"Why do the most succesful young female pop stars bear a striking resemblance to strippers?"- Adele Lang & Susi Rajah

I must admit the latest book I read is not a feminist book. The author is not a feminist. The subject of the book isn't feminism. The purpose of the book is not to argue a feminist theory. However, the issues the book confronts does relate to issues that various feminists have been trying to solve for years.

The title of the book is "Smut: A Sex Industry Insider (and Concerned Father) says Enough Is Enough." It's written by a man called Gil Reavill. As a freelance writer he has written for a variety of magazines. His most notorious employers being Penthouse, Screw, and Maxim. Though he isn't now, he was connected deeply with the sex industry starting in the 1980's. Especially through the magazine Screw, he had come face to face with major faucets of the industry including marketing strategies. With connections to prostitutes and porn stars, through the companies he has seen all the tricks used in advertising. So why write a book about it? Why let all the 'secrets' out?

Today Reavill is married and is not like the wild thing he was in his twenties when he first got involved in the sex industry. He now has a daughter, one who is at the age when sex and the media really start to make impressions. Concerned, he wrote a book to show other parents just what could be happening to their children.

One chapter that I thought was rather creepy because it gave me the 'I knew it!' feeling was chapter fourteen. Title "The Jean Pool," this short chapter discusses fashion. Reavill starts off the chapter by suggesting that "the issue of fashion drives much of the disturbance over cultural values" (p.95). He argues that part of the problem with fashion is the generation gap. His reasoning is that when he was a kid he's parents hated the length of his hair. Since the beginning of time parents have always had issues with what their children wore and how they acted; they've always had trouble with the tastes of new generations. However, this time around the culture, specifically the fashion, should not be dismissed as a generation gap issue. There is a serious problem.

Reavill has an interesting way to look at it: "it's a new oxymoron: naked fashion" (p.97). He argues on that line suggesting that "By an unfortunate chain of events, the stripper has become the default setting for female chic" (p.97).

Flip through magazines like Elle and InStyle and you'll models and celebrities wearing highly suggestive lingerie and clothing that has little relevance to articles and whatnot. But here's the problem: "overtly sexual fashion advertising extends to publications aimed at teens, especially those targeted to young girls" (p.98). Cosmogirl, Teen People, and Seventeen are the major culprits. You'll find issues that often have advertisements for a clothing brand call "fcuk," "which is supposed to stand for "French Connection United Kingdom" but is merely a bad-faith way to drop the f-bomb" (p.98). Their ads feature an underwear clad young couple with the tagline for the companies perfume "Scent to Bed." There are other ads for the company featuring a young girl wearing a small t-shirt with the words "Too Busy to Fcuk" on it.

Then there are just plain t-shirts from regular companies with sayings on them, graphic tee's. However, they are not innocent and simple. In a usual American retail store, which Reavill did not name, he found some rather interesting ones with lines like "Eenie, meenie, minie mo, suck my d**k you f***king ho," "I Love Penis," and "I'm on my way home to masturbate."

In the advertising world these practices are called "hebephilia, which is the technical term for sexually fetishizing teenagers" (p.99). A master of hebephilia is Abercrombie & Fitch. Their catalogue is not sold to anyone under eighteen, and for good reason. It contains photos of topless and almost completely naked models all in usually suggestive or erotic positions. Some of the photographs would put Helmut Newton to shame. Here's what one ad said in their "Christmas Field Guide:

Sex, as we know, can involve one or two, but what about even more? The menage a
trois (three way) in not an uncommon arrangement. An orgy can involve an
unlimited quantity of potential lovers. Groups can be mixed-gender or same-sex,
friendly or anonymous. A pleasant and super safe alternative is group
masturbation

He concludes "Wait a minute. I know this stuff. It's porn - porn imagery, porn logic, porn impure and simple. The boundaries have been breached between the smut underworld I inhabited back in the early 1980's and the mainstream world my daughter lives in today" (P.99).

Are feminists overreacting?

