm not only doing this for myself. And well, yeah, sometimes women can be the toughest competition. You know, wanting that other females notice you, that they realize you look great. But what for? What's the higher aim? Getting the best guy? There are societies in which the worth of a woman is defined by what kind of man she marries. So, if she doesn't marry at all, she's weird at best or even worthless.

Good for you! Don't ever let societal expectations dictate who and what you are. I think it's great that you see these problems, and how the patriarchy is basically the cause of all of these things. Again, I'm not a SME on this being a man, but I notice the same thing. A lot of intrafemale competition and adversity is about them falling into the trap of letting the patriarchy define them.

[tallguy]

Slut shaming is having a go at women for shagging who they want when they want? If it is, then slut shaming is a shameful behaviour.

Criticizing women who let the side down by deliberately cultivating a sexually objectivised view of women by men by the creation of, for example, that nasty video by Mily Sirus? Well, that's fair play as far as I can see. Particularly, if such criticism comes from other women. However, she is no slut for doing so (in fact, I reject the word as having any valid meaning anyway). She's just a bloody fool. That, or selfish/greedy. Probably both.

[synthesis]

I get called 'ratchet' a lot, does this count?

I think that's more classist than misogynist, honestly.

[BIXX]

I honestly can't say I know how to help the situation in the here and now. But here are some thoughts...

Call people out on slut shaming, period. You can explain to then why it is not beneficial to these people to reinforce patriarchy, and also explain (if you're a moralist) why it's wrong, and you can explain how mathematically slut shaming doesn't make sense if you later go on to congratulate a guy for sleeping with a new girl every week.

Second, I think we ought to be careful with how we critique figures like Miley Cyrus. Of course, most people who criticize her are simply slut shaming. However, if you explain how she is playing into the hands of oppression (self-objectification) then that can be a good critique. You can explain why a woman can wear revealing clothing and it would be ok, but it should be for her, not for the enjoyment of some man. Why she can sleep around and that's fine, but she shouldn't simply be doing it for a man. She should be doing what she does because she enjoys them.

Third, it is important for is all to recognize how our actions are influenced by patriarchy, and try to rid ourselves of that influence.

Regarding my personal experience with slut shaming, I dated a girl who was a huge slut-shamer but she was also slut shamed. She claimed she was a feminist, but she refused to stop slut shaming girls who dressed more "preppy" than her, or really, non-punks. But if someone slit shamed a punk, she'd freak out about it (she said it was worse because punks were already marginalized because of the way they dress- but punks have shit on me for "not being punk enough" so I don't really buy that).

I wonder what made her feel that she should be allowed to slut shame but others shouldn't.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

When did this concept of slut shaming become a method of shutting down critical opinions about woman's presentation of sexuality, sexual exploitation, objectification in the media?
The Miley Cyrus incident is when I first noticed charges of "slut shaming" to shut down a feminist critique of Cyrus objectifying herself within the context of a pro-rape culture song. In a very real way, charges of "slut shaming" was used to shut down a critique of rape culture, which is disturbing, especially coming from feminists.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And THIS is where third wave-feminism fails: They have this term called sex-positive, which is total crap to me.
It's a reaction to second wave feminism's simplistic, black and white worldview where all sex work is evil, all porn is evil, etc.

[bropasaran]

I don't understand women who see some use of women in the media (e.g. women being somewhere basically just as "eye candy") as objectification and disapprove of it, but get offended when objectification in personal life is pointed out, of course, being called "slut" is insulting, but I guess that it can be pointed out in other, polite ways. I mean, either they're both objectifications to be disapproved of, or they're neither to be disapproved of, it seems to me contradictory if it's treated otherwise.

I'm not favouring one or the other- if a women wants to see both or neither as objectification, okay, I don't have any clear opinion of which option is 'correct', I'm pretty messed up sexually myself, so I don't have any right to tell anyone what should they think about topics concerning it; I'm just saying that to think that women objectification in the media is wrong but that a single women is objectified in her personal life it's okay, seems inconsistent.

I guess the question is can a woman objectify herself- when a women treats herself in a certain way to get men's attention, and that certain way is pretty similar to the way that men treat women when objectifying them, can that be called objectification?

[Redistribute the Rep]

When there was a shift towards settled agriculture and private property and wealth began to accumulate, men needed to start taking inheritance into consideration. Because paternity is disputable, men need their partners to be monogamous to make sure they know who their rightful heir is, and thus, there is a need to control women's sexuality. Engels discusses this in "the Origin of the Family Private Property and the State"

[tallguy]

When there was a shift towards settled agriculture and private property and wealth began to accumulate, men needed to start taking inheritance into consideration. Because paternity is disputable, men need their partners to be monogamous to make sure they know who their rightful heir is, and thus, there is a need to control women's sexuality. Engels discusses this in "the Origin of the Family Private Property and the State"
Males in our species will always have been twitchy about monogamy even way back before the settlement to an agrarian way of life, if only for the duration of a relationship insofar as the rearing children is concerned. That is to say, unlike other species where the female may only be in oestrus for a limited period, thus ensuring that so long as the male in question maintains exclusive sexual access to her during that time, he can be sure that any resultant offspring are his and his alone, he can also be sure that any resources he spends on their rearing will not be wasted on a non related offspring. Where monogomoy may have possibly less of a grip would be in communalist set-ups consisting of several families fully commingling in terms of resource consumption and child rearing. Thus ensuring that even if the resources spent by a given man went to a non related offspring, that man could be equally sure an equivalent amount of resources would be spent by another man on his offspring.

In short, reproductive strategies run deeper than mere civilisational structures. They are fundamentally based on cold, hard, Darwinian imperatives.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In short, reproductive strategies run deeper than mere civilisational structures. They are fundamentally based on cold, hard, Darwinian imperatives.
Or it's just an ideological imperative that arose with property.

[tallguy]

Or it's just an ideological imperative that arose with property.
Except that most/all human cultures at all (or none) stages of industrial development share a similar pattern of male preoccupation with female monogamy, at least certainly for the duration of the procreative part of a relationship. This pattern of behaviour is seen similarly in other non-human species. Particularly social-mammalian ones like ours. It comes down to the difference between eggs and sperm. That is to say, a human female will always know that her offspring will contain her genes. A human male, however, can never know this with the same biological certainty. This, then, leads to behavioural strategies being employed by males to ensure that any offspring do, indeed, contain their genes. A preoccupation with female monogamy being one of them. Not all males, not all to the same extent, not all of the time. But, rather, as a weighted probability of behaviour across a population. It is also true to say that complex patriarchal civilisations develop complex, ritualised and, even, deeply oppressive social structures that coercively formalise all of the above and extend it in ways that are only tortuously and indirectly foundationed by the Darwinian imperatives outlined previously. Nevertheless, those foundations do exist and there is no point in denying them.

