8/22/09


I was driving home from the store yesterday, listening to the radio. On one of the regular stations there was the most ignobly ridiculous discussion taking place, but I guess since it was evening it was permissible, being after hours. Anyway, whatever. The discussion was about the unconditional right of a woman to have frequent one night stands under the guise of "liberation" and equality with men. Of course, this isn't new, but just listening to that gal trying to defend and advocate habitual-- but not too habitual-- sexual experiences under the pretense of "equality" was rather fascinating. She explained that one of the disadvantages to this freeing concept was the fact that sexual intimacy "bonds individuals emotionally" (duh) and in an effort to avoid that nasty aspect of the one night stand scenario the woman has to be very careful getting in and out of there, quickly. But still she encouraged it saying, "Our culture has changed! No longer is it unacceptable for men and women to go out seeking an occasional sexual experience. No longer is it viewed as risqué or indecent, especially for women." Oh, what a relief. I was thinking our culture was getting a little too moral there for a while.

What I found so riveting was her lack of orientation in her reasoning, she adamantly wanted to demonstrate that all "women are just as much in control of their bodies as men are," yet she wound up floundering around in the sea of sexual wantonness in efforts to back up her allegiance. The discussion oscillated between "yes, go and get 'em tiger" and "but not too often;" she seemed to know there was supposed to be a balance someplace, but didn't quite know where and thus ended up promoting blatant promiscuity. I found that I wasn't just frustrated with her rather loose concept of virtue, but that she phlegmatically dumbed down sex to such a primordial level. She tore down the sacredness, the essence of such intimacy and flung it in the dog's bowl and rang the bell for dinner. As she desperately tried to make her point, she ended up rather illustrating how foolish and unbeautiful the concept of illicit relationships are. Sometimes I can't help but wish we were living back in the Victorian era.

7 comments:

Gwennie said...

I always find the blatency of the world in this area shocking. I have seen enough of it that I shouldn't be shocked anymore,but I am. Perhaps that's a good thing, though...

The Victorian era sounds pretty inviting, doesn't it? : )

Adam D. Dolce said...

This was an excellent post, Holly. Obviously you know my thoughts in this area.

I always thought it a curious thing when certain schools of women would actually hang their hats on the so-called "sexual liberation"-movement as a sign The Woman has been freed from the bonds of masculine oppression. The problem with such reliance is, and you rightly pointed out, the need to justify that kind of mentality. Which is an impossible thing for want of reason (among a litany of other pitfalls). This, of course, in addition to the logical consequence that such a mistaken view actually begets that which was allegedly shaken-free (viz. the control and freedom; there is no more enslaving chain than the shackles of one's own conscience).

Not to mention that though a woman may say this on the radio, or you see such a proliferation of this kind of conduct seemingly everywhere, I have to believe that deep-down a woman doesn't really want to be treated as a means to an end (sexual pleasure) but sees no other way to play ball (and as a result has to feign acceptance under the grand banner of liberation).

There is plenty of blame to go around for this, both genders, but when you create a generation of people not familiar with what accountability is (to God, to one's conscience, to others), you start to see not just a falling morality, nor a justification, but simply a union of how it is and how it ought to be. When the empirical world's reach never exceeds its normative grasp, you know things are going downhill fast.

Joshua Keel said...

Hey Holly,

I think the kind of thoughts the woman on the radio expressed stem from a root evolutionary worldview. Most people I know of who are atheists or hold to an evolutionary model of the world seem to view humans as just another animal, no better or worse than any other animal. Since morality doesn't seem to be a part of wild animals' behavior, why should it be a part of human behavior?

From what I remember of Francis Schaeffer's writings, he talks a lot about this. He talks about humanizing or re-humanizing versus de-humanizing or degrading.

holly daniele smith said...

Exactly. When there is the absence of moral accountability, the pendulum is free to swing wherever it chooses and succeeds, or thinks it succeeds, in justifying itself on the grounds of "everything is acceptable."

Elaine said...

I wholeheartedly agree. I don't like that people take sex lightly. To me, it isn't sex. It's an emotional bond between me and my husband, which the woman obviously recognizes but still happens to devalue it in her case. What I want is for people to have the same ideals and morals as they did back in the Victorian Era. People were much more dignified back then.

Sarah Alaoui said...

LOVE.

Jennifer said...

Funny thing. Sexual Lib really had very little to do with the ACT of sex. When women (or men or anyone) use it to justify free and indescriminate sex... I just have to laugh. Women's lib was a very powerful movement that we women should keep in our hearts to inspire us to keep striving, to be better people, to enjoy equality with men, etc. It is not some cheap excuse to throw around our bodies.
so yes, in a word, i agree with you and i like this post.