"Why is it a man's world when there are more women than men in it?"-Adele Lang & Susi Rajah

There's a really fun chapter in "Virgins: A Cultural History" that I have just got to share with you. I just cannot start writing posts on the next book I've read without discussing it. The most important topic that I'm talking about it is 'how to spot a virgin.' This is in fact what Bernau discusses in chapter one.

During the Middle Ages religion was ingrained into everything: government, books, art, common thought, music, and everyday life. Catholicism ruled all. Of course women had no say in religion. The Roman Catholic Church was even more stick about laymen and the church and women and the Church back then than they are now. However, women were given someone special to look up to: the Virgin Mary. I suppose one could say that the Catholic Church is known for it's icons (that's why there was a schism in 1054 C.E.). Of course everyone worships God and Jesus, but there are also saints for people to pray to. For women it's the Virgin Mary and it's always been her. Yes there are many other female saints (icons), but Mary is always marketed first to women (Bernau 2007). During the Middle Ages the Church was behind praying to Mary 100%. Why you may ask. Because she was 'the perfect woman.' First off she's a virgin. Back then virginity was everything: it determined how people looked at you, how people gossiped about you, and how you could marry (Bernau 2007). The Mother of Christ was also pure, motherly, caring, selfless, a good housekeeper; she was basically the perfect wife and mother. So, naturally the Church, being dominated by the dominant sex, would put her on a pedestal.

Obviously you can't determine virginity, but how did the backwards doctors of the Middle Ages think you could? Doctors believed that there were several symptoms of chastity. There were obvious ones that could be found in everyday acts like "shame, modesty, fear, a faultless gait and speech, casting eyes down before men and the acts of men" (Bernau 2007). Other signs were downward pointing breast and urine that is clear and lucid (sometimes white and sparkling) (Bernau 2007). Actually urine was the key to determining virginity (Bernau 2007). Because the vagina of a virgin is closed, thus her passage is narrower and more constrictive, and a woman's is open, a virgin urinates from higher up and when she urinates a hissing noise is produced due to the higher pressure in a closed vagina (Bernau 2007). A more commonly known way to determine a virgin is that she bleeds and experiences extreme pain upon intercourse (her first act of intercourse that is) (Bernau 2007). However, a popular way to determine virginity was through the uterus. It was once believed that the uterus of a virgin was less flexible so it was not easily manually manipulated by a midwife (Bernau 2007). Midwives believed that virginity could also be determined through the labia and pubic hair: "in those women that are married, they lie lower and smoother than in maids; when maids are ripe they are full of hair that grows upon them, but they are more curled in women than the hair of Maidens" (Bernau 2007).

Is being a virgin a very feminist thing to do? Feminism is about being your own woman. You make your own decisions and you don't let men tell you what to do or influence your opinion. If virginity is right for you go for it! Just make sure the decision is our own choice and you're doing it for yourself. Naomi Wolf, one of the most well-known feminists from third-wave feminism, believes that women must learn to accept each other (Wolf 1991). They must learn to respect one another's choices. Until women learn to get along with one another it will be hard for any significant advances to be made in feminism (Wolf 1991). So made your own opinions concerning virginity but please, respect others.

"Why is cooking "women's work" when the world's most celebrated chefs are men?"-Adele Lang & Susi Rajah

It's all a conspiracy. Seriously. Virgins: A Cultural History by Anke Bernau really portrays that all of life is a conspiracy against women.

The 19th and the early 20th centuries were periods of industrial growth and progress. For many countries it was also a period of war and revolution. It's true that great strides were made in the movement for women's equality during that time. But great steps were also taken against women in forms like the propaganda of the Cult of Domesticity. This Cult of True Womanhood, Bernau suggests, was really just a cover up. It was created by men, for men. The male race, or rather the white male race, only looked to preserve itself.

For example, during that time period women began to have more of a public life. They began to venture out of their homes and become involved in jobs or community affairs, and even gain more of an education. However, critiques from that time period argued, explains Bernau, that "a highly educated woman would take on masculine character traits which would frighten men off; as a result of this, these men would end up visiting prostitutes and marrying women from lower social classes, which would result in an overall weakening of the race" (p.148). And it wasn't all about the weakening of the homo sapiens race, it was the white male race. "Education and work were both threats to women's health and, by extension, to the survival of the (white) race and civilization" (p.147).

