https://bridgetphetasy.substack.com/p/slut-regret
We keep seeing more and more of these kinds of pieces from women who finally realize (and many who don't) the consequences of being a "slut". I wonder how long it'll take for more people to pay attention.
13 comments:
Hopefully it will become common. However, this chick still doesn't seem to fully get it. Did you come away with that as well?
Oh, I definitely think she's not all the way to where she'll likely end up, but it's still an excellent take on what 2nd and 3rd wave feminism has gotten us. I actually want to read the book she mentions.
I wonder if I could possibly objectify such a woman more than she's done so herself.
That's pretty progressive of you to affirm this progressive woman in her opinions about healthy sexuality. Of course, I see that you and Marshal got all patriarchal in your comments. Still, it's a step in the right direction.
Anon,
Your comment makes me wonder if you actually read the entire piece. She seems pretty clear that she's acknowledging that she's realizing that the "progressive" narrative about "healthy sexuality" has been incredibly unhealthy for her.
I guess thinking that promiscuity, hooking up, and using sex to fill voids in people's lives is a problem for you.
I'm not sure what you objectify comment means in relation to this post.
That was me. Not sure why it showed up as "Anonmyous."
This woman is clearly recognizing the harmful, unhealthy more conservative way she'd grown up as it relates to sexuality.
"Because from a young age, sex was something I was lied to about.
Long before I ever had sex, I felt ashamed of my natural sexual urges and awkward in my blossoming female body. Growing up Catholic, all I remember about sex was feeling bad about it before I even knew what “it” was. I only knew that sex before marriage was wrong. Even the thought of a sexual act or masturbation filled me with debilitating guilt. The first time I kissed a boy, I was convinced I’d be punished. Struck down by an angry, misogynistic God.
As I got older, I was told to guard my virginity. Well-meaning mothers and aunts were clear that I needed to withhold sex in order to get a man to love and respect me. Sex was a commodity, a priceless gem I had to hang on to that increased in value the longer I held it. It made me feel like property."
All of that is correct and a problem with much of the traditional/conservative way of approaching human sexuality. It's pretty progressive of you to acknowledge that.
Something I've learned from my more progressive friends and some of my conservative ones is just what she says...
"Casual sex is fraught with insecurity and miscommunication; intimacy and love are punch lines."
That is, not all liberals (or most?) think that casual, "promiscuous," un-tethered sex is a good thing. SOME liberals think this, just as some conservatives do. But at least in my circles, such liberals are a tiny minority. I do know that, along with the revolution of liberty for women that has happened in our lifetime, there has been SOME push-back against traditional "conservative" sexual ideas, but I'm just noting that it's not anything like a universal thing in progressive world to promote or encourage "casual sex."
The mantra tends to be, at least in my circles, healthy sexual attitudes and practices. And that can be different from person to person. I suspect for most of us, "casual sex" and multiple partners is not a goal or a practice, because it's not viewed as healthy or life-affirming.
She's acknowledging this.
I wonder: Is it the case that you think the majority of liberals promote "casual sex..."? Myself, I don't know the answer, I'm just noting I don't see it in my circles which, admittedly, are more Christian/spiritual/religious circles, but I also don't see it in my non-religious liberal friends (with some exceptions - just as was true for my non-religious conservative friends).
"I'm not sure what you objectify comment means in relation to this post."
If this was in response to my last comment, I think such women objectify themselves in the manner those like Dan pompously accuse those he tries to demonize.
"Because from a young age, sex was something I was lied to about."
What's interesting is that I agree that she was given bad information about sex, or it seems possible that she might have misunderstood what she was told as well.
In either case, I'm not sure that "lied to" is appropriate. Lying, by definition, carries the intent to give someone false information. Yet we don't have any way to know or judge the intent of the people she references, nor do we have any way to judge her interpretation of what she was told. What you seem to be ignoring is that she was also lied to by society, and by those who sold 2nd/3rd wave feminism and hookup culture. To ignore the second lie, seems to miss the point.