If you want to beat the Devil, Danielle, first you must name him.

[Firebrand]

Except that most/all human cultures at all (or none) stages of industrial development share a similar pattern of male preoccupation with female monogamy, at least certainly for the duration of the procreative part of a relationship. This pattern of behaviour is seen similarly in other non-human species. Particularly social-mammalian ones like ours. It comes down to the difference between eggs and sperm. That is to say, a human female will always know that her offspring will contain her genes. A human male, however, can never know this with the same biological certainty. This, then, leads to behavioural strategies being employed by males to ensure that any offspring do, indeed, contain their genes. A preoccupation with female monogamy being one of them. Not all males, not all to the same extent, not all of the time. But, rather, as a weighted probability of behaviour across a population. It is also true to say that complex patriarchal civilisations develop complex, ritualised and, even, deeply oppressive social structures that coercively formalise all of the above and extend it in ways that are only tortuously and indirectly foundationed by the Darwinian imperatives outlined previously. Nevertheless, those foundations do exist and there is no point in denying them.

If you want to beat the Devil, Danielle, first you must name him.

Pop science bullshit.

There are plenty of societies where female monogamy is not considered a major issue. (particularly those in which inheritance is matrilineal, thus providing more support for Engels theory). Actually there are a number of darwinian advantages to polyandry, particularly in species where males take an active role in child rearing. A woman is likely to raise a far larger percentage of her kids to adulthood if there is more than one man supporting her. It's not just the woman who benefits.

Example: assuming one woman with two husbands who has two kids. Each man is likely to be the father of at least 1 kid. Therefore they both benefit from the additional support of the other husband during the child's most vulnerable years, and reciprocate by supporting the other man's child during their most vulnerable years. The potential loss from the odds of half the kids being someone else's can be counterbalanced by the reduced mortality rate and improved health of the kids that are yours. Not to mention your own increased odds of survival with less pressure placed on you to support the family, thus giving you more time in which to father kids.

[Luís Henrique]

I have no idea of who Miley Cyrus is, other than a general feeling that I do not loose much, if anything, by not knowing.

It is impossible to engage in revolutionary politics without a proper critique of commodification, for, as Marx reminds us, the commodity is the celula mater of the capitalist society. However, it is perfectly possible to engage in a critique of commodification without contributing a iota to revolution.

Particularly, from a theoretical pov, much of what passes for "critique of commodification" is actually criticism of the commodification of things "that shouldn't be commodified", and as such is more a naturalisation of commodities and commodification than a critique of it. It is "wrong" (as in "morally wrong", of course) to commodify art, or education, or religion, whereas there is no problem, or not as much of a problem, in the commodification of bread, garbage collection, machine-guns, or aspirin. For those things "are" commodities in and of themselves, as the petty bourgeois commonsence will no doubt tell us.

This goes along with a more practical problem. A proper criticism of commodification can only be practical and consequential if linked to a political practice tendent to abolish commodity-based society. Otherwise it remains either a mere bookish endeavour, or, worse, it will immediately derail into the moralist approach denounced above. Because, of course, while we cannot abolish commodities without the collective effort of a social class in whose material interests such abolition is, we can always rant against the commodification of this or that sacred cow that "should" remain beyond the limits of commodification, if only capitalism was reasonable...

And since the more radical we are the more eager we become to claim that there is no such working class movement that could put commodity production in check, it seems that we should protect our so extreme radicalism from looking like mere philistinism by refraining from engaging in a kind of critique for which, it would seem, the times and the development of the productive forces are not yet ready.

With this in mind, I propose that we ponder for a moment whether we think the commodification of Milus Cirey's carreer starts with her decision to "get rid off this whole good girl-image"*. Because if so, it seems that we are missing the fact that the "good girl-image" was already a commodity for starters, so that what is happening is not that a pristine, uncommodified, Miley Cirus is getting commodified in her new "not-so-good-girl image", but rather that there is a mere swap between different commodities. Yesterday her destiny was to sell herself to us as a good girl; today her hope is to sell herself to us as a bad girl. What is the difference, if any, besides the fact that "bad girls" are worse than "good girls", at least to those who make a distinction between "good" and "bad" girls (and who probably have the monopoly on deciding who, and what, is "good" or "bad")?

Beyond this, I fear that there is not only a "commodification" of Miley Cirus' carreer, but also a "spectacularisation" of it. It seems that nowadays an "artist" (if I may be allowed to use such term when referring to someone who "used to be a teen idol") must not only sell the products of his or her talent or lack thereof, but to display his or her life publicly, so that other people can vicariously experience the life of a "celebrity". Of which vicarious experience, of course, forming and discussing opinions on the way celebrities should behave is just an instance more.

In other words, I think framing a discussion of Miley Cirus as "critique of commodification" vs "slut shaming" is completely false and bogus, and does in fact only reinforce the commodification and alienation of Miley Cirus (and thousands of other artists and sub-artists) and of her public.

Luís Henrique

*by the way, what age is Miley Cirus, so that we can decide if it is proper to call her a girl so no-challantly?

[Luís Henrique]

Pop science bullshit.

Indeed. This kind of reverse-Darwinism consists of taking some sociologic or psychologic trait and try to explain it away by inventing the ways in which it would have evolutionary advantages. Usually the possible evolutionary advantages of different and competing traits are ignored, or assumed to not exist due to the success of its rival.

As a rule of thumb, Darwinism explains the enormous diversity of extant life forms. Most things that seek to justify the absence of diversity are just pseudo-Darwinism.