Isn't it amazing how men can be both sexist and racist at the same time?

But where does feminism and virginity come into play? How does it connect? Obviously, in almost every culture in all the years up to the mid 20th century virginity was used to keep women in line. All churches enforced it. Men and society pressured women to uphold it. But in the 1960's a sex revolution swept the world. During this 'revolution' not only did women gain more rights in society than ever before but they were also given sexual equality. Since then women have become sexually aggressive and dominate in many instances. Bernau points out that another change in women's history is coming. There will be a movement for women will go back to a state of "idealized childhood purity" (p.153). However, in this case women will be the ones encouraging 'virginity.' This time around virginity will be used as a means for actual empowerment (saying no and having self-respect is quite powerful) and a way to decrease the damages cause by self-objectification (see Prude for more details on the self-objectification of women).

But what will happen to women if they go back to the traditions of the olden days? Will virginity, and only virginity, become vogue or will all the ideals of the Cult of True Womanhood become popular? Will women revert back to their submissive places in society and give up their rights? Will this actually bring empowerment to women and bring true equality to women? Many years ago it was believed that becoming sexually equal to men would solve all problems of sexism and inequality, but in actuality it exacerbated the situation.

"If you can rape a woman for dressing like a whore, why can't you shoot a man for dressing like a thug?" - Adele Lang & Susi Rajah

Rape.

A simple four letter word. Personally, I like four letter words. They're the only ones I manage to come up with when playing Scrabble. But unfortunately 'rape' is not simple.

Chapter four in "Virgins: A Cultural History" by Anke Bernau really stood out. One of the topics she covers under the chapter heading 'Repugnant to the Common Good' is indeed rape. At first I thought she was going to dissect the evils of being raped back in the Middle Ages. She does cover this but also makes a connection to modern times. During her discussion on the legal issues facing victims of rape she comes to a rather vile conclusion: there is such a thing as a 'true' rape victim. In order to be considered truly raped a woman must be able to meet five basic criteria:

(a) either be virginal or chaste; (b) be clear-headed enough to pursue or cause
others to pursue her offender shortly after her violation; (c) ensure she is
raped in a remote place; (d) ensure that her attacker flees the scene of the
crime; (e) make sure that, despite the remoteness of the location, there are
others who can testify to her good character and her version of the events (p.
165).

In actuality these characteristics were created by a 17th century judge by the name of Sir Matthew Hale. For centuries he has been the best friend of rapists everywhere. He argues, as well as his followers, that a large percent of the rapes cases are actually false charges. Women cry rape in cases of revenge, in cases where there is a great shame of losing her virtue (outside of marriage) and so the blame on the man, in cases of avoiding disgrace due to pregnancy, and in cases of many other lowly schemes. Thus, when a rape charge comes to trial it is insisted that juries keep in mind 'innocent until proven guilty.' In fact there are laws in many countries that protect rapists and sex offenders alike. Yes, it is rather democratic in believing 'innocent until proven guilty' but why would a woman cries rape?

The act of rape is extremely draining emotionally. Obviously there is trauma for the women concerning the events leading up to the rape and the rape itself. There is also trauma during the entire process of convicting a rapist. In front of a variety of people a woman must critically explain the rape in detail and defend herself time after time as to why the event was actually a rape. During this process she becomes dehumanized after exposing private aspects of her life and discussing an intimately traumatic event. Why would a woman want purposely put herself through all of this?

"It is therefore not surprising that many women are afraid to report having been raped" (p.165). Even though some laws exist that prevent questioning of a woman's sexual past during a rape trial, a woman's reputation is still scrutinized. Thus the victim is punished for breaking the silence (p.165). But this 'punishment' is actually an improvement from what the consequences of rape was centuries ago. During the Middle Ages virginity was put on a pedestal, it was the ultimate essence of purity. A rape during that time was considered very tragic. Though, tragedy was only applied to virgins of high standing (p.156). At various times throughout the Middle Ages and the centuries that followed, known prostitutes who cried rape were disregarded. Similarly to today, a woman's history was scrutinized, but it was much worse. Depending on the case, rapes were sometimes solved by having the rapist and victim marry (p.156). The level of damage felt by the victim was determined by social standing. Compensation for the rape was also determined by social status along with the success of the trial (p.159).

