Sexuality and Feminism, by Rick Gunderman

The familiarity of the public with feminism has changed over the ages, beginning with a simple campaign to extend the vote to women. Courageous social warriors like Nellie McClung, Kate Sheppard and Susan B. Anthony took up the fight for this right as the first battle in the war to free women from social, political and later economic bonds.

The goal was gleefully met and by the end of the Second World War most developed countries had extended the franchise to all adult women.

The second phase of the battle was yet to begin, and it would take off in an unexpected way thanks to the advent of reproductive science and a major counterculture movement.

Come the 1960s, the battle for women’s rights had left veteran feminists tired and ready to pass the torch onto the new generation. That new generation had been raised on an unprecedented parenting technique known as “permissiveness”, which essentially meant that the children should be allowed to develop in their own personal ways with as few restrictions, and only reasonable ones at that, on their behaviour.

While young girls grew up in a world of never-before-seen liberty, there was still lingering patriarchy and sexism. As they watched their male counterparts flourish and inherit the social power of their fathers they yearned for the same kind of freedom – and rightfully so.

One of the major barriers to women’s freedom was, has been, still is, and likely will be for a long time the burden that women must uniquely carry: pregnancy. It is because of their biological position alone that women have historically been saddled with child-rearing and homemaking.

The burden’s relevance to the counterculture was thus: the vast majority of women were unable to enjoy the sexual freedom that men were able to lest they get pregnant. A pregnancy is and always has been a life-altering experience, effectively transforming an individual’s life. Like most things, it has a time and place. When a woman feels secure in who she has developed into, is able to relate to herself through those around her and to identify herself based on her accomplishments, then she is ready to sacrifice a significant amount of her time, energy, resources and emotion into raising a child or children.

Men did not need to worry about that.

And so along came a miraculous little pill. Once popped, it had the potential to allow the individual a newfound freedom that became a staple of the counterculture. No, I’m not referring to LSD: it was the birth control pill. Something that many young women today take for granted was won only after a long uphill battle with the government, social conservatives and, most dauntingly, the Roman Catholic Church. It was a fight for women to have the same rights men did: the right to enjoy sexuality, something so fundamental to our humanity that Sigmund Freud based much of his psychological findings on how sex makes us tick.

And when we think about it, isn’t that right? Do we not base many of our mannerisms around attracting the opposite sex? Is sexual imagery and innuendo not pervasive in our cultures? Do we not all fall under the spell of randiness when we reach our hormonal peaks?

Sex is natural and it is beautiful, it is not something to be feared or shamed. Patriarchal ideas about “purity” abound when women’s sexuality is discussed, but how often is the standard of a woman being a “slut” applied to a man of equal promiscuity?

That’s because an idea silently infects the minds of the socially conservative: the idea that as bearers of the metaphorical fruit, women must keep their bodies clean so that the men can make use of them at their pleasure. Anti-feminists may laugh to scorn at this idea, but it’s not like it just popped into my head ludicrously one day. Women are genuinely sexually oppressed in Western society, always having to live in fear of being labeled “whore”, “slut”, or what have you by the self-proclaimed moralists.

This condition has led sex to be one of the ultimate taboos of Western society, an effective “hush-order” having been placed on it. The more we talk about sex, the more women are going to want to enjoy it like men do. God forbid!

Yeah, right.

It is almost exhausting to think about the many complexities that emerge in this debate. Since most of them are of little relevance to my central point, I will point out the most glaring of complexities and attempt to address it coherently.

The grandest complexity is summed up in the question “where should women stand as sexual beings in society?”.

On one hand we have the social moralists, the self-righteous conservatives who believe that their subscription for old world values who believe that a woman should be subservient to Her Husband the Breadwinner, basing her life around his comfort. His children are her responsibility; his nourishment is her concern; his sexual enjoyment is her duty.

On another hand we have the feminists, those who object to the status of women as sex objects. While this opposition is a uniting factor, there is a dividing factor: the question of how women SHOULD be seen.

For some, they disagree with all sexualization. They may identify as “feminists” due to their half-assed support for “equality” (no more thought-out than most peoples’ love for puppies), but their desire for a sexual hush-order places them squarely on the moralist side.

As far as I’m concerned, a true feminist would not deny that both men and women are sexual creatures by nature. Yes, a true feminist objects to sexual objectification of women. But in my view, one should not object to the sexual expressions of women.

The division line between objectification and healthy expression boils down to whether or not the woman appears in control of her sexuality or whether she appears as a purely material object. Is the woman expressing her own desires clearly? Is the woman in a position of submission? Does the woman appear comfortable, self-assured and confident, or does she appear mindless and empty? Do the woman’s emotions or personality come through, or is her body the only focus?

There’s a reason why Madonna is as widely revered for her musical expression of her personal sexual appetite as she is widely condemned for promoting an image of the “standard of beauty”. The so-called “standard of beauty” is a natural consequence of turning women into objects, ignoring their own sexual desires, personal beauty and individual identity.

The solution is not to ban pornography, as some authoritarian feminists have promoted. The solution is not to outlaw prostitution, condemn exotic dancers, or shut down Playboy’s operations. The answer is to forge a new culture of respect for the individuality of a woman, including respect and appreciation for her sexuality. The old view is that women are objects for the sexual enjoyment of men: the new view can be that the sexuality of both men and women are equally appreciated, respected and expressed.

*note: I am admittedly new to writing on feminist issues. I may lack the same articulation of my ideas in regard to this issue that I have with others that I am more familiar with. I am in need of feedback from feminists, particularly those who share my view that women should express their sexuality without being objectified, on how I can improve on my ability to convey this idea.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• The Fetus Focus Fallacy, by Joyce Arthur
• Is the Christian Right Losing Its Celebrity?
• Q&A: Why Women Have Sex
• Help for Sex-Starved Wives

~ by redrising on May 8, 2008.