Luís Henrique

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

And THIS is where third wave-feminism fails: They have this term called sex-positive, which is total crap to me. According to my attitude towards sex work, female presentation of sexuality, porn etc I would be sex negative as fuck, which is ridiculous. As I mentioned above, not everything a woman decides for i equally empowering, equally free from patriarchal influence, equally well-reflected. You don't have to think that gangbang porn, Miley Cyrus, strip clubs and so on are awesome in order to have a sex positive view. This term is annoying and misleading as fuck. And of course, all of this is not restricted to media. Women do this in everyday life, you know, adapting this male gaze. Dieting all the time, getting dressed up although they sometimes don't feel like it, all this stuff to look good. But let's be clear about two points: I myself do this stuff, I'm not judging. You won't find me without make up and in washed-out jeans in the city. I AM aware that this has influence on me and that I'm not only doing this for myself. And well, yeah, sometimes women can be the toughest competition. You know, wanting that other females notice you, that they realize you look great. But what for? What's the higher aim? Getting the best guy? There are societies in which the worth of a woman is defined by what kind of man she marries. So, if she doesn't marry at all, she's weird at best or even worthless.

I do think there is some value in the sex-positive idea - women have been taught to be historically the recepticles of sexual pleasure and the woman who seeks her own sexual gratification has been branded, as you said, a slut. And I do think there have been some - and I emphasise the word 'some', not 'most' - feminist groups who have taken a decidedly negative view of sexuality, because it is always seen through a patriarchal lens. i.e. sex is that thing which is done to women. And yeah, it is a farcical excuse for maintaining patriarchy to suggest that porn, sex work etc. are, as they are now, empowering. They're not, they're riddled with misogyny. But, conversely, in a non-patriarchal society, it would be hard to argue against the right for an individual to film themselves have sex (it would of course be hard for prostitution to exist in a socialist society).

I do think that feminism should encourage women - those who want to, anyway - to be sexually adventurous and enjoy sex and their sexuality in as meaningful or meaningless as a way as they might desire. But those who think sex positive ideas exist in a vacuum are just apologists for male supremacy...

[tallguy]

Pop science bullshit.

There are plenty of societies where female monogamy is not considered a major issue. (particularly those in which inheritance is matrilineal, thus providing more support for Engels theory). Actually there are a number of darwinian advantages to polyandry, particularly in species where males take an active role in child rearing. A woman is likely to raise a far larger percentage of her kids to adulthood if there is more than one man supporting her. It's not just the woman who benefits.

Example: assuming one woman with two husbands who has two kids. Each man is likely to be the father of at least 1 kid. Therefore they both benefit from the additional support of the other husband during the child's most vulnerable years, and reciprocate by supporting the other man's child during their most vulnerable years. The potential loss from the odds of half the kids being someone else's can be counterbalanced by the reduced mortality rate and improved health of the kids that are yours. Not to mention your own increased odds of survival with less pressure placed on you to support the family, thus giving you more time in which to father kids.
Firstly, it is not "pop science bullshit". It is based on decade's worth of research in both human and non human animals, the veracity of which is both voluminous and overwhelming.

Secondly, I would be obliged if you might cite a number of the "plenty of societies where female monogamy is not considered a major issue". If you don't (or can't) then I will be calling your assertion bullshit of the plain old fashioned variety.

Thirdly, in terms of the behavioural tendency of human females to engage in actual monogamy, as opposed to the male preoccupation with it, this is a separate, but related issue and I made no comment on that. For your information, of which you seem to be singularly lacking but are more than prepared to make up for with ideologically driven assertions, human females are evolutionarily advantaged by not sticking with monogamy if they can get away with it. The reason being very simple; it's never too clever an idea to put all of your [literal] eggs in one basket. The above being the case, where anonymous studies have been conducted, it has been found that around one in seven children do not originate from the supposed biological father. All of which provides evidence for extracurricular sexual activity on the part of the mother. All of which, I might add, is entirely in line with studies of non human primates and other mammals. but then it would have been a surprise if it was not. We are merely animals like any other, after all.

Whether you like it or not, human sexual behaviour is entirely predictable within the context of Darwinian evolutionary processes. Processes which are utterly indifferent to yours or my ideological preferences. Live with it.

None of which, by the way, undermines such ideological goals. It simply means we have to work with what there is, not what we wish there to be.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

This is a question more directed at the females. What are some of things men can do to be a little more pro-active against slut shaming?

I'll give you an example. Say I'm in a social situation and I see someone being slut shamed. What would you like to see a pro-active male, that is against this kind of thing, do in this kind of situation? Would intervening in and of itself be misogynistic? In that, if I intervene, I'm merely acting as if women are incapable of taking care of themselves? Is it better to just let the parties be? Should men even get involved in situations like this?

My gut tells me to intervene (as in pulled the guy aside and had a little private chat). And I have done so in the past. But, I wonder if that can also be disempowering. Thoughts?

I speak only for myself and not other grrrls. There is nothing wrong with standing up to slut-shaming at least that is how I've felt when I experienced slut-shaming, as it has happened so much in my life. I would personally say stand up to the slut-shaming but keep an eye on the person you are backing up for the social cues they may be giving off. It is definitely okay to ask the person you are backing up if they are okay with you speaking on it and make sure that they have a chance to speak up for themselves.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Except that most/all human cultures at all (or none) stages of industrial development share a similar pattern of male preoccupation with female monogamy, at least certainly for the duration of the procreative part of a relationship. This pattern of behaviour is seen similarly in other non-human species. Particularly social-mammalian ones like ours. It comes down to the difference between eggs and sperm. That is to say, a human female will always know that her offspring will contain her genes. A human male, however, can never know this with the same biological certainty. This, then, leads to behavioural strategies being employed by males to ensure that any offspring do, indeed, contain their genes. A preoccupation with female monogamy being one of them. Not all males, not all to the same extent, not all of the time. But, rather, as a weighted probability of behaviour across a population. It is also true to say that complex patriarchal civilisations develop complex, ritualised and, even, deeply oppressive social structures that coercively formalise all of the above and extend it in ways that are only tortuously and indirectly foundationed by the Darwinian imperatives outlined previously. Nevertheless, those foundations do exist and there is no point in denying them.

If you want to beat the Devil, Danielle, first you must name him.
sooooo cis-centric and soooooo hetero-centric. Your argument relies on the idea that the purpose of sex and eroticism is purely or even mostly for reproductive purposes and it's ridiculous. I mean wtf?
I mean for fuck sake, what are you on?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Firstly, it is not "pop science bullshit". It is based on decade's worth of research in both human and non human animals, the veracity of which is both voluminous and overwhelming.