In general women were believed to by untrustworthy. They were not believed even if rape threatened the precious virginity of the Middle Ages. Generally it was believed that a woman was "by nature sensual and lascivious [and] because of her perceived 'instinct for pleasure'" (p.157) a woman would likely end up enjoying the 'rape.' It was also believed that "women who say no do not always mean no" (p.158). Keep in mind that during that time period a "woman's sexuality was most usually described in a language that associated it with sinfulness and, by extension, with whoredome" (p.159) making anything remotely sexual about a woman under suspect. But has anything really changed in these past centuries?

One of my favorite books is "I'm Not a Feminist, But..." by Adele Lang & Susi Rajah. It's just a compilation of questions and doesn't have any heavy text to it. But the questions are very thought provoking. (fyi: the titles for my posts are quotes from this book) In addition to the controversies Bernau brought up I would like to bring up a few more via question from this book:

• If women get raped because they ask for it, why don't they ever get the equal pay, equal opportunities, and other things they ask for?
  
• If women are so much more "easy" these days, why are date-rape drugs so popular?


• Is it because Rohypnol, the date-rape drug, costs less than five dollars a pop that men think women who have sex on the first date are "cheap"?


• Why is it less of a crime to rape a woman if the rapist takes her out to dinner first?


• Why are women warned to stay in at night for their own safety when home is the place they're most likely to be assaulted?


• Why do even the female victims of rape or murder have to be attractive to get media attention?

"How many Islamic extremists men would blow themselves up if they were told feminists, not virgins, awaited them in heaven?" Adele Lang & Susi Rajah

Just last week I finished a fantastic book. Titled Virgins: A Cultural History by Anke Bernau, this book takes a brief look at the history of the concept of virginity from the Middle Ages to modern times. I chose this book because it shared a similar topic with the last book I read.

But before I delve into the fifth chapter I want to share some general information about the book. First off I did indeed find this book under women's studies in my local bookstore. However, this book technically deserves to be shelved under history (says it on the back cover). The book deals with history and not opinions and feminist theory. Also, I would like to point out this book was written by a medieval literature professor. A lot of her studies and degrees deal with virginity and women in the Middle Ages, but she is not a proclaimed feminist. So this book has more of history viewpoint than a feminist viewpoint. Then why is it under women's studies? Well this book is a study about women. Just because it's under the category of women's studies doesn't mean it has to be about feminism (stupid chauvinists).

The author starts off by examining what she deems 'sexual politics.' "Sex and politics have a long and intimately entwined history; they share in turn a close proximity with scandal" (p.168). Bernau argues that this is so because the nexus of sex and politics continuously crosses the line between 'public' and 'private.' So what does that have to do with virginity? What do political sex scandals have to do with regular citizens? Plenty.

"The idea of modern individual identity - and what it means to be an individual - has become absolutely inextricable from sexual identity" (p.169). Carol Liebau covered this issue in her book. The 'do-me feminism' of the early 90's brought about a rise in sexual aggression and soon 'having sex like a man' became popular. Its popularity put pressure on young girls to practice 'do-me feminism' because of the fear of either not getting a guy ('boyfriend') or being left out. Still, what does this have to do with politics? Well, "individual choice is at the core of capitalist ideology [and] community or national welfare must also be considered in the governance of a body politic" (p.169). And politics has a definitive interest in the community when it comes to sex. Hand in hand with sex comes STD's (the AIDs crisis anyone?), fluxuating birth rates (being a competitive and powerful country the US needs 'healthy' looking birth records), issues with welfare (unwed, young, single mothers), and the reproduction of poverty. So politics and sex are indeed linked. But what does this have to do with virginity; it's the subject of the book after all?

