Women's Sexual Liberation, A Brief Post

As most of us know, from: antics performed by people such as Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears, to advice women receive to learn pole dancing, and even to older women receiving collagen injections into their g spot-- this is ALWAYS dressed up as "female empowerment"; as an agenda  which is able to live in accord with the Feminist objective. I am here to clearly state that THIS is perfectly counter to the feminist objective. That, in fact, actions similar to this behavior are COUNTER-feminist. Feminist meaning, embracing the physical and psychological health of (men and women)* as well seeking equal legal and social opportunities for woman. In short, Feminism holds that both men and women are inherently equal; that no sex is better than the other and that, not only can  women do ANYTHING men can do but, that _MEN_ can do anything WOMEN can do! Lastly, Feminism, unlike the patriarchy, acknowledges that men and women are interdependent.


*" men and women" because a man is embettered when he is keen on a woman who is always seeking to better herself. That a man who can love such a woman must, himself be quite able. For, not only does he not see her as a threat to his manhood but, he has learned that what is better for the collective IS better for himself. This man has learned that TEAMS work better than one man alone.

Now, people LOVE to polarize sexual relations. Either, the woman abides by what some evangelical preacher claims:

• She must be chaste until marriage. Otherwise, she is an abomination to God-- a whore, no man would want her.
• She must submit to the whims of Man, above all; God declared this as soon as Eve bite into that succulent, forbidden apple.
• Sex often becomes a traumatic experience. Sex is generally seen as "unnatural" (never mind the obvious incorrectness of this). Sex is "ugly."
• A cultural double standard exists for men and women. Women's behavior is tightly policed.  Men can conduct themselves, essentially, however they wish. 

Conversely, you have the "Free Love" claim. They pretend that America is so puritanical. What, with all of the sitcoms featuring males dating "family friendly" strippers, escorts,  and/or prostitutes, all of the late night "Girls Gone Wild," unregulated access to pornography, and of course, our pop-culture "role models" who have come to stripping naked at the end of their performance?

• The assertion is that no woman belongs to any man. Where, the original meaning of the word "belong" as: "treated like property; objectified" no longer holds. Rather, it has come to be stand in for: "having a relationship with" and by "relationship" my only requisite to meet this definition is "an emotional connection." 
• That somehow, belonging to NO man is to belong to ALL men.
• Both men and women can be as base as they please. There are only no double standards with regard to "sex lives," and that alone. 

While I understand that men have historically and in present day (dare I say it is WORSE now than even 40 years ago?) treated women as an object-- a thing without its own, independent volition-- even if there IS an inkling of emotional connection, it is WRONG to take the path of least resistance as the Free Lovers have. After all, this action not only reinforces but, ADDS to the momentum of our cultural and so, legal oppression. All the while, deteriorating our health and well being. Moreover, it losses the foothold for all of Our daughters after us. We compromise THEIR futures with every voice we let slip into an empty breath.

Ironically, both approaches sexually objectify the woman. They both treat her as a piece of meat. The "conservative" approach puts forth the idea that once a woman looses her virginity-- once she is "used goods" she looses her value. The second approach mandates that a woman's value comes from her sexual skill set. Her ability in bed, her ability to draw in a man-- and the MORE the "better" is the measure of her value. BOTH are predicated upon the worth of a woman to be built upon one, sole factor: sexuality. In these models a woman's integrity, inquisitiveness, intuition, intelligence, kindness, compassion-- they are valued at NOTHING or worse!

Now, what I have to say, is that the ORIGINAL intent of the movement was to allow two people who are -- by all measures-- in love but, not married, to be able to express themselves in yet another fashion. It was never meant for reckless intercourse. It was meant as an extension; to make the human experience into something more beautiful, in this AGE OF CONTRACEPTION! Also, you CAN learn _SO_ much about the person you are with in this way. Whether or not they are psychological sound, for instance. You WOULD want to the information to know to get out or stay in BEFORE the BIG DAY, wouldn't you?!

Lastly, the polarization of this subject matter draws our focus AWAY from other important subject matter. Such as: how women fit into the work place, in politics, and on the world stage. And so, by NOT discussing _EXPANDING_ OTHER roles for women we-- if only IMPLICITLY-- are accepting our role as sex objects.

(though, to be fair, forcing woman into THIS role-- the role Miley and Gaga play-- of sexual objectification is a GREAT to limit our role in ALL things-- so it IS _QUITE_ an important topic). 

"... And it was because of the troubles, that she began to dream of the ideal world."