Secondly, I would be obliged if you might cite a number of the "plenty of societies where female monogamy is not considered a major issue". If you don't (or can't) then I will be calling your assertion bullshit of the plain old fashioned variety.

Thirdly, in terms of the behavioural tendency of human females to engage in actual monogamy, as opposed to the male preoccupation with it, this is a separate, but related issue and I made no comment on that. For your information, of which you seem to be singularly lacking but are more than prepared to make up for with ideologically driven assertions, human females are evolutionarily advantaged by not sticking with monogamy if they can get away with it. The reason being very simple; it's never too clever an idea to put all of your [literal] eggs in one basket. The above being the case, where anonymous studies have been conducted, it has been found that around one in seven children do not originate from the supposed biological father. All of which provides evidence for extracurricular sexual activity on the part of the mother. All of which, I might add, is entirely in line with studies of non human primates and other mammals. but then it would have been a surprise if it was not. We are merely animals like any other, after all.

Whether you like it or not, human sexual behaviour is entirely predictable within the context of Darwinian evolutionary processes. Processes which are utterly indifferent to yours or my ideological preferences. Live with it.

None of which, by the way, undermines such ideological goals. It simply means we have to work with what there is, not what we wish there to be.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-husbands-makes-sense/272726/

[tallguy]

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-husbands-makes-sense/272726/
Thanks for the link russian Red. However, if you read the article closely, you will see that fully three quarters of the societies mentioned engaged in polyandry due to a seriously skewed sex distribution where there was a significant excess of males for a variety of reasons. Humans, being the adaptable creature were are, are capable of doing whatever is necessary (particularly, when it comes to matters reproductive) if the situation demands it of us. All other things being equal, however (and, in the case of sex distribution, they must often are), the underlying evolutionary imperatives of males and females pertain. Imperatives that are ultimately driven by the differences between eggs and sperm their respective roles in the reproductive process. Bear in mind, here, I am talking about statistical averages and not about outliers. But, in the evolutionary game, it's all about the averages.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Thanks for the link russian Red. However, if you read the article closely, you will see that fully three quarters of the societies mentioned engaged in polyandry due to a seriously skewed sex distribution where there was a significant excess of males for a variety of reasons. Humans, being the adaptable creature were are, are capable of doing whatever is necessary (particularly, when it comes to matters reproductive) if the situation demands it of us. All other things being equal, however (and, in the case of sex distribution, they must often are), the evolutionary imperatives of males and females pertain. Imperatives that are ultimately driven by the differences between eggs and sperm their respective roles in the reproductive process.

Sex for reproduction? Are you from the vatican or some shit, ese?

[tallguy]

Sex for reproduction? Are you from the vatican or some shit, ese?
No, don't be silly. Sex, for humans is as much a social and interpersonal bonding act as anything else, much like it is for the Bonobos, our closest cousins. However, that doesn't mean is it somehow magically divorced from the underlying evolutionary engine of sex as the means by which we reproduce. At least on the average. If it was you wouldn't be here asking such vapid questions and I wouldn't be here to ridicule you for doing so.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Thanks for the link russian Red. However, if you read the article closely, you will see that fully three quarters of the societies mentioned engaged in polyandry due to a seriously skewed sex distribution where there was a significant excess of males for a variety of reasons. Humans, being the adaptable creature were are, are capable of doing whatever is necessary (particularly, when it comes to matters reproductive) if the situation demands it of us. All other things being equal, however (and, in the case of sex distribution, they must often are), the underlying evolutionary imperatives of males and females pertain. Imperatives that are ultimately driven by the differences between eggs and sperm their respective roles in the reproductive process. Bear in mind, here, I am talking about statistical averages and not about outliers. But, in the evolutionary game, it's all about the averages.

That doesn't fully refute that our ancestors were polyandrous though. The authors note that polyandry is still much more likely to arise in landless, egalitarian societies (as compared to India and China, where men far outnumber women), which would give credence to the idea that female monogamy is a result of landownership. The authors also explained some evolutionary benefits of having multiple fathers earlier in the article.

[tallguy]

That doesn't fully refute that our ancestors were polyandrous though. The authors note that polyandry is still much more likely to arise in landless, egalitarian societies (as compared to India and China, where men far outnumber women), which would give credence to the idea that female monogamy is a result of landownership. The authors also explained some evolutionary benefits of having multiple fathers earlier in the article.
Oh, there are massive evolutionary benefits to females seeking to secure more than one father to their offspring. Unfortunately, there equally large evolutionary advantages to males in ensuring the opposite. Hence, in what few anonymous studies that have been conducted, it appears that around 1 in 7 kids are not from the father they are "supposed" be from. All of which mirros the kind of antics of most other mammals including our cousins, the great apes. The fundamental reason why males are relatively extremely preoccupied with female monogomy is because they are not the ones carrying the baby. If you are a female, you can be 100% certain that 50% of your genes are getting levered into the next generation. If you are a male, your certainty extends only so far as your certainty that the female your are mated with is monogamously engaged in copulatory activities with you alone. None of which is to suggest that females may not also be concerned with monogamy in their mates. However, such concerns have more to do with the risk of the male being led away by a competing female and, in being so, not being available to provide resources and protection whilst child rearing takes place. I know that's a cold, hard economic take on human heterosexual relationships, but that's Darwinian selection for you.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Oh, there are massive evolutionary benefits to females seeking to secure more than one father to their offspring. Unfortunately, there equally large evolutionary advantages to males in ensuring the opposite. Hence, in what few anonymous studies that have been conducted, it appears that around 1 in 7 kids are not from the father they are "supposed" be from. All of which mirros the kind of antics of most other mammals including our cousins, the great apes. The fundamental reason why males are relatively extremely preoccupied with female monogomy is because they are not the ones carrying the baby. If you are a female, you can be 100% certain that 50% of your genes are getting levered into the next generation. If you are a male, your certainty extends only so far as your certainty that the female your are mated with is monogamously engaged in copulatory activities with you alone. None of which is to suggest that females may not also be concerned with monogamy in their mates. However, such concerns have more to do with the risk of the male being led away by a competing female and, in being so, not being available to provide resources and protection whilst child rearing takes place. I know that's a cold, hard economic take on human heterosexual relationships, but that's Darwinian selection for you.

