Echo sent me this nice article by Miranda Devine that I think is worthy of us discussing. I’ve edited some bits but please don’t get offended by some of the wording. I think that Miranda is making an extremely valid and intelligent point in a world where shunning the sexual revolution is a no-no.
Newly bald Britney Spears has checked herself back into rehab after a weekend of excessive partying and unsavoury exhibitionism, just another young woman self-destructing in front of our eyes.
There has been no sign of the 25-year-old singer’s two young sons amid the crotch-flashing, mascara-smeared, vomit-specked nightclubbing that preceded her impulsive head-shave at a Los Angeles salon – an act psychologists have interpreted as an existential cry for help.
But Spears’s meltdown is more than just her personal tragedy. Sexualised almost since her days as a Disney child star, she is the canary in the coalmine of troubled young womanhood.
As other celebrity car crashes – Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith – pile up, it is clear something is terribly wrong with the fairer sex.
Spears inhabits the same space, her increasingly desperate exhibitionism, non-stop inebriation and casual couplings with numerous forgettable men chronicled in lascivious detail by gossip websites and magazines. We have so normalised self-destructive slutty behaviour that Spears’s antics were considered the natural reaction of a young woman letting down her hair after a marriage breakdown.
Until it all got too much. One witness to the shearing scene claimed Spears said she was shaving her hair off because she was “sick of people touching her”. One psychologist said the act was an attempt to repel male attention.
In a world saturated with pornography, when women treat themselves like sluts, why would men treat them any differently? Mutual respect between the sexes, romance and a legacy of chivalry by men entranced by the feminine mystique have been trashed in the name of female equality and sexual liberation.
Now Valentine’s Day, once a time for love hearts, flowers and romantic cards, has been hijacked by radical feminists in the United States as V-Day – either a day to celebrate vaginas or to raise awareness of violence against women.
And judging by Cleo magazine, a one-night stand is almost elaborate courtship. Next month’s Cleo catalogues a new sex trend: “The curiosity shag: dying to know what he’s like in bed? This could be the way to find out. No strings attached.” But the problem is, with women, there invariably are emotional strings attached to sexual encounters.
Evolutionary psychology is providing confirmation of what most people instinctively know – men are hard-wired to want more sex than women, more casual sex, more often, and with more partners, because there is an evolutionary advantage to spreading their sperm far and wide and fathering lots of children.
Women, who need nine months to produce a child, have no such biological imperative, goes the theory. Instead they are hard-wired to form emotional attachments with a male who will protect them and their children.
Launching straight into sex before even the first date was a hallmark of the sexual revolution, a way women could emulate men and jettison the emotional baggage of romantic love that had supposedly held them back for generations.
But no matter how hard they try to live up to the old feminist ideal of “zipless f—s”, invariably women get hurt.
Take the celebrated “mile high club” scandal on Qantas. A flight attendant, Lisa Robertson, has told how she initiated sex with the actor Ralph Fiennes on a flight from Darwin to Mumbai, leading him into a toilet cubicle for a quickie.
“I’m going to have to kick you out now,” Fiennes said suavely after a later rendezvous in his hotel room, according to the account of events she sold to the Daily Mail newspaper. “See you on the next Qantas flight.” But for a woman who seems to embody the liberated female’s attitude to casual sex, Robertson seemed overly concerned with feelings.
She said she had hoped the relationship would continue and was “hurt and disappointed” that Fiennes wouldn’t support her when she was sacked. To Robertson “the experience was a lot more than just about sex”. But men are wired differently. No amount of brainwashing and SNAG-ification will change that.
A study released this week by the American Psychological Association warned of the psychological harm being done to women by the increasing sexualisation of society.
“Sexualisation of girls is a broad and increasing problem,” said the study, and it could cause psychological and physical harm to young women and girls as young as four. Imagery of “sexed-up” little girls and women posing as adolescents could lead to depression, eating disorders and poor academic performance.
If you ever needed proof that women were the losers in the sexual revolution here it is. It is time women seized back their inner prude.
February 22, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Oh my goodness am I glad that some one is sitting up and taking notice. As a woman and mother the trend for this self destructive behaviour among young women being scares my silly.
Recently there have been of a flight attendant who had sex with Ralph Fiennes in the air plane toilet, and a fortnight later the she has sold the story to some trashy women’s magazine. What ever happened to privacy in sexual relations, and being discrete.(Not that I agree with the behaviour, at least be lady enough to kiss and tell and make a mint in the process).
The sexualising of children and adults in any and all situations is very unhealthy. It is not good for any one.
Quite honestly as for Britney Spears, Anna Nichole Smith, Paris Hilton and the others like them, I pity them and pity those who look up to the as role models.
February 22, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Sorry, feel very foolish the case of the flight attendant was covered in the heading. Obviously I need to read all the intro, not merely skim.
So as for the sexual revolution, there seems to be losers and no winners.
February 22, 2007 at 7:14 pm
There are winners. Let’s consider women’s sexuality in the Victorian era. Slightly repressed don’t you think? Female enjoyment of Sex within Marriage was almost non-existant and very much skewed to the male (sorry I’m using very base terms I know).
