July 22, 2013
-
Is Your Moral Compass Between Your Legs?
Last year, Jessica Valenti (the founder of Feministing) visited my campus. I’d never heard of her before, and I must admit, I primarily attended the event to get bonus points for one of my classes. As soon as she began speaking, I realized that this was not a run-of-the-mill guest lecture. I was immediately intrigued.Valenti mostly discussed rape culture, but she also mentioned something called the virgin/whore dichotomy. According to this dichotomy, a woman is either seen as a virgin or a whore, and her value and worth are adjusted accordingly.
After the talk, I wanted to know more about this virgin/whore theory, and I found an article about it. The article states:
The message we’re getting is clear: for some reason, a woman’s sexual purity (or lack thereof) is not merely the choice or preference it is for men – it’s a reflection of her morals and values.
One of Valenti’s books, The Purity Myth, covers this topic in more depth. In the book, she writes:
While boys are taught that the things that make them men — good men — are universally accepted ethical ideals, women are led to believe that our moral compass lies somewhere between our legs.
Since the theory is dichotomous, it suggests that there is no “in between.” You’re either a virgin or you’re a whore – end of story. The theory also suggests that sexual activity does not serve as a reflection of men’s morals and values in the same way.
What do you think about the virgin/whore dichotomy? Does it exist? Can you fall somewhere in between? Does a woman’s sexual purity (or lack thereof) serve as a reflection of her morals and values? Should it? Does the same go for men’s sexual purity (or lack thereof)?
Comments (24)
This black and white ideology permeates many other aspects of our culture.
Are there that many girls these days that really view other girls as sluts for having sex or are they viewed that way because they cheat, lie and steal boyfriends or act predatory? I think this is where a lot of studies of the virgin/whore dichotomy gets it wrong on today's ideals. The girls that attain sex through means mentioned before are most often thought of as whores, not the girls who have occasional casual sex with single guys. If you look at men, I feel like the same measure is applied. Guys who sleep with unattached girls aren't looked down on that much. It is the guys who are players, who cheat, who steal girlfriends and who lead women on that are. I feel like the dichotomy used to be true to the times about 20 years ago and perhaps older generations. With Gen Y, not so much.
nope, she was just trying to promote her book with more psycho babble feminist theory bs
Only if you're a Christard/Jewtard/Muslimtard does it mean anything. But, as I've already established, religion is a mental illness and should be treated as such, so the answer is no, it means nothing about your moral compass.
Whatever it is that burns mightily between my legs, it isn't a moral compass. Of that I am certain.
To answer the title, totally. Unfortunately though, my heart gets a veto and so far, even in my most lonesome and desperate times, it has never not passed.As a male, my moral compass may be between my legs, but my heart is the ship and my mind is the captain. If my heart is broken, the other two go down with the ship. I know this because it has already happened.Women, on the other hand, have a problematic tendency of often taking orders from their crew... which ironically leads to them having on average more sexual partners than men their age. In general, we may have fewer (sexual) morals than women, but at least the ones we do have we follow passionately and with conviction.Some people only think with their genitals... but more women fall for those people than men.So go ahead. Victimize yourselves. The men who do follow a more purposeful moral calling only suffer with your personal mistakes as you blame them as a collective whole.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS246KKU5Dw"You’re so shallow How can your romance hope to be the veil of an ersatz human nature That can pacify but never slept well when there’s the pretension of living a lie? Take me as I am, judge me for my crimes I can say I’ll behave freely all the time "(If you're wondering, that was a reference to the fact that I'm a 20-something male who has sex with whoever he wants, and that has only ever been one person). If you gave in to your every sexual urge, how many partners would you have? How many do you have even though you don't?To put it all in perspective, never in my life have I been turned down for sex... but I have been turned down for commitment on numerous occasions.
The virgin whore dichotomy is the cultures representation of sexuality. The reality is different, and I don't think anyone would argue that. I enjoy what Jessica Valenti has to say about it.
On this topic, I do not believe in this theory. However, I can guess other people do, so I can't say that the theory isn't completely false. IMO though, there are more types of women between virgins and whores.