"So called virginity movements are becoming increasingly politically powerful and successful in such countries as the United States, where the Bush administration has ploughed millions of dollars into abstinence-only sex education in schools" (p.171). It is because of this sexual and political movement that virginity is actually becoming an issue. At the core of this movement is the belief in abstinence only sex education. Bernau argues that there are eight components to that version of sex education which are also the eight components of the movement:

(1) Sexually transmitted diseases can be caught; (2) A
baby may result; (3) Most people prefer new things to second-hand things; (4)
Casual sex takes the trust out of our future marriage; (5) Casual sex is a lie;
(6) Casual sex can cause depressions; (7) concentrating on sex can spoil or even
prevent a friendship; (8) God has a better plan. (p.173)

Are you rolling your eyes?

"If intelligent women are unaffected by images in the media, why do a quarter of female college students develop eating disorders?"-Adele Lang & Susi

I figured that before I start posting stuff on the new book I read I should probably post something on the first chapter of Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!). Since the first chapter in both books provided an overview of book I figured it would probably be a good idea to post something on the first chapter.

Carol Platt Liebau starts off by discussing just how amazing the modern American woman really is. "By most measures, young women in America have never had it better" (p. 2). She mentions that girls are more likely to graduate from high school, attend college, and graduate from college. Just a short while ago it was uncommon to find girls on a college campus let alone consist of 56% of the undergraduate student body (p. 3). She also points out how more girls are attending high-level math and science courses than boys. And don't forget about all the accomplishments made during the waves of feminism. So what?

"Given the breathtaking opportunities before them and the magnificent advantages they enjoy, it would seem that American society has treated young girls with enormous generosity. And in many ways, it has. But not all the changes in recent years have been to the good" (p. 3). So what are these bad changes? Well in Liebau's opinion it's the changing attitudes towards sex that the 'do-me feminists' brought into the picture.

“Today, American girls are forced to navigate a minefield more challenging, difficult, and pressure-filled than ever before when it comes to one vital topic: sex” (p. 3). Sex is everywhere” form music, to magazines, to movies, to books, to tv, and even to school. Does anyone remember Paris Hilton’s famous catch phrase “That’s Hot”? Just like her observation, everything from lipstick to cameras is now ‘sexy.’ Sex has basically become unavoidable. Society is completely saturated with it (p. 7). And this transformation into a sex obsessed society began with the sex revolution in the last half of the 20th century. But how could a simple movement with only good intentions turn sour? Unfortunately Liebau does not answer this question with great detail. The point of her book is to examine the negative effects of the sex revolution rather then discuss the history of it. She does mention that the privatization of religion and its disappearance from the public has left girls with little understanding of chastity (p. 9). She also believes that parents today are not as quick to criticize for correct sexual behavior in young girls because they do not want to be seen as overly judgmental or hypocritical. I personally believe it was the free market but maybe I've been influenced by Wolf too much.

So what exactly are these negative effects? What's so wrong with being sexually aggressive? What exactly is so wrong with talking about a part of human nature in the same carefree manner as talking about the weather? Well "this relentless emphasis on sex has eroded the standards by which young women have traditionally been able to win appreciation and recognition for something more than their sexiness" (p. 7). Furthermore, because sexiness is based upon appearance and appearance goes hand in hand with the trendsetters (designers, celebrities etc.) girls become obsessive about their looks; and rarely is an obsession ever considered healthy. There goes the emotional and mental health of girls everywhere down the tubes. And let's not forget the physical health complications, like STD's and pregnancy, girls everywhere face.

She doesn't really say much else. She does go into a tangent on clothing, books, and the media and how they have become sexualized. In later chapters she goes into detail how these ever present elements in the lives of young girls do damage, but her reasoning is not a good as another book I'm currently reading. So I'm not going into detail. However, I would like to share with you her final statement in chapter one (it's really mind boggling): "Like the concept of chastity itself, it seems that prude -- derived from a term that used to denote honor and virtue-- has almost become a badge of shame. Apparently, scarlet letters still exist in American life. But ironically, it's now the chaste who must wear them" (p. 13).

After reading this abstinence promoting feminist book I am left with a few questions. Why aren’t there more books or ad campaigns that aim abstinence at guys? Why does abstinence only apply to girls? Why is it one-sided?