But somewhere we lost the plot. Some feminists proclaim that freeing the sexual women has somehow allowed her to express herself and be free. I think, as do critical feminists, that the opposite has happened. In opening herself up to the gaze of the media eye and the normalisation of what is sexually appropriate, the women is locked in her own panopticon. How she dresses, acts and engages in sexual relationships is all subject to external constraints from media sources and other ‘norms’ that have filtered into the mainstream.
For a women to be truly free, she would have to have the ‘norms’ of sexual identity completely stripped away. That of course is empirically not possible. But perhaps the maximisation of the ’sexual identity’ norm could be lessened meaning that it doesn’t take such a high place in society.
How to do that requires some serious political will to regulate marketing, advertising and media industries. But then we face the moral dillema of censorship…a whole other ball park….
February 23, 2007 at 10:22 am
I like Britney’s new hair cut
February 23, 2007 at 10:39 am
On balance, I think it’s clear that the sexual revolution has created far more losers than winners. But Moulmein raises a good point. I think intelligent, committed LDS can be winners in this regard. If we shun as much of the negative stuff as we can (eg. avoid sexual stuff in the media, stick to chastity etc), we can ‘win’ in the sense that sexual relationships can be more meaningful.
It’s certainly my experience that some women in the generation before mine were less well educated in such things, and felt some kind of obligation to be available to their husbands. In contrast, I think the younger generation are interested in a more mutual experience. Just anecdotal evidence of course. Happy to hear contrasting views.
On this topic, I remember about five years back, an LDS psychologist from the US (John Lund) visited Australia and spoke on the ‘gospel and intimacy’. It was a last-minute thing, but the word got around and the stake centre was absolutely packed. I’ve never seen LDS mobilised so quickly. In my view, it reflected the lack of understanding and appropriate educational tools out there. But in recent years LDS researchers have put out some very worthwhile books – ‘Purity and Passion’ by Wendy Watson (http://www.amazon.com/Purity-Passion-Spiritual-Intimacy-Strengthen/dp/1590384105/sr=8-1/qid=1172191116/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5335160-0202405?ie=UTF8&s=books) and ‘Between Husband and Wife’ by Lamb (http://www.amazon.com/Between-Husband-Wife-Perspectives-Intimacy/dp/1577346092/sr=1-1/qid=1172191142/ref=sr_1_1/002-5335160-0202405?ie=UTF8&s=books) are two that come to mind.
February 25, 2007 at 9:29 pm
To me the solution lies with the family. Nothing can effectively replace parents teaching thier kids morals.
Once again I would have to disagree with Moulmein (sorry!) about government regulation. Regulating media, advertising etc is very bureaucratic and is a less effective way to get it fixed.
The Qantas saga wouldn’t have hit the papers if they didn’t know there would be a ready readership.
If we are good parents I think we can still raise kids in this media environment who are chaste, and have a healthy attitude toward sex when they get to be adults.
And I do feel sorry for Britney.
February 26, 2007 at 5:41 am
Stewart, you’re going to have to do more to argue that regulation of media won’t work. Just saying that it’s bureaucratic and less effective doesn’t mean much. Why is it less effective? We currently have restrictions on media – lewd advertising isn’t allowed on billboards, TV programs heavy with sex, violence and language can’t be shown before 9.30. Are you also opposed to those regulations? Should they be able to show Big Brother Uncut at 4pm, just as kids are coming home from school?
Should the newsagent be able to sell X-rated DVDs?
I’ve got to say, I’d rather see ANY party in government, including the Greens, than a bunch of libertarians who want to deregulate everything.
February 28, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Media regulation is less effective because if the people want to get it they will get it. If pornography, (an evil), were made illegal people who wanted it will still be able to get it on the blackmarket. Then all you do is spend a lot of tax payers dollars policing it.
Drugs are illegal but still rampant. During the alcohol prohition days there still was a lot of moonshine going around.
Billboards are different, because it is not something you make a choice about seeing – it’s just there. TV you make a choice to watch. You can preview the TV guide before turning it on for the kids.
Boycott and lobbying companies is a far better way to change programming. Talking about bureaucracy – we have had a couple of very popular ads (like the one where the guy wacks the dancing bunny suit man for ANZ) that have been censored because of a couple of complaints.
I guess I can’t count on your vote
and that is fair enough. But be careful of what you wish for – with the Greens you probably will still get all you don’t want, it will just be regulated and state approved. Then again I think the Socialist Alliance is still available. Better hope that you can fit your religion around the regulation that they will give.
March 1, 2007 at 8:25 am
Stewart, this makes absolutely no sense to me at all. All you’ve established is that making something illegal will not reduce demand to zero. But that’s not the point – the point is that making it illegal WILL REDUCE DEMAND TO SOME DEGREE. It doesn’t matter if it’s to zero or just reduced to a smaller degree – it still makes a difference. Illegal drugs may be common place, but wouldn’t they be far more common if they were legalised?
