Comments | ontd_feminism: TW For Slut Shaming, References To Rape

teleens_journal in ontd_feminism

TW For Slut Shaming, References To Rape

Apr 19, 2011 20:14

Parents, Don't Dress Your Girls Like Tramps, writes columnist LZ Granderson at CNN.com.

HIghlights:

LZ Granderson: Some parents dress their young girls in provocative outfits
Retailers have encouraged this behavior by marketing inappropriate clothing
He says it's OK to blame retailers, but it's parents who are ultimately responsible
Children need ( Read more... )

fashion/modeling, parenting, rape/sexual assault, what kind of fuckery is this?, children, body image

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

factorywannabe April 20 2011, 15:17:01 UTC

A kid is a kid is a kid. Yeah, the 8-year old should be showing her stomach in her clothes, but I'm more creeped out that a grown man referred to her as sexy and trampy. I find that men only call women sluts or trampy when a woman is secure in her own body and wears what she likes, or enjoys sex and isn't ashamed of it.

I just love how guys can sometimes be shirtless in public and have sex with as many girls as they want, it's okay. However, when a girl is doing the exact same thing, it's immortal and slutty. Guys should get some ~slut-shaming too!

factorywannabe April 20 2011, 15:17:15 UTC

*shouldn't

teleens_journal April 20 2011, 15:24:29 UTC

Guys should get some ~slut-shaming too!

How about no one gets shamed for their sexual choices so long as everyone involved is of age?

varioussorrows April 20 2011, 15:32:24 UTC

Too right. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult that there's nothing to be ashamed of regarding sex and IMHO the idea that there is only feeds into this kind of issue.

teleens_journal April 20 2011, 15:43:41 UTC

I'm all for the idea of not wanting to sexualize and objectify women of any age, but there's a fine line between stopping the objectification of women and shaming them for choosing to do as they wish with their bodies ( ... )

maynardsong April 20 2011, 17:02:32 UTC

But you've just hit on another problem I have with the way this culture sees sex, with a model of the woman being the gatekeeper and the man being the aggressor. With sex being something to either "give for free" or "sell". I'm all for destigmatizing sex work, and I realize that bartering sex is something really old. But there's also something to be said about such a view of sex, and there's no point in pretending that sex work generally does a thing to dismantle that view of sex. And I also think that's what's behind the argument that the objectification of women is what allows both of you to have jobs in the first place. Also, I think it sheds some light on why Chippendale's becomes creepy - for once, instead of giving or selling, women are the ones buying and consuming. And that leads to the women doing all sorts of things they wouldn't normally do.

midoskeek April 20 2011, 19:12:50 UTC

How is it being the world's oldest profession a good argument? Are you saying cave men were not patriarchal?

(The comment has been removed)

teleens_journal April 21 2011, 03:55:30 UTC

This is what I was thinking of - thank you, :). And while I've not done an in-depth study of anthropology, I believe I'd read that some early societies were matriarchal as well...

apis_cerana April 20 2011, 19:48:13 UTC

Prostitution has always been practiced under Patriarchy...it's kind of odd that your justification for it existing is that it's the "oldest profession" (which I kind of doubt tbh).
Women should, of course, be able to do whatever they want to do with their bodies. However, I don't think that their choices (as in their *actions*) are automatically feminist. IMO stripping and prostitution could never be a feminist act because they are contributing to society's objectification of women (though not necessarily being degrading at the same time).

pinkminx April 20 2011, 20:28:26 UTC

Yeah, agreeing with both of your points.

I don't know how prostitution would even work in a non-patriarchal society. Maybe we'd have something like it, and maybe we wouldn't. It'd be very different from what we have now, though.

maynardsong April 20 2011, 20:43:24 UTC

There would be more gender balance, I think, for a start, IF we had it.

maynardsong April 20 2011, 20:42:37 UTC

Well, it COULD be a reaction to the patriarchy, and that aspect of it could be feminist.
Are you saying in different words than mine, that sex work perpetuates the conception of sex as something that men get/obtain/gain and women either gain or sell? Of men as aggressors and women as gatekeepers? Of sex being inherently desirable to men but only a means to an end for women? Because that's my objection to teleensjournal 's comment. Are we putting the same thought in different words?

OT: I like your comments.

apis_cerana April 20 2011, 21:15:07 UTC

Sure, it could have feminist intentions, but stripping and sex work can never be empowering in a patriarchal society ( ... )

maynardsong April 20 2011, 21:26:37 UTC

oy, I said "women either gain or sell" and I MEANT "give or sell"
But you probably got that.
I REALLY took issue with this part: "that it's okay to give away for free" for that reason. I'm not *giving* anything by not charging for sex. I'm just only having sex that's inherently appealing to me. I want sex that IS the end, not the means to an end. That's not "giving it away for free", that's me having a sex drive.
Also, it's NOT okay these days to "give it away for free" anyway! Or is slut-shaming dead?
Actually, the more I think about it, the more that comment bothered me.

hearthand April 21 2011, 17:37:36 UTC

"I REALLY took issue with this part: "that it's okay to give away for free" for that reason. I'm not *giving* anything by not charging for sex. I'm just only having sex that's inherently appealing to me. I want sex that IS the end, not the means to an end. That's not "giving it away for free", that's me having a sex drive."

I agree with this.

Back to all threads