"But at least in my circles, such liberals are a tiny minority."
This sentence renders the rest of the paragraph meaningless to me. "Your circles" don't represent the entirety of all "liberals" in the US. Hell, I have no way to determine if you are accurately representing "your circles". Anytime you try to extrapolate from "your circles", I simply ignore whatever conclusion you present.
"Is it the case that you think the majority of liberals promote "casual sex..."?"
Not necessarily. What I do think is that 2nd/3rd wave feminism has promoted this idea that women are "empowered" by having casual, sex in the way that they believe men do. I think that there is a segment of our culture in which people believe that it's possible, and even healthy to try to separate sex from everything else. I think that it's more about age than political affiliation, although I suspect that younger conservatives are less likely to buy into this cultural shift than younger liberals. I also suspect that those who don't have a political affiliation probably tend toward this culture as well.
Art,
I'm not seeing a comment from Dan on this thread about objectifying women. Although I agree with what I believe your point is, that women objectifying themselves have to be taken into account.
If a woman is publicly objectifying herself, then wouldn't it be safe to assume that she expects those who see her to objectify her?
If she's doing so for money, wouldn't that be more True?
In this time when anything goes in terms of "sexual orientation and gender", wouldn't it be equally as bad for a woman to objectify another woman? Or a man objectifying another man? Or a trans woman objectifying a biological woman?
"promote "casual sex..."?""
Like many things I think it's more of a spectrum.
One one end you have the liberals who actively promote/encourage/engage in this "hookup culture". In the middle you might have liberals who actively accept and encourage this "hookup culture", but don't participate. On the other end you might have liberals who simply accept the "hookup culture" as something that people are doing and don't have any problems with it.
I feel like I have to note that Dan has done a couple of things here.
1. He's taken the piece I linked to and he's prooftexted a couple of quotes out of context to "mansplain" what the author actually meant.
2. He's expecting me to simply accept his characterization of what "liberals" think, based on his interpretation of what his "circles" think.
3. He's apparently unaware of the increasing number of women across the political and religious spectrum who have reached the same conclusion as the author, and are publicly speaking out on the issue. WK regularly posts links to articles/op eds from women who have similar experiences.
It seems like Dan is suggesting that I should ignore what women are saying, in favor of his biased reporting of what his "circles" allegedly think.
Here are just a few examples of WK pointing out what people who buy into this culture are saying, and what studies are showing.
What's interesting is the link between this "hook up" culture and drinking/drug use. It's almost like people know that the need mind altering substances in order to ignore what their conscience is telling them is wrong.
I suspect that Dan will focus more on the "source" (WK), than on the substance and the sources that are linked to,
https://winteryknight.com/2022/08/23/has-greater-acceptance-of-the-sexual-revolution-improved-the-mental-health-of-kids/
https://winteryknight.com/2018/05/08/feminisms-new-plan-to-achieve-lasting-happiness-without-giving-up-promiscuity/
https://winteryknight.com/2016/01/23/women-under-the-influence-of-feminism-are-willing-participants-in-the-hook-up-culture-2/
https://winteryknight.com/2022/06/07/older-career-woman-calls-dennis-prager-show-to-warn-young-women-about-marriage-2/
https://winteryknight.com/2021/12/26/sex-and-the-city-inspiration-candace-bushnell-reaches-age-60-childless-and-alone-2/
https://winteryknight.com/2021/10/30/new-study-virgins-have-happiest-marriages-more-sex-partners-means-more-unhappiness-3/
https://winteryknight.com/2021/06/26/more-and-more-women-are-asking-why-they-cant-find-a-good-man-to-marry-6/
https://winteryknight.com/2021/10/08/study-explains-why-university-women-embrace-binge-drinking-and-hook-ups/
https://winteryknight.com/2021/08/25/new-study-college-students-drink-more-before-casual-sex-than-relationship-sex-3/
Post a Comment