"Why is it that if a woman sleeps with lots of men she's a slut, but if she refuses to sleep with any of them she's a bitch?"- Adele Lang & Susi Rajah

In the final chapter of "Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, too!)" the author, Carol Platt Liebau, leaves the readers with a final nine points and a brief conclusion. I would like to share them with you.

#1. Her first point is that "We Are Not Alone." She states that there are indeed millions of Americans who are concerned about the presence of sex in America. So, if you are a 'prude' like her you should not feel alone. A large percentage of America believes that those who hold this concern "have no right to exercise our own judgment about what's suitable for the public square" (p. 232). Liebau believes that these people, who are the ones to advocate sex, should be ignored.

#2. Her second point is that "It Is Possible to Change the Culture." Today, we live in a society that is permeated with sex, but something can be done about it. Years ago American society was permeated with alcohol and cigarettes. Though both are still issues in society they are not a 'popular' as they once were. Commercials for alcohol now feature a statement that says "please drink responsibly." Smoking is banned in most public areas and is not symbols for sophistication (e.g. Breakfast at Tiffany's) as they once was. "It wasn't because of government regulation, which, in most cases, conformed to public opinion rather than shaping it. Social attitudes about smoking changed because Americans came to realize that smoking --like drunk driving-- was a problem..." (p. 234). Liebau believes that this can be applied to sex as well. "Change can (and will) come, but only when a critical mass of Americans decide that the tangible and intangible costs imposed by gratuitous sex in the public square are unacceptably high, and that it's more important to protect young people's innocence than it is to exercise our right to be exposed in public to titillating words and images" (p. 237).

#3. Her third point is that "Give Girls Great Expectations, and Break the Vicious Cycle." She argues that girls today "believe that boys are unwilling to or incapable of establishing relationships that aren't based on sex" (p. 237). This has become ingrained in women since the onset of "do-me feminism." This idea that is stuck in their heads is pushing girls flaunt their sexuality so they can get a guy. To cure Americans of this picture Liebau suggests that "young women need to realize that their own behavior determines the quality of the guys they will attract. Sleazy behavior appeals to sleazy guys" (p. 237).

#4. Her fourth (and surprising point) concerns guys: "Don't Forget the Boys." The "do-me feminist" culture has caused men to view women as "easy." They've learned to harbor little respect for women (nowadays you'll find girls being referred to bitches, ho's, sluts, and hoochies by their boys, and you'll especially find this terminology in music lyrics) and expect nothing from them except one-sided pleasure during hookups. To solve this problem Liebau suggests that boys be taught how to be gentlemen.

#5. Her fifth point is that "Chastity Isn't Just a Religious Matter." Chastity, her main argument as a solution for the sex-obsessed culture, has become strictly associated with religion. We must change this image. Liebau argues that most arguments for sexual self-restraint do have religious underpinnings.

That doesn't mean, however, that the concept of sexual restraint is good, true,
or valid only for those who are part of a faith tradition that embraces
chastity. The physical, emotional, and psychological effects of giving too much,
too soon --and the self-confidence and self-respect that result from living up
to high standards and exercising self-restraint --aren't limited to religious
girls and their parents. (p. 241)

#6. Her sixth point is to "Take a Stand Against Lowest-Common-Denominator Capitalism." She argues that yes, the free market and mainstream have pushed sex in its products and advertising. They do this because they want to appeal to the greatest possible number of people, and sex does sell. But we cannot keep blaming the free market. "The beauty of capitalism is that it gives consumers free choice, thereby empowering all of us" (p. 242). We have the ability to reject the sex saturated media and advertising. "When young people join their elders in demanding a more wholesome culture and rejecting the sex-saturated excesses of the hookup culture, the market will respond" (p. 243).