Males being certain of the paternity of their offspring is really only relevant in a propertied society, as they will need to know who to pass their property onto. Engels discusses this more in depth in his Origin of the Family. I think you're trying to analyze this through the lenses of our current family structure. Tribal societies had a completely different family structure that were generally matrilineal (familial lineage is traced through the female relatives)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

No, don't be silly. Sex, for humans is as much a social and interpersonal bonding act as anything else, much like it is for the Bonobos, our closest cousins. However, that doesn't mean is it somehow magically divorced from the underlying evolutionary engine of sex as the means by which we reproduce. At least on the average. If it was you wouldn't be here asking such vapid questions and I wouldn't be here to ridicule you for doing so.

Touche, but if it wasn't divorced from the "evolutionary engine" then why do so many species (including, but not limited to, humyns) have homosexual relationships that couldn't result in reproduction?

And I'm pretty sure that I'm here because my parents decided that my older sister wasn't giving them enough problems and stress.

[tallguy]

Males being certain of the paternity of their offspring is really only relevant in a propertied society, as they will need to know who to pass their property onto. Engels discusses this more in depth in his Origin of the Family. I think you're trying to analyze this through the lenses of our current family structure. Tribal societies had a completely different family structure that were generally matrilineal (familial lineage is traced through the female relatives)
I will grant you that RR. That is to say, I made mention of this up thread where I said that the only conceivable way in which male preoccupation with female monogamy might be significantly mitigated would be in communities where all resources were communally contributed and owned. Therefore, although any individual male could not be sure of paternity and so could not be sure that the resources he was contributing were going to his offspring, this would not matter since he would know that his resource being diverted to an unrelated offspring would be offset by resources from other males in the group to his offspring elsewhere.

However, the above being said, we might expect to see this pattern of social organisation reasonably commonly in the mammalian kingdom and maybe it does exist. But, if it does, it's not anywhere near on the scale of existence of organisational structures that more closely match the one I mentioned earlier. More's the pity. Funnily enough, however, where it does at least approach this is in our closet cousins, the bonobos.

I think it may be useful to reiterate some things here before any more posters (yourself excluded, if your posts are anything to go by) assume otherwise. Nothing of the above should be taken as an indication of how I think human affairs should be organised. I am merely stating what appears to be the underlying basis for a substantial proportion of how they are organised. Starting from that knowledge is how we then set about engineering our social structures to how we want them to be. Pretending that this underlying basis does not exist, however, is a sure-fire way of failing before we even start. And it is that which I object to.

[tallguy]

Touche, but if it wasn't divorced from the "evolutionary engine" then why do so many species (including, but not limited to, humyns) have homosexual relationships that couldn't result in reproduction?

And I'm pretty sure that I'm here because my parents decided that my older sister wasn't giving them enough problems and stress.
Because homosexuality is a statistical outlier. That is to say, as long as the majority are not homosexual or, at least, not exclusively so, Darwinian evolutionary processes of natural selection don't need to "care". In other words, to the extent that exclusively homosexual behaviour has a genetic basis, it slips under the radar of natural section because it occurs in sufficiently small numbers.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Actually for some animals, it's not a "statistical outlier"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

[tallguy]

Actually for some animals, it's not a "statistical outlier"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.htmlYou are talking about bisexuality in bonobos there. I was referring to exclusively homosexual behaviour. Firstly, bisexuality will be far less selected against, for rather obvious reasons. This is especially so with bonobos who, like humans, have co-opted sex for social and interpersonal bonding reasons in addition to procreation, not as a substitute for it. For other species, where non-reproductive sex does not confer any social or other benefits, such non reproductive sexual behaviour will represent a cost in energy and time that would be, in evolutionary terms, more productively spent procreating. Again, though, always on the average. We leave the easy "yes" and "no" binary answer to the physicists.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Because homosexuality is a statistical outlier. That is to say, as long as the majority are not homosexual or, at least, not exclusively so, Darwinian evolutionary processes of natural selection don't need to "care". In other words, to the extent that exclusively homosexual behaviour has a genetic basis, it slips under the radar of natural section because it occurs in sufficiently small numbers.

nice queer erasure you got going on there.

[tallguy]

nice queer erasure you got going on there.I have absolutely no idea what you are on about save for the fact that my favourite band of the Eighties was called Erasure and they were both gay.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about save for the fact that my favourite band of the Eighties was called Erasure and they were both gay.

No, I wasn't referencing some band from the 80's. I can't stand most 80's music other than some fast paced punk. I was referring to erasing queerness.

[bropasaran]

No one has an answer for me? :unsure: Message #16 of this thread?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I don't understand women who see some use of women in the media (e.g. women being somewhere basically just as "eye candy") as objectification and disapprove of it, but get offended when objectification in personal life is pointed out, of course, being called "slut" is insulting, but I guess that it can be pointed out in other, polite ways. I mean, either they're both objectifications to be disapproved of, or they're neither to be disapproved of, it seems to me contradictory if it's treated otherwise.

I'm not favouring one or the other- if a women wants to see both or neither as objectification, okay, I don't have any clear opinion of which option is 'correct', I'm pretty messed up sexually myself, so I don't have any right to tell anyone what should they think about topics concerning it; I'm just saying that to think that women objectification in the media is wrong but that a single women is objectified in her personal life it's okay, seems inconsistent.

I guess the question is can a woman objectify herself- when a women treats herself in a certain way to get men's attention, and that certain way is pretty similar to the way that men treat women when objectifying them, can that be called objectification?
I don't find the term "slut" inherently offensive per se (I have RIOT SLUT as my knuck tats). It depends on context. Self definition (as a slut in this example) is not the same as someone of cishet male privilege using the same term to describe (and in this case ultimately degrade) womyn. I feel on some level it comes down to the right of bodily autonomy. It's about each person's right not to have their body regulated by anyone else.

[tallguy]

No, I wasn't referencing some band from the 80's. I can't stand most 80's music other than some fast paced punk. I was referring to erasing queerness.
Okay, so, in what way are my post on this thread "erasing queerness"? And what does "erasing queerness" mean anyway?

[bropasaran]

I meant the question here:

I guess the question is can a woman objectify herself- when a women treats herself in a certain way to get men's attention, and that certain way is pretty similar to the way that men treat women when objectifying them, can that be called objectification?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I meant the question here:

I guess the question is can a woman objectify herself- when a women treats herself in a certain way to get men's attention, and that certain way is pretty similar to the way that men treat women when objectifying them, can that be called objectification?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Fuck no! What an individual chooses to do with their own body is a matter of bodily autonomy. If I were to say I'm a slut, that has a very different social context than if a stranger on the street calls me a slut. (both of those things happen all the time.) If I say I really like my tits it doesn't mean that its okay for some asshole to shout I like your tits as I'm fucking walking down the street. I'm using everyday common examples from my life.

