Sex in Public

I'm a little out of touch with popular culture, hence the reason I was “reading” an issue of Rolling Stone from June of 2010. And honestly, I was a little shocked. Until this wake-up call, I thought the avalanche of writings about sexualized advertisements was overdone. “Surely we're moving beyond that now,” I thought. “Yes, you see the occasional over-sexed ad, but things are getting better!”

Turns out I was wrong.

Everywhere you turn, the magazine is selling you sex- and something else that you could actually buy. Orbit gum “unwraps” both itself and its blonde model. TV show ads display women lounging in tight, cleavage-bearing dresses. Midway through the magazine, there is a series of ads for Absolut Vodka, featuring famous women in various degrees of undress. The crowning achievement is the ad for “Absolut Crush”, where Kate Beckinsale dons a tiny gold loin cloth and large gold high heels, towering sexily above a flimsy-looking city.

"Perhaps Rolling Stone is still a boys club, just as much of the music it covers is," I thought. But upon further reflection, I realized that most TV shows, advertisements, movies, and even book covers show women as sex objects. Even magazines marketed to women demonstrate this trend. Women are the attention-getters, wearing make-up and the latest fashions (or not wearing them, as is often the case). And apparently, wanting nothing more than to attract men. What else do these women want? We don't know. And that's a lot of the problem.

Important questions are raised by thinking about women in advertisement, such as how airbrushing can effect a women's psyche, how skinny models should be, or whether they make women feel pressure to wear make-up. But the question it raises most in my mind is this: when is it OK? As a person whose beliefs often align with third wave feminism (you may have noticed), I believe that we should encourage women to express themselves. Yes, sometimes sexually. But sometimes it just feels forced or disrespectful. Degrading.

Sexuality can be very powerful, and there is obviously more than one reason to strut one's stuff. But where is the line drawn? When does expressing yourself become detrimental? There's no real way to answer this for everyone, of course, and no way to know when it becomes exploitative for the individual involved.

For me, personally, stripping down to sell something seems like the first thing to avoid. You are shedding your identity and losing control of your image to someone else's gain. Perhaps it's partially that you can't really sell sexuality- though many advertisers seem to think you can, or at least, can entwine the sexual and the material in people's minds. But this goes beyond advertising. Gratuitous sex and nudity in movies and TV can often generate enough buzz to boost viewership. Virtually all pop stars are sexualized to help sell records. Or perhaps it's become so common that it's expected of women in mainstream music.

The flip side of this is that sometimes, on a smaller scale, this is how women make a living. Is stripping OK? Depending upon circumstances, perhaps. As Kathleen Hanna sang: “I can sell my body if I wanna/God knows you've already sold your mind./I may sell my body for money sometimes/but you can't stop the fire that burns inside of me.” Indeed.

Many questions can be asked of a woman in any situation that might call this issue into question. What are the reasons? Do you enjoy what you're doing? Do you feel obligated? Is it for attention (a common accusation)? It can be hard to tease all of this apart. Do women feel sexual in one way because that's how they've been socialized? Or is their brand of sexuality merely a reaction to the status quo? Is it possible to truly show the world who you are in a culture of media bombardment? No wonder so many women have decided to keep sexuality out of public life. It is so much easier in so many ways.

Somehow, even though women's sexuality is always on display, women aren't supposed to want to be that way. Wearing a short skirt garners accusations. Women's motives are called into question. If you are a teacher or a mother, it's even worse. Why is our culture scared of sexuality? This makes me think that women who want to should definitely be showing off. Perhaps we should take on the question of when public sexuality is appropriate or damaging.

It seems to boil down to control. If you are expressing yourself how you want, when you want, for the reasons you want, then it is OK with me. If you feel coerced, obligated, or uncomfortable, then perhaps it isn't the right circumstance.

Women can be sexy and still be in control. I'll use the example of a friend of mine. She owns low-cut dresses and leather boots, but wears pants just as often as not. Her sole motivation is not to be seen as sexy, though she isn't afraid to be cast in that light. She doesn't conform to society's ideas about sexuality all the time, but isn't hesitant to pick conventional ideas that also match her own. Even though she is neither a supermodel-type nor obsessed about looks, more men speak of her beauty and attractiveness than almost any other woman I know. Why? She's confident. She projects her sexuality without needing attention. And perhaps most importantly, she's being who she is. Her sexuality is for no one but herself. And that, dear readers, is hot.

(S)he Who Is Without Sin

It's been many weeks since I meant to write this. This is a delicate topic, so how to start?

By telling you the good stuff. I have many friends who are Roman Catholic or who resonate with Catholic beliefs in some way. They are amazing folks who lead incredibly helpful and loving lives. Their doctrines guide them. They make the world a better place. They are the best possible example of how religion can be enriching to both individuals and society at large. They are the embodiment of all that is positive about Catholicism.

Weren't expecting that, we're you? I'm not anti-religion or anti-spirituality. I would never question how a person's religious beliefs can and do benefit them. It seems to me like everyone could use some sort of personal spirituality, be it meditating, taking a walk in nature, or going to church. But that being said...

How could this go on for so long? So many children. Priests sheltered. We all know the story. The Catholic church dropped the ball in absolutely the worst possible way. I'll throw in a little trigger warning before saying it: These priests raped, molested, and abused children. Children. Precious few things in this world could be more terrible.

The argument about whether or not the church should have to answer to police and other authorities is a tricky one, but no matter what your stance, this much can probably be agreed upon: these acts were in no way compatible with Catholic doctrine. Why did these men get shelter rather than being instantly defrocked and put into rehabilitation? Why didn't the church step up and try to help these children rather than ignoring their complaints?

And now, folks, we come to the reason these thoughts have been placed on a feminist forum. The church finally made an official policy to deal with child molesters. Then in the same breath, they redoubled their efforts to condemn females. Both raping children and ordaining women were classified as grave sins against the church. The punishment for attempting female priesthood for both ordainer and ordainee? Excommunication.

So let me get this straight. Child molesters get defrocked and forgiven but women get excommunicated? Hmmm. One group has sexual relations with children (outside the bonds of marriage, I hasten to add), wrecking lives at a very young age. The other group tries to get more deeply in touch with their spirituality and their God, and to give back to their spiritual community. Which one would you forgive? And which would you excommunicate?

Perhaps the Vatican is just using some extremely poor distraction tactics. Otherwise... well, they didn't quite come out and say that female = bad. But they have implied that men who are willing to assert their sexual dominance over children are more worthy of becoming priests than women. Could they have possibly chosen a distraction that wasn't completely offensive, hateful, and baseless? Almost anything else would do. Seriously.

What exactly makes men and women so spiritually different that one can inherently be a leader and one cannot? According to many religions, all people have souls, no matter what their gender. How can anatomy get in the way of the spiritual development of a person? How can reproductive organs and hormones limit one's capacity to lead a congregation?

And here come the onslaught of Bible verses, proof positive. Look, don't even think about quoting the Bible to me. I can do that, too. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you've worn mixed fabrics (Lev. 19:19) or eaten shellfish (Lev. 11:10). Maybe you even built a fire on Sunday (Exodus 35:3). I'll give you some leeway if you're a snake handler (Mark 16:17-18) but otherwise, enough of your picking and choosing. We wouldn't do many things in the Bible today: stone people to death, sell our daughters into slavery, or commit genocide. Why are women still being kept down?

One can only hope for a schism. The old church can continue to stand for corruption and sexism if it wants. I wait for a branch of Catholicism which recognizes the innate spiritual capacity of all people.