Sexuality: Are Slutty Little Girls Empowered?

Posted by: Anonymous on Dec 30, 2002 - 06:03 PM

Join the discussion at:

http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1531&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

are cute chat sites empowered to discuss delicatite cultural issues... or is the headline just a spicy way of advertising your website?

I think the answer is B; advertising.

This headline is pretty fucking sexist because who put you in the position of deciding what people should be doing culturally? Jerry Fallwell?

are cute chat sites empowered to discuss delicatite cultural issues... or is the headline just a spicy way of advertising your website?

I think the answer is B; advertising.

This headline is pretty fucking sexist because who put you in the position of deciding what people should be doing culturally? Jerry Fallwell?

Girl's empowered in the music industry? Ha! What a laugh! No one is empowered in the music industry... except for the filthy rich creeps who own it all. Tom Petty summed it up nicely on his latest album, "The Last DJ."

"My name's Joe... I'm the CEO

Yeah, I'm the man makes the big wheels roll

I'm the hand on the green light switch

You get to be famous... I get to be rich

So bring me a Girl... they're always the best

you put 'em on stage and you have 'em undress

some angel whore who can learn a guitar lick

hey... that's what I call music

Well they'll come looking for money

when the public gets bored

but we'll fight 'em with lawyers

they could never afford

Yeah, I'll make her look like a spoiled little bitch

she gets to be famous.... I get to be rich"

Pop culture does its best to encourage conformity and uniformity. It does its best to discourage political thinking and to discourage anything that is actively against pop culture media. Sex is used to sell everything and anything, as a commodity. Women are realizing and flexing their sexual power earlier and more clumsily than ever before. From Barbie dolls to Britney Spears emulation in less than 2 months. Pop culture marginalises non-corporate-media as "conspiracy theory" in preference of the search for more money and power. Young girls see power over others in sexuality and are blinded to the fact that their own bodies are being commodified. They want money and nice clothes and are turning into pimp fodder instead of self-aware humans. The Riot Grrrl false feminism that sees nothing wrong in the commodification of womens' bodies upholds the capitalist power abuse of pornography. Feminism is not "being whatever you wanna be" like Madonna choosing to be a boytoy. It's about equality. Women SHOULD be able to enjoy sex however they want to. But the vampiric relationship being pop culture aimed at children becaoming more and more openly sexualized is not positive. Girls are learning sexuality before they even have mature sexual feelings. And that makes the way they feel about sexuality a childish thing, a power trip more than anything else. 10 year olds in mini-mini skirts are now a reality.

Gee, great.
"Hit me baby one more time."

"I'm a slave 4 U"

-- Britney Spears

While i agree with the corporate criticism, I don't agree with any of this marxist take on culture. Culture is so much more then this, individuals relationship to images is a lot more complex then this. "Our girls are becoming sluts" sounds like something out of a pretty patriarchal society.

Yeah, britney sucks, but not because she's "sexy" but because she is part of a machine that is heirarchical and star driven. the one thing good about this system is that it creates huge gaps between the dream (star) and the dreamer (consumer) so that the consumer can make something positive about such dreck.

What about the the boys? Are they becoming sluts too?

Oh yeah, I forgot, boys aren't sluts, they're studs. And studs are a good thing. (sarcasm)

I would think that being progressive and and being open-minded would not close the minds of so many people. I think that if women and men want to use their sexuality and sexual natures to become famous and get their message across then the more power to them. I do not believe that if sex is the only thing that is used and there is no message behind it that that is relevant. But come on, sexuality and sexual nature are human, and I think that the women above me made a great comment that it is ok for men to be stigmatized butnot women. We must watch out what we want to censor, sex and sexuality is not bad at all. To not enjoy looking at something beautiful whether it be male or female deprives you of someone who should be enjoyed if they would like for you to do that. Now you can go on and on about how people are exploited for their bodies and not their minds but people are also not taught to think and be beautiful at the same time. I think that they can go hand and hand and we should not shame women or men for using whatever beauty that they may posses. I have a beautiful intellegent women in my life and I am not ashamed of her when she wears beautiful sexy things, what I am ashamed of is when men whistle, hoot and holler. Just as I am not ashmaed to dress an look nice and not wear black all the time and not take showers. These same people will tell you that you are objectifying yourself and yet they are judging you more than you could ever judge them. So do not be ashamed of your beauty and do not be ashamed to admire beautiful people but do not become an object of someones admiration either.

"I have a beautiful intellegent women in my life and I am not ashamed of her when she wears beautiful sexy things, what I am ashamed of is when men whistle, hoot and holler."

and

"...do not be ashamed to admire beautiful people but do not become an object of someones admiration either."



Life does not happen in a vacuum folks. Admiring beautiful people yet not wanting to be an object of admiration isn't very integral of you. Shouldn't your ideas jibe with one another? The fact that your mate proudly shows herself off and the fact that men hoot and holler at her are also similarly connected.