I’m sorry, but I find your arguments quite weak. It appears to come down to “because regulation can’t eradicate demand for bad things, we should ditch regulation”. You’re completely ignoring all the good stuff that regulation CAN do. It’s kind of like me saying, ’since I’m not a perfect father to my kid, I may as well do a runner’. That’s obviously a ridiculous statement, because even though I’m short of perfection, my kid’s better of having me than no-one.
You appear unwilling to even contemplate what the real effects of deregulation might be. You’re simply doing an analysis of the current situation, and since you find it’s not perfect you want to ditch it. But the proper way would be to make a comparison against the alternative. And you can see the alternatives – the Netherlands has a much less regulated approach to drugs and the selling of all things sexual. People have freedom to choose there, and what do they choose? They choose drugs and sexual services, probably in part because they get the message that such things are okay because they’re legal! Is that what you want for Australia?
March 2, 2007 at 10:43 am
Hi. First post. After reading the last two posts, I’d have to say I agree with both echo and stewartglass. In my opinion, it is more effective to make your voice known to a company or television station when you want to see something changed (in this case less sexualisation in advertising). However, having a free market in advertising and the media is obviously not going to work, because everyone out there is base and depraved. When people are unregulated they will use the lowest common demoninator to sell things and others will watch the lowest common demoninator to be entertained. So there needs to be some control where no control would exist otherwise.
Considering these two things I have something else to say on control, and I hope I’m not too forward in this regard. This is obviously a site for friendly discussion between Mormons (of which I am one) on various topics. I have read many posts before I made this comment.
However, some of the comments seem to be quite brash and forceful. I don’t want to single people out but, to use a case in point, if I were stewartglass I would feel that my opinion was diminished somewhat by some of echo’s former replies. This is just how I read it of course.
I could be wrong, maybe you all are friends who are used to each other’s points of view and styles of writing, but as a newbie with no connections, I need proper ettiquette in posting to feel that my opinion will be respected.
Perhaps something can be posted by the moderators on posting itself i.e. how to present your opinion and engage in discussion with respect and without ripping others’ views to shreds.
Like I say, I don’t know anyone so I could be way off, but I really enjoy reading this blog and hearing others’ opinions. I just feel this part of the posting experience could be improved so that others may not feel alienated.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
March 2, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Hi Believe and welcome. Regarding Echo’s comments (before I lodge a counter argument), I know Echo in the real world, and he is good person. I also have a thick skin and some might suggest a “testa dura” (as the Italians might say).
I disagree that most people are base and depraved. I actually think most people are good hearted. It is this belief in people which underpins may views on liberty.
——–
Mosiah 29:26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you …
——
If most people are depraved you are not going to get them to vote for regulation contrary to thier lifestyle anyway.
An analogy:
I am flying to Brisbane. Clearly Qantas is a better flight than Virgin because you get a meal in flight. But I have booked with Virgin. Why? When you Qantas is better? Because Virgin is $200 cheaper – meaning I have to work 10 odd hours less to pay for my flight.
This to me is like the regulation suggested. Infact, I do think it will reduce demand (of something bad) to some degree. But it is the price you pay for that benefit that I worry about.
Regulating people to do what we think is good is letting the camel’s nose into the tent. This is not unlike some legislation we have here in SA at the moment called “Equal Opportunity Amendment”. Religious schools can’t teach that homosexuality is wrong.
It always seems reasonable when we are making the regulations by our standard, but what happens when some other standards become the norm in government, and they start penalising us with laws?
One last question, Echo. Do you support prodominately Muslim countries in Shiite Law – where the religion becomes the law?
March 4, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Stewart I think you’re beginning to call apples oranges if you are comparing Shiite Muslim law to Western style democracy.
I don’t necessarily agree with you at all on your topics of discussion basically because you’ve not cited any case where deregulation has indeed helped. That is the problem with you argument. Any policy maker who comes up with a new idea will be asked to supply some sort of evidence. That’s just the crux of public or social policy.
I’m more inclined and always will be inclined to feel that the advertising industries as well as the marketers of this land should be regulated. Supply and demand does exist I’m afraid.
I understand that you have differences of opinions on this, but perhaps if you supplied some sort of evidence to contradict my point, then we would be able to discuss the debate more fully. At the moment, it seems to me to be a bit contrived.
March 5, 2007 at 3:40 pm
thanks for your comment stewartglass. my apologies to you echo for using you as an example to debate the style of debate. it’s hard to gauge the influence of real-world relationships in a public forum.
March 5, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Well the benefits of economic deregulation are bleedingly obvious. Just compare the wealth of comparetively deregulated countries like Hong Kong, Australia, United States with the socialist (regulated) countries of Russia, and Cuba. Before the pulling down of the West Berlin wall you could compare the wealth of West Germany (dereg) with East Germany (socialist). You might notice that China’s economy is booming now that property rights have been strengthened and more economic freedom given. Co-incidence?
The connection between Shiite law and the sort of social regulation you espouse is that both try to legislate morality. So while they vary in the degree they are both the same kind of fruit. Valencia and mandarins.
I perceive though that you are referring to social deregulation, so I will see if I can dig up and example.