Virginity & Sex as Self Definition vs. Sex as Objectification (Post for 11/21)
In Valenti’s “Cult of Virginity” and Levy’s “Raunch Culture,” both authors argue that we live in a sex-obsessed culture governed by stereotypes and media messages that hurt women and inhibit their power. While Valenti discusses the obsession with a woman’s virginity and the notion of the ideal “desirable virgin,” Levy’s thesis insists that our culture promotes the objectification of women and even encourages women to objectify themselves into sex objects that are to be consumed by men for men’s pleasure.
Valenti points out there is no coherent definition of virginity, even though people (ie doctors) ‘talk about it so authoritatively.’ Instead she argues that those who attempt to define virginity and sexuality and promote abstinence are the people who strive to link a woman’s worth to her sexual status. Valenti is all for women having and enjoying sex, but she argues that women should not be defined or ridiculed by the sex they have (or don’t have).
In the section “Selling Virginity,” Valenti discusses the dichotomy of the virgin/non-virgin and the process of commodifying and marketing women and their sex lives and sexual choices. Valenti also highlights an important contradiction (or irony) prevalent in today’s society about the labeling of women who have sex and those who do not. She asserts that women who have sex are punished, and labeled “damaged goods”, and their sexuality is equated with their morality. Society reveres virgins (and specifically virgins who publicize their sexuality) based on the fact that they don’t have sex. In other words, positive values and qualities that non-virgin women possess are overlooked, and a woman’s “inaction” is what defines her as “moral.” Here are some questions I considered after I read Valenti:
For question 2, use this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgA6KFKDBQw
1. Valenti says that the term “virgin” has become/ functions as synonymous with “woman” in today’s society and refers to only certain acts of sexual activity. Given the widely accepted narrow definition of virginity, who becomes excluded from the term virginity?
2. Valenti gives real life examples such as ‘purity balls’ and marriage to make her argument that a woman’s virginity is deeply entrenched in male ownership.I have included a link (above) to the program “Virgin Daughters,” a documentary about the Purity Movement. Thinking beyond purity balls, what connections can be drawn between abstinence-only education programs, a woman’s virginity, and patriarchy?
3. Abstinence-only education programs promote the idea that sex outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful physical and psychological and physical effects. Because abstinence programs’ lack of success, President Obama’s 2012 budget drives down the amount of spending on abstinence education compared to spending on comprehensive sex education (i.e. promoting condoms and birth control.) What are the main problems with abstinence-only education? How are abstinence-only programs discriminatory and dangerous?
*if you are interested in learning more about abstinence-only education in the US, here is a link to the National Abstinence Education association’s website : http://www.abstinenceassociation.org/
“Raunch Culture”
After reading Valenti’s discussion on virginity, Levy’s “Raunch Culture” struck me because the author offers insights and arguments about women who are not virgins and are overtly sexual. Levy suggests that women have started to publicize their sexuality, and these women justify their actions by saying that being openly sexual empowers women and promotes sexual freedom. Levy’s discussion about “Girls Gone Wild”, and the Playboy label is noteworthy because women play a crucial role in the production and functioning of these brands. Women’s empowerment as it is often portrayed in the media still requires them to be constantly sexual – so I wonder, how is this really empowering at all? Levy’s argument seems to be that while women might be “liberated” to be sexually aggressive, they’re still constrained by sexualization and the need to be “appropriate” and feminine. Furthermore, men easily adjust to seeing “sexually empowered” women as sexual objects. Consider the following questions:
1. Porn stars and other young women who appear in programs like Girls Gone Wild claim to be “sexually liberated artists” who are comfortable with their bodies and “exude confidence.” In today’s society, can openness about one’s sexual identity and desires be a form of self-definition for women, even if in the process of empowering themselves these women also cater to male power? Are women in porn simply trying to “catch up to men”?
2. Now consider women who are not directly involved in porn. For instance, how does society view female athletes and their sexualities? What can be said about female athletes (such as Levy’s example, Olympic swimmer, Amanda Beard) posing as sex symbols in semi-pornographic magazines?
3. Women are increasingly becoming involved in promoting the porn culture and advertising business. Does this mean that women and men alike are to blame for the commodification of women as sex objects?
For the sake of connecting our readings, I have included a linkto an article written about two “Fem Porn” directors, Anna Arrowsmith and Erika Lust. In “Pleasure and Danger,” Vance highlights the connection between a woman’s sexual pleasure as well as the violence she is exposed to from sex and argues that women “need to feel encouraged to identify and act in their sexual self interest.” She insists that feminists need to do more to “draw on women’s experience of pleasure.” This is an interesting article about two women who engaged in media in order to do just that:
“Porn made by women for women”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/mar/22/porn-women