[tallguy]

I meant the question here:

I guess the question is can a woman objectify herself- when a women treats herself in a certain way to get men's attention, and that certain way is pretty similar to the way that men treat women when objectifying them, can that be called objectification?
I think she can, yes. I also think it's a bad thing for her do that, both for herself, but also for womankind. Sort of letting the side down, if you like. However, calling her out by using the disgraceful strategy of "slut shaming" is both entirely counter productive and is also just plain condescending and so will be ineffective. Much better to attack the broader economic/social/political structures that reward, if only in a superficial way, the self-objectification of women. That's far more difficult, of course, because it requires taking on hard economic/political power structures in the world. In other words, the BIG stuff. Which is why many on the left generally, as well as many on the feminist left, go for the easy option of shooting the messenger instead of going after the source of the message itself. And it's not just on this specific topic either. This kind of easy option shit happens in other areas as well.

[Quail]

I meant the question here:

I guess the question is can a woman objectify herself- when a women treats herself in a certain way to get men's attention, and that certain way is pretty similar to the way that men treat women when objectifying them, can that be called objectification?

I wouldn't say it is the same thing as being objectified. However, women are taught in many ways that they are sex objects and it is possible to play into that role and act as an object for the pleasure of the men around her. I think it is emotionally damaging to view yourself in such a way and reinforces the patriarchal idea that men have a right to your body.

However (and this is the important bit), viewing yourself as a sex object and acting accordingly is a totally different thing to having casual sex because that's what you truly want to do. In the latter situation you're an active participant, a "subject"; you're having sex because you want to, rather than because you feel that you should.

[bropasaran]

My question is about instances where women "truly want" to act as if they are "objects" instead of "subjects". We can even look at a single situation- a woman who is eye candy, e.g. presenter in a weather show, we can imagine that some of those women are somewhat embarassed by that job being consciouss that they are there just as eye candy, but some other women might "truly want" to do such a job; likewise some women can "truly want" to treat themselves in a certain way, which when men treat them that way- it is objectification. My question is- when some women do treat themselves in such a way, can that be called objectification in regards to the fact that it's not men treating them in that way, but they doing it themselves?

[Quail]

My question is about instances where women "truly want" to act as if they are "objects" instead of "subjects". We can even look at a single situation- a woman who is eye candy, e.g. presenter in a weather show, we can imagine that some of those women are somewhat embarassed by that job being consciouss that they are there just as eye candy, but some other women might "truly want" to do such a job; likewise some women can "truly want" to treat themselves in a certain way, which when men treat them that way- it is objectification. My question is- when some women do treat themselves in such a way, can that be called objectification in regards to the fact that it's not men treating them in that way, but they doing it themselves?

I can't really speak for these hypothetical women, but there are a couple of issues here:
1) A woman may choose to take a job where she knows that she is being seen as eye candy because it is one of the few opportunities available to her (e.g. perhaps she wants to be a more serious reporter but has to make a start as a weather presenter).
2) Women are taught throughout their lives that their value as a person rests at least partly on the approval of men. So it is in some ways understandable that a woman may choose to be objectified because it makes her feel better about herself. The solution to this should really be to change society so that the value of women doesn't depend on how men view them, so I would see this as harmful to the feminist cause even if I completely understand where the woman in question is coming from.

I think perhaps you could call it "self-objectification" but I think it comes from internalised patriarchal values. You grow up in a society which treats you as a sex object so you begin to treat yourself as one.

[tallguy]

My question is about instances where women "truly want" to act as if they are "objects" instead of "subjects". We can even look at a single situation- a woman who is eye candy, e.g. presenter in a weather show, we can imagine that some of those women are somewhat embarassed by that job being consciouss that they are there just as eye candy, but some other women might "truly want" to do such a job; likewise some women can "truly want" to treat themselves in a certain way, which when men treat them that way- it is objectification. My question is- when some women do treat themselves in such a way, can that be called objectification in regards to the fact that it's not men treating them in that way, but they doing it themselves?This is where it, admittedly, gets tricky. However, I am bound to reply in much the same way I would reply to those who would suggest that a poor woman living in a shitty slum "chooses" to be a prostitute because it is economically rewarding.

It's all about the context of power.

And, in much the same way as I suggested it is counter productive to call out a woman for "choosing" to objectify herself, I would also suggest it is counter productive to call out a woman for "choosing" to prostitute her body. In both case, their "choices" are constrained and shaped by the power structures they must exist within. It is the power structures that need smashing.

[Hit The North]

I meant the question here:

I guess the question is can a woman objectify herself- when a women treats herself in a certain way to get men's attention, and that certain way is pretty similar to the way that men treat women when objectifying them, can that be called objectification?

You make a mistake to assume that a woman is objectifying herself in order to get sex rather than being an active subject going after sex for her own reasons. Seems to me that a lot of this slut shaming is used against women who are precisely not objectifying themselves but are instead being actively sexual. The ultimate objectified woman is the isolated woman on a pedestal, the object of patriarchal monogamy, her agency frozen in the glare of the male gaze.

Btw, this vile practice of slut-shaming should be roundly condemned whenever possible and LOUDLY. If perpetrators persist they should be beaten up in full sight of their school friends/work colleagues by bands of free love terrorists.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I think perhaps you could call it "self-objectification" but I think it comes from internalised patriarchal values. You grow up in a society which treats you as a sex object so you begin to treat yourself as one.

I've done exactly that in the past.

[Rosa Partizan]

I do think there is some value in the sex-positive idea - women have been taught to be historically the recepticles of sexual pleasure and the woman who seeks her own sexual gratification has been branded, as you said, a slut. And I do think there have been some - and I emphasise the word 'some', not 'most' - feminist groups who have taken a decidedly negative view of sexuality, because it is always seen through a patriarchal lens. i.e. sex is that thing which is done to women. And yeah, it is a farcical excuse for maintaining patriarchy to suggest that porn, sex work etc. are, as they are now, empowering. They're not, they're riddled with misogyny. But, conversely, in a non-patriarchal society, it would be hard to argue against the right for an individual to film themselves have sex (it would of course be hard for prostitution to exist in a socialist society).