@secretbeerreporter@xanga - All great civilizations grew up around religion. So for your proclamation to be true, that religion is a mental illness, then all great civilization grew up around mental illness.You may establish anything you wish, but simple logic establishes your proclamation to be your usual stinky, steamy load of crap.Since atheism led to the greatest mass murders in human history and the greatest social catastrophies, it is atheism that is much more than a mental illness.Atheism is total madness.
I was going to say something, but then @Jenny_Wren@xanga said it. And she's a woman, so probably has better street cred.
It was more important for women to be "pure" because she didn't own property, she was property. If she got pregnant, someone had to support and take care of the baby, which would fall to the man in her life. What man wants to support another man's baby?
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove@xanga - And here we go to the dichotomy of either religion or atheism. Such opposing and contrasting labels to apply to two groups of people, neither of which know for certain whether they are right. Both groups have more in common than not. You'd think they'd be working together to learn more about the universe with no preconceived notions, or at least that after the hundreds of thousands of years of humans seeking the truth of such a matter it would be seen as insignificant or put off until further evidence is brought to light, rather than, you know, wasting time and energy debating back and forth the same tired-ass arguments.As idiotic as it may be to believe in something for which there is no proof, it is equally stupid to believe that something does not exist because there is no proof. @secretbeerreporter@xanga - To base one's beliefs on the premise that the universe is confined to our perception is a rather fantastical argument in itself; one that cannot be disproved. Yours is a set of beliefs that suggests all of existence is somehow tailored to a person's biological makeup so as to allow them the ability to perceive all things.I have a feeling it would be less difficult for people to understand if beings even only slightly more powerful than us still walked the Earth. Of course, when it comes to anything that even remotely occupied their range of intelligence or physical ability, humans either killed, ate, or had sex with it... but we conveniently strike this fact from our collective memories, perhaps out of shame, and it's easy to live in this bubble we created for ourselves with the delusion that we are set apart from the rest either by "evolution" or an act of God.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - There is nothing wrong with dichotomy where it is appropriate.Digital electronics use ON-OFF. And a properly informed and developed conscience understands the difference between good and evil - another appropriate dichotomy.Human beings and civilization need religion. Religion provides the mental, spiritual and social structure that is necessary for high level civilization to develop.Atheism is a provably bogus belief system that has proven to fail when it is an integral property of a governing regime.As a result your claim that the dichotomy between religion and atheism is somehow inappropriate doesn't reflect reality.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove@xanga - First of all, I never claimed the dichotomy is "inappropriate", I claimed it is idiotic and inefficient. Your reply does not reflect reality."Atheism is a provably bogus belief system that has proven to fail when it is an integral property of a governing regime."Just as giving a monkey toilet paper is arguably a bogus idea. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be healthier and all-around better off using it. If you're familiar with shaping and training animals, you'd know that previous failure doesn't indicate that teaching a trick is impossible. You think because the dog didn't sit the first few times he was asked that means it's always going to fail. Such is human regime. You can argue that anything will never work so long as you've tried before, failed, and find excuses to not try again, even if you'd be better off if it did.Sorry to tell you, kid... but even dichotomous computers can fail to boot 5 times in a row and work on the 6th try with no apparent reason. I see it all the time. Hardware is only predictable insofar as it works the way it's supposed to. Humans are clearly not working the way they're supposed to, so predicting failure is pretty fucking redundant. There are no electronics (or software) with instructions that if it fails to boot (x) times, just give up and don't try again. Why? Because the simple ADDITION of an instruction may change the outcome. Are you aware of ALL of the parameters of governing regimes that were based on atheist values? Even if you are, you are actually ignorant enough to believe that there is nothing that can be ADDED or CHANGED about one to make it work?
