On Covering Up

In an episode of 18 Kids and Counting - or was that 17 Kids? I forget - anyway, on an episode of the Duggars' TV show, Michelle Duggar preached the importance of women covering up and keeping her boys from seeing scantily clad women. In another episode, when the kids did get to watch TV, one of the kids felt the need to cover up the cleavage of a woman on the screen. Why? Because men shouldn't be tempted, and it's women's job to prevent such temptation.

To put it simply, men expecting women to cover up just so they don't see thigh and chest skin is just as problematic as men expecting women to wear skimpy clothing so they DO see skin. In both cases, women are expected to dress in accordance with what men want, rather than what they want.

I'm not opposed to skimpy clothing, or more modest apparel, but I do advocate that women choose the way they want to wear based on their own morals and beliefs, rather than cater to those of men. For example, while I am content with wearing shorts and tank tops in the summer when it's warm and I want to stay as cool as possible outside, after my experiences with rape and sexual assault I have thought of adopting a more modest way of dressing just as a way to avoid rape in the future. I know it's silly, because I was hardly scantily clad when the events took place, but sometimes I feel desperate for a way to feel safe again. Other women view sexy clothing as a means of empowerment. Whether either way of dressing is empowering, or which is more empowering than the other, is a topic of much debate, and I'm not going to get into it now.

This expectation to cover up still regards women as sex objects, only in this case they're regarded as inherently sexual and need to de-sexualize themselves so men don't get turned on. It puts the burden of preventing "bad" things on women, treating them like the moral gatekeepers of all things sexual. It also assumes that men can't control themselves - Michelle Duggar said boys need to learn self-control, and the only way this can happen is if women don't tempt them. Well that's silly, anyone can learn self-control without temptation, that's like learning healthy eating habits in an environment free of any bad foods. True self-control is being able to actually see cleavage without acting on the arousal that may come with it. But I guess that's too hard, men don't want the work of learning such willpower, they'd rather leave all that stuff up to women.

If anything, this should be an insult to men - I remember being really insulted when my school decided that the only way to prevent obesity was to remove junk food from the school cafeteria. We couldn't be trusted access to soda and chocolate, so they had to take it out of our hands. I, being a responsible consumer for the most part, and nowhere near in danger of becoming obese, was outraged. I didn't care if I didn't need soda, on the days where I felt myself about to doze off in class, being able to guzzle down a Coke to keep me awake for the rest of the day helped a lot.

This "boys will be boys" attitude, or the idea that men can't handle even the sight of cleavage without losing control, is a huge aspect of rape culture. With this discourse, we can easily dismiss most rape cases by saying "well, she tempted him, what did she expect?" It supports the "rape schedule," or set of safety rules imposed on women, putting the burden of rape prevention on them rather than teach men not to rape. We hold women accountable for what happens to them, rather than hold men accountable for what they do to women. Of course, men must love this system, they can do almost anything to women as long as they can pin it on the woman for somehow "asking for it." Now you must see why rape victims feel compelled to cover up, so they don't "attract" any more violence, and if they do, they're less likely to be blamed for what happened.

Thoughts on Abstinence

My dad said to wait until marriage. My mom said to wait until college. Me? I just wanted to wait until I was in love.

One big target of feminism is the purity movement: abstinence-only classes, lies about sex, purity balls, slut-shaming, all that bad stuff.

But in our fight for a sex-positive society, people tend to get confused and think we're all against abstinence and pushing girls to become sexual.

Make no mistake, that's not the case.

I, for one, am not a virgin, but I see nothing wrong with the choice to abstain from sex, and our society should be just as accepting of abstinence as it is of sex.

My only issue with abstinence is when it's done for the wrong reasons. Whether a person becomes sexually active should be a personal decision. If a girl decides not to have sex, it should be because of her own values, not because the men in her life - father, priest, teachers, politicians, or future husband - expect it of her. My problem with purity balls is that a girl is basically giving her personal autonomy over to her father, rather than maintaining it.

Conversely, if a girl decides to have sex, it's because she's ready, and it's in accordance with her own personal values, be them secular or spiritual (there's a difference between blind adherence to religious dogma and sincerely believing that sex is sacred and should be saved for certain situations, be it marriage or just a committed, loving relationship) - NOT because her boyfriend wants it and she feels obligated to please him.

Whether a woman chooses to be sexual should also have no impact on her value as a human being. The problem is, many see women as valuable only if they are sexual - look sexy, act sexy, and put out for their male partners - and most others only value women who are pure and virginal. In either case, reduction of a woman to her sexuality is based on her willingness to obey and please a man, be it her older authority figures who expect her to save her flower for marriage, or her same-age male peers who expect sexual gratification from her, is detrimental to her personal autonomy.

If a woman makes the decision on her own, and has the gall to claim ownership over her own body, well, that's a different story - she's either a whore or a frigid bitch, depending on who she's refusing to submit her autonomy to.

Gay women can't win either way in the virgin-whore dichotomy because either way, they're not pleasing men. They're pissing off their male authority figures by simply being lesbians, and they're frustrating their male peers by not having sex with them - the only way they can be accepted by their horny male peers is if they're a) hot and b) willing to make out in front of guys, make lesbian pornography, or engage in threesomes. Otherwise, they're scorned because they're seen as worthless.

The problem with this current society is that a woman can't win. Why? Because she can't please everyone, and pleasing everyone is what women are supposedly here for. If they give their bodies over to their fathers, male religious figures, and future husbands and promise to be pure until marriage, they're prudes in the eyes of anyone who expects sex or has simply has different sexual values. If a woman chooses to have sex before marriage, she's a slut in the eyes of those who expect the former behavior. If a woman refuses to have sex in any one instance because she simply doesn't want to, she's a bitch in the eyes of the man she rejects; but if she gives into the pressure and has sex unwillingly, she has no self respect.

The phrase self-respect is thrown around a lot when discussing sex, specifically abstinence. This is particularly true in urban areas where misogyny runs rampant and women are reduced to sexual objects in a culture fueled by hip-hip and rap, infamous for their sexist and degrading themes. In such a culture, using self-respect as a means of female empowerment sounds great - the problem is, it's assumed that every girl who has sex is doing it because of low self-esteem rather than making a personal choice of her own free will. Not always the case. It's sometimes hard to decipher a woman's motive to do anything these days - is she dressing that way because she thinks she should, or because she wants to? Did she have sex because she wanted to, or because the pressure got to her?

And really, can you blame any girl for succumbing to pressure? Why not blame the guy who coerced her in the first place? Why not focus more on hammering home ideas such as "no means no" and "silence is not consent," rather than tell girls to just say no? Saying no isn't enough in a world where, to many guys, no means "I shouldn't" rather than "I don't want to," and that a no can easily be turned into a yes with enough persuasion. Saying "no" would be enough if guys knew to take it seriously.

In general, it takes ovaries of steel for a woman, much less a teenage girl, to rise above society's expectations of her.

I'm also not implying that two people should stay together if they have different values regarding sex. If a girl wants to wait until marriage to have sex, she should either date someone who's also waiting, or a guy who isn't necessarily waiting, but willing to abstain from sex as long as he's with her. If someone wants sex to be a part of the relationship, they should date others who want the same thing.

Abstinence is a perfectly legitimate choice if made for personal reasons. The purity movement would be fine in the eyes of feminists if all it did was promote acceptance of the choice to remain abstinent until marriage, but it's not about choice. The purity movement is one side of the spectrum of sexualization, reducing a woman's value to her virginity, and her willingness to sacrifice her sexual autonomy to the male authority figures in her life, and demonizes women who claim their bodies for themselves.