Both of these "strange anomolies" (to you, maybe) are because of the culture of selling sex. I don't like it, personally. But that's just me. I've always been more of a do-er than a spectator. I much prefer actually having sex over watching people having sex. Ask any sex industry worker if (s)he is happy with her/his profession and whether (s)he is planning a career change.

Women are encouraged to be overtly sexual. Which is fine. I like that. But when *little girls* are encouraged to be overtly sexual, I see a problem. Same for *little boys.* You're right; society encourages boys to be sluts and girls to not be sluts. In this fuctup society, a male's sexual worth is measured in how many women he's had sex with, whereas a woman's sexual worth is in how many men she's refused sexual invitations from. That's not equal. It's damaging to everyone.

If you think it's OK for Britney to pretend to be virginal while bumping and grinding like an exotic dancer - if you think it's OK to link innocent girl DIRECTLY to overt sexuality, then that is your pedophilia you must deal with. The fact remains; women especially are getting sexualised earlier and earlier, and that is because a person with no sense of self-worth except for as a sexual pet is:

a) a gold-mine for the beauty & fitness industries

b) monomaniacal enough to stay apolitical and content, never a threat to anyone

c) a fun fleshy sex-toy to play with for older people

While I don't like the corporatization of culture and think that their branded culture sucks... get the fuck out of my pants!

"There was also an element of social control in this. A power relation was created between the preacher and the confessant, between the psychoanalyst and his patient. Power relations are to Foucault central to any analysis of society, and this is especially true for sexuality. Power relations are formed in all relations where differences exist.

What Foucault means by power is not necessarily what is ordinarily meant by the word. It is something ubiquitous and cannot be thought of as dual, as creating a division between those dominating and those being dominated. Power in Foucault's meaning of the word is not an exclusively negative force. He claims that we have had a juridical view of power in our society; we tend to see it as something negative, oppressing, defining what is not to be done.

Instead, power is the basis of Foucault's analysis of society. Common power relations related to sexuality are, in addition to the ones mentioned between the one who confesses and the one that receives the confession, those between teacher and pupil, between parent and child, and between doctor and patient. "

http://cgi.student.nada.kth.se/cgi-bin/d95-aeh/get/foucaulteng#power

And

"The cultural historian Michel Foucault said that sex is policed not by silence but by endless speech, by the "deployment" of more and more "discourses" of social regulation--psychology, medicine, pedagogy. But our era, while producing plenty of regulatory chatter from on high, has also seen an explosion of unofficial, anarchic, and much more exciting discourses down below. When the sexual revolution collided with the boom in media technologies, media sex mushroomed. We started collecting statistics to prove it: 6.6 sexual incidents per hour on top-rated soap operas (half that number ten years before); fourteen thousand sexual references and innuendos on television annually (compared with almost none when Ozzie and Harriet slept in twin beds); movies most popular with teenagers "contain[ing] as many as fifteen instances of sexual intercourse in less than two hours" (Gone with the Wind had one, off-screen)."

http://www.upress.umn.edu/HarmfultoMinorscensorship.html>

And if I am why can't I feel a damn thing?

I'm glad we agree on things. Foucault rules too.

Corporate sex sucks. Human sex rules. It's that simple.

you said "Ask any sex industry worker if (s)he is happy with her/his profession and whether (s)he is planning a career change. "

Ask ANY worker, if (s)he is happy with her/his profession and whether (s)he is planning a career change.

Sex workers are not the first or last people to hate their jobs. And actually, several activist friends make a living in the sex industry and like their job.

or better yet, workers are not the first or last people to hate their jobs. And actually, several activist friends make a living and like their job.

Your in my pants because you are trying to tell me what to do with my crotch- whether I have a revolutionary groin or a reactionary one. You know what, I think my crotch is a crotch.

I never told anyone what to do with their crotch. Seriously; what gave you that idea? I enjoy doing it 'til I'm sore, that's my personal preference - I would hope everyone else follows their own preferences. I also hope pre-pubescent kids can healthfully witchstand the brunt of a multi-billion dollar media industry that wants to conform their sexualities to a profitable kind of sexuality. I think discussion is crucial. But I'm not telling anyone what to do.

Happy fuckings!

:)

Rereading your writing, your not in my pants.

Peace between me and thee.

no problemo with what you said other then the part about sex workers. The passion for this rant comes from experiencing an often culturaly reactionary left, one that refuses to see the nuances of cultural phenomenon and the ways in which individuals access to cultures creates very individual relations to culture- who refuse to acknowledge that not all flag waivers are neo-fascists, that not all corporate drones are drones.

My passioned response is to the original poster of this article that they should know their sexist ad as such.

Your mother is getting older you know. I'm just not that excited when I look at her naked anymore. what should I do?