OLD
Jessica is Awesome. I'm one of Her biggest fans ♥♥
I see a guy as either: friendzoned or mcdreamy guys that don't know me usually think i'm a conservative prude, but I act that way towards guys that I've friendzoned. for the few mcdreamies, whom have known me personally, they think i'm sexy and feistyI haven't had a lot of sexual physical activity, but I've mindfucked some guys and maybe bruised their ego in the process, because sex itself isn't what I want, I'll brainwash them until they become a pile of goo in my hands. I'm the bossy diva in control of their soul they don't know it because I'm the she-devil in a bunny suit roleplaying is funny. sometimes I'm a softie with my heart on my sleeve. then the guy steals my heart and doesn't give it back, so I hop towards him and sock him in the arm really hard to get his attention then I'm like, omg I just punched the loveofmylife, what's up with me then I'm not a virgin/whore or diva but a softie schoolgirl again. its a vicious cycle of cruella deville versus thumper from bambi. i'm not sure if i'm the flirty girl rabbit or the lovestruck thumper. who says I can't be all of them
@T3hZ10n@xanga - 1. Here is you commenting on the inappropriate dichotomy of religion and atheism: And here we go to the dichotomy of either religion or atheism.2. Here is you arguing with yourself: I never claimed the dichotomy is "inappropriate", I claimed it is idiotic and inefficient. 3. Here is you citing monkey toilet paper as your authoritative source of bogus ideas, in impeccable English I might add: Just as giving a monkey toilet paper is arguably a bogus idea.I GIVE UP! YOU WIN!!
There is a middle ground between virgin and whore. Here is a seemingly blantant, obvious example; a chaste woman marries, has sex with her husband, and sometime later he dies (for whatever reason.) She is not a virgin anymore, but neither is/was she a whore.What if a woman had sex with one man who then beat her and cheated on her, so she left him. Is she now seen as a whore? I don't think so, nor do I think most people would.This dichotomous theory is too restrictive. It's not always just one or the other. A whore is not just a woman who has engaged in sex, but typically one who has had indescriminate sex with multiple partners usually without longterm feelings for them, and often for monetary gain (aka prostitute) though in today's society it seems more women are living that sexual lifestyle without even the payment.
Crap i have too many credits, here's a mini that does not make sense!
First of all, NOTHING is two sided I this world. ESPECIALLY sex related topics. The author sounds pretty damned biased if this is her opinion.Second, my opinion is this is a load of complete shit.Three, this is crap because of all the variables such as if a woman gets raped. Does that make her a whore? NO! It means she was a freaking victim.
@nepenthium@xanga - First, I agree with what she said. Whoever she is is just there to promote her book. ____________________________________________________________________Dichotomies exist for everyone. There are gender roles that society puts on men as well. EVERYONE has a choice to either be what society thinks they should be or decide what is right for them and live with the consequences of their actions. Like @Jenny_Wren@xanga - said, whether you are male or female your sexual choices are a reflection of your morals and values. If you want to have strings free sex then you are rejecting the idea that sex should be something shared between two people who love each other, you are rejecting a value and therefore it reflects what you do value."While boys are taught that the things that make them men — good men — are universally accepted ethical ideals, women are led to believe that our moral compass lies somewhere between our legs. "ARE YOU SERIOUS????? Wow. No. I am pretty sure everyone I know whether they were male or female were taught how to be good people and not that their value/moral compass lies within their genitalia.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove@xanga - I really didn't expect more from you than a short, derisive reply that neither addresses any of the points I made or adds anything to the discussion. So here is mine.
I think someone's sexual activity does reflect their values, but not necessarily their morals (although it can reflect someone's morals under certain circumstances.) If we define values as being what a person believes to be important, then, yes, a person's sexual activity can reflect that. For example, if it's important to someone to have a sex just for the sake of having sex, they'll probably have more sexual partners. If they think it's important to be in some sort of committed relationship/have strong feelings for the other person/be in love/etc before having sex, chances are, they'll have fewer sexual partners, because it takes time to get to that point.If morals are to be defined as being a "good" person, whatever that means to each individual, I see that as being less tied to sexuality than expressions of what is important, but not completely separate. Someone's morality wouldn't necessarily have to depend on how many people they had sex with, but their motives. If one has sex for the mutual enjoyment and benefit of both partners, that's different than using sex (or lack thereof) as a form of manipulation.
Comments are closed.