I do think that feminism should encourage women - those who want to, anyway - to be sexually adventurous and enjoy sex and their sexuality in as meaningful or meaningless as a way as they might desire. But those who think sex positive ideas exist in a vacuum are just apologists for male supremacy...

Don't get me wrong (otherwise, your post is great): I'm not against individuals filming themselves having sex. I'm against the porn industry that has taken also this "amateur" stuff and made it commercial. Hardly anything you see on pornhub, youporn etc is amateur, even if it's labeled so. The industry knows what their viewers are up to, so they made this amateur category their own. Otherwise, I'm totally fine with women having as much or as little sex as they want without being labeled a slut or a prude. I'm gonna take a look at the other postings now, thanks to anyone that made this thread evolve.

[BisexualCommunist]

My personal opinion is that there is a difference between being sexual active, and being a slut. Both genders can be sluts. Sluts are trash, that more than like have more stds than health clinic. Lol

[tallguy]

My personal opinion is that there is a difference between being sexual active, and being a slut. Both genders can be sluts. Sluts are trash, that more than like have more stds than health clinic. Lol
You're going to need to spell that difference out please because you have stated that a difference exists without in any way defining what it is. Or, rather, what a "slut" is. Personally, I can't stand the word or any definition I have heard of it's meaning. But, I'm listening.

[Rosa Partizan]

I've done exactly that in the past.

This is nothing unusual or meaning you can't be a feminist. I find myself in plenty of situations where it's hard to figure out if this is me wanting x or y or is this me believing I want x or y because I've been taught this is the only way to get male attention. And I'm not gonna lie about it, I enjoy having more male attention than I used to have when I looked totally different. For this purpose, I enjoy wearing cleavage, make up, having pretty hair, eyes and so on. I would be lying right from the start if I was like, ummmm I do this only for myself. Well yeah, so why don't I wear my new top on a Sunday afternoon in front of TV? Yeah, right. No guy's gonna see it. But I guess the difference is: I'm aware of it and not lying to myself. And at least, I'm able to give a fuck about it and to go out in a sweatshirt and undone hair and no make up on. But this doesn't work every time and sometimes I feel kinda pressured into looking good. I'm not as strong as I'd like to be about this, I guess. But I'm not giving myself a tough time about this anymore. I totally admire those women that give a fuck about armpit hair, flawless skin and so on because somehow I can't do so. And I realize that all this struggle for outer perfection is not MY struggle. But I go for it.

[DOOM]

My personal opinion is that there is a difference between being sexual active, and being a slut. Both genders can be sluts. Sluts are trash, that more than like have more stds than health clinic. Lol

I don't think that we're in the position to comment on someone's sexual life. Why the fuck do we even bother about th sex-life of others?

[tallguy]

This is nothing unusual or meaning you can't be a feminist. I find myself in plenty of situations where it's hard to figure out if this is me wanting x or y or is this me believing I want x or y because I've been taught this is the only way to get male attention. And I'm not gonna lie about it, I enjoy having more male attention than I used to have when I looked totally different. For this purpose, I enjoy wearing cleavage, make up, having pretty hair, eyes and so on. I would be lying right from the start if I was like, ummmm I do this only for myself. Well yeah, so why don't I wear my new top on a Sunday afternoon in front of TV? Yeah, right. No guy's gonna see it. But I guess the difference is: I'm aware of it and not lying to myself. And at least, I'm able to give a fuck about it and to go out in a sweatshirt and undone hair and no make up on. But this doesn't work every time and sometimes I feel kinda pressured into looking good. I'm not as strong as I'd like to be about this, I guess. But I'm not giving myself a tough time about this anymore. I totally admire those women that give a fuck about armpit hair, flawless skin and so on because somehow I can't do so. And I realize that all this struggle for outer perfection is not MY struggle. But I go for it.
You have nothing to feel uneasy about Rosa. Nothing at all.

If it makes any difference, all of the men I know couldn't give a fuck about women shaving their armpits and all that other shit. Looking sexy, on the other hand, is totally cool, for both sexes. We seek to attract one another do we not? Particularly when we are young and single. This is all good and fine and there's nothing else to say on that front. It's just called being human. Where it gets all fucked up is when "sexy" gets confused with submissiveness, coercion and violence.

Talking about shaving armpits and all the rest; if I suggested anything like to my woman, she would probably hit me over the head with a hard implement. Just as soon as she could stop laughing at me, that is.

[Rosa Partizan]

I work voluntarily for an AIDS organization here and let me tell you, there are HIV positive people that got this in a relationship they lived absolutely monogamously in. So who are you to judge that having STDs means automatically you got them by living promiscuously? (I'm 100% sure I got this word wrong, well, fuck it) The only thing I really judge is having unprotected sex with people and being aware of one's own STDs, not giving a fuck if you infect your sex partner.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

My personal opinion is that there is a difference between being sexual active, and being a slut. Both genders can be sluts. Sluts are trash, that more than like have more stds than health clinic. Lol
Hey I resemble that remark!

Edit: Actually, by what appears to be a sheer miracle, I only have hep. I'm not ashamed to be hit with the hep.

No I don't actually believe in miracles....

[Slavic]

My personal opinion is that there is a difference between being sexual active, and being a slut. Both genders can be sluts. Sluts are trash, that more than like have more stds than health clinic. Lol


There is a difference. One is someone who is sexually active, the other is someone who is sexually active but someone has decided that they shouldn't be, so they label them a disparaging term "slut".

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

There is a difference. One is someone who is sexually active, the other is someone who is sexually active but someone has decided that they shouldn't be, so they label them a disparaging term "slut".

I don't think I shouldn't be and I call myself a slut. I am an unapologetic gutterpunk slut. I wasn't the first one to call me that. I think my dad was.

[Slavic]

I don't think I shouldn't be and I call myself a slut. I am an unapologetic gutterpunk slut. I wasn't the first one to call me that. I think my dad was.

Regardless; you can call yourself a slut if you want, that's your prerogative, but if someone calls you a slut in a demeaning manner, then they are wrong and an asshole.

[Hrafn]

This thread is increasingly weirding the fuck out of me.