#7. Her seventh point is "Set the Example, Bit by Bit." We all need to set standards for all aspects of America's sex culture. We need to create examples of how a real woman acts and what a real woman looks like. By doing this we send a message to girls that says when it comes to sexuality "having standards is, in fact, a sign of respect for oneself and others" (p. 244).
Though I agree with her argument, I strongly disagree with the examples Liebau on this issue. She uses the Gossip Girl series as an example of the kind of women girls today are looking up to. She argues that girls are looking up to the characters in the series for how to act and dress, and what kind of women a girl should be. Liebau believes the girls in this series are bad examples. I myself have read the entirety of Gossip Girl. Yes it does contain 'sex, drugs, and rock and roll' but it also contains designer cloths and top-of-the-line brands for just about everything else. If nothing else the series is advertising products rather than sex. Each time a character goes somewhere or enters a scene his or her cloths are described in detail. In fact, many of the scenes in the book deal with the characters interacting with cloths designers and attending parties and events that center around clothing. This book markets brand name clothing and other items more to readers than it does sex. In fact, a band name, any name really, is never given to condoms in the series.
Yes the series is in some ways saturated with sex. Of all the main characters in the series there are three that are distinctly prominent: two girls and one boy. In fact, the series revolves around the two girls who are both in love with that one boy and how the three of them react towards that fact. All three of them go through several relationships throughout the series, but neither girl successfully hook up with other guys besides that one boy. However, in several scenes the author, Cecily von Ziegesar, does in fact suggest to the readers that a couple, whichever one happens to be featured in the chapter, had intercourse. In none of the instances are the two people meeting up for casual sex. All couples are shown beforehand to be linked through deep romantic feelings. Though Prude does suggest abstinence as a solution to problems our overly sexed society is causing, but it does suggest that having sexual integrity is also not a bad idea. Regulating partners and not following the third wave's "do-me feminists" practices is sufficient to stem the tide of promiscuity among teen girls. Besides, the ultimate ending in the Gossip Girl series is, in my opinion, distinctly feminist. Both girls decide to give up the one boy and move on. All three of them separate paths and take their own future in their own hands.

Blair wiped the tears from her cheeks and straightened the bottom of her dress.
Nate wasn't there, but she still couldn't wait to get on that train. Serena
was going to be a big movie star, Nate was off sailing around the world, and
she was going to Yale -- her dream since she was a little girl. and who knew
what might happen there?...Blair boarded the train on her own, adjusting her
white pillbox hat and black Chanel sunglasses. She didn't know what Yale --
or the future -- would hold, but she couldn't wait to find out (Don't You Forget About Me 272).

This book is essentially what Teen People views it as "Sex and the City for the younger set." Except, the main characters don't end up in marriage (a belief held for thousands of years that suggests that the ultimate goal for women should be marriage) or in long-term relationships. The two main female characters are independent and enjoying what it's like to be a woman.

#8. Her eighth point is "Equal Doesn't Have to Mean the Same." Liebau argues that great strides have been made in women's rights and women's equality. However, no positive strides have been made in the area of sex. Young women are being taught to take sex like a man, and this is nothing short of a disservice. Robert McElvaine has dubbed this attitude as the "masculine mystique." He suggests through his idea of a "masculine mystique" that this attitude of having sex the same way men do embraces the ideas that "if it has long been a man's world, whatever men have done is what everyone should do." She herself states in response to this idea that "ironically, as girls have been encouraged to adopt male attitudes toward sex, they've been taught to deny, denigrate, or ignore the needs and desires that define them as female...In short, they've been taught that it's more important to have sex in the same way as a man than it is to claim an equal right to satisfying interactions with the opposite sex" (p. 246). "Do-me feminism" suggests that women are sexual creatures like men and should have the same opportunities when it comes to sex. Naomi Wolf, a feminist of the third wave, shares this idea and adds that women have a unique sexual power that is decidedly feminism. Women need to tap into this power in order to be a women and enjoy equal power. Liebau argues that though that may be true it's not happening. "And even as girls have been taught to flaunt the sexual power they can wield over their male counterparts, they've been deprived of the sweeter, more wholesome experience of discovering they have the power to influence men for good" (p. 246). She suggests that in order to fix this problem that young women need to realize that the sexed up America is just making men and women appear and try to become similar when it comes to intercourse.

#9. Her final point is that "Our Culture Isn't Just an American Matter