[Loony Le Fist]

This is nothing unusual or meaning you can't be a feminist. I find myself in plenty of situations where it's hard to figure out if this is me wanting x or y or is this me believing I want x or y because I've been taught this is the only way to get male attention. And I'm not gonna lie about it, I enjoy having more male attention than I used to have when I looked totally different. For this purpose, I enjoy wearing cleavage, make up, having pretty hair, eyes and so on. I would be lying right from the start if I was like, ummmm I do this only for myself.

Hey as you've said, you recognize and own it. You are doing it for yourself, because you want the attention. And that's fine. Do you. :grin:

[Quail]

My personal opinion is that there is a difference between being sexual active, and being a slut. Both genders can be sluts. Sluts are trash, that more than like have more stds than health clinic. Lol

Gave you an infraction for this post.

Your thinly-veiled sexism is not welcome on this forum.

[Hrafn]

Gave you an infraction for this post.

Your thinly-veiled sexism is not welcome on this forum.

Thank you. Now I'm slightly less weirded out.

[Quail]

This is nothing unusual or meaning you can't be a feminist. I find myself in plenty of situations where it's hard to figure out if this is me wanting x or y or is this me believing I want x or y because I've been taught this is the only way to get male attention. And I'm not gonna lie about it, I enjoy having more male attention than I used to have when I looked totally different. For this purpose, I enjoy wearing cleavage, make up, having pretty hair, eyes and so on. I would be lying right from the start if I was like, ummmm I do this only for myself. Well yeah, so why don't I wear my new top on a Sunday afternoon in front of TV? Yeah, right. No guy's gonna see it. But I guess the difference is: I'm aware of it and not lying to myself. And at least, I'm able to give a fuck about it and to go out in a sweatshirt and undone hair and no make up on. But this doesn't work every time and sometimes I feel kinda pressured into looking good. I'm not as strong as I'd like to be about this, I guess. But I'm not giving myself a tough time about this anymore. I totally admire those women that give a fuck about armpit hair, flawless skin and so on because somehow I can't do so. And I realize that all this struggle for outer perfection is not MY struggle. But I go for it.

I don't think anyone is some "perfect feminist" who never finds themselves in some way a slave to patriarchal expectations. Just do the best you can and fight whenever you feel strong enough.

[Thanatos]

The problem is, when women do it they are called sluts. When men do it, they are called players, studs, as if it's a glorious thing. That's the central issue, not the words but what the words represent.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

The problem is, when women do it they are called sluts. When men do it, they are called players, studs, as if it's a glorious thing. That's the central issue, not the words but what the words represent.

My sluthood is glorious! but itsc aklll a matter of doing waht you wamt when you want as long ash you aren't breaking somedconmes else's boundaries of consent

now iam drunk land officially off off here or i should be asleep, my twio cents for the night

[Multiaccounting]

The problem is, when women do it they are called sluts. When men do it, they are called players, studs, as if it's a glorious thing. That's the central issue, not the words but what the words represent.

I have to agree with you. Whenever I've heard the term applied, it's almost always to a woman. And the connotations are indeed very different. I might have no problem hanging around a stud, but I'sd probably stay away from a slut. Seems a little biased to me.

[Firebrand]

Firstly, it is not "pop science bullshit". It is based on decade's worth of research in both human and non human animals, the veracity of which is both voluminous and overwhelming.

Secondly, I would be obliged if you might cite a number of the "plenty of societies where female monogamy is not considered a major issue". If you don't (or can't) then I will be calling your assertion bullshit of the plain old fashioned variety.

Thirdly, in terms of the behavioural tendency of human females to engage in actual monogamy, as opposed to the male preoccupation with it, this is a separate, but related issue and I made no comment on that. For your information, of which you seem to be singularly lacking but are more than prepared to make up for with ideologically driven assertions, human females are evolutionarily advantaged by not sticking with monogamy if they can get away with it. The reason being very simple; it's never too clever an idea to put all of your [literal] eggs in one basket. The above being the case, where anonymous studies have been conducted, it has been found that around one in seven children do not originate from the supposed biological father. All of which provides evidence for extracurricular sexual activity on the part of the mother. All of which, I might add, is entirely in line with studies of non human primates and other mammals. but then it would have been a surprise if it was not. We are merely animals like any other, after all.

Whether you like it or not, human sexual behaviour is entirely predictable within the context of Darwinian evolutionary processes. Processes which are utterly indifferent to yours or my ideological preferences. Live with it.

None of which, by the way, undermines such ideological goals. It simply means we have to work with what there is, not what we wish there to be.

Yeah its pop science bullshit you got from a pop science bestseller that was published by a bourgeois company. Don't make the mistake of assuming that scientific research exists in an ideological vacuum. I mean I suspect there were decades worth of research back in the days of empire that categorically proved brown people were inferior to white people. Just cause a scientist says it don't make it true. And since you are asking me to cite specific studies and examples I think i'm well within my rights to ask you to do the same. Even if I did cite examples, I suspect you would just claim that they were exceptions, but if you like I can go digging through my old anthropology textbooks to find them.

Regarding female monogamy, I believe what you said has absolutely no relevance at all as a counter to the argument I was making, and does not in any way address my perfectly valid point that both men and women benefit from female non-monogamy under certain circumstances.

Of course human sexual behaviour can be understood in terms of Darwinian evolutionary processes. What you are failing to take into account is that differing material conditions will favour different evolutionary strategies, and thus different sexual behaviours. In a situation where the impact of paternal contributions to raising children to adulthood is high there will be an advantage to polyandry, on the other hand in a situation where its more of a numbers game, thanks to constant mortality factors, there will be an advantage to polygamy. In a situation where there is a premium on a stable unit of inheritance, monogamy will be favoured. Other relevant factors include childbirth mortality rates and male to female gender ratios.

The great thing about people is that fact that as a species we can operate under all of these conditions, thats why humanity is so successful. Because we can adapt our behaviour to suit the situation.

Thinking abut it one really obvious example of how changing material conditions can influence the structure of "the family" is the rise in single parent families in industrialised societies where female employment is high and there is a properly developed welfare state. I wouldn't go so far as to say raising children alone is an advantage but it is certainly less of a disadvantage than it has been in the past. (Yes there are other factors, there always are with people, but I still think it's relevant)

Edit- sorry just realized i'm two pages behind in this thread cause i've been on holiday. But i'm leaving this up, because I feel like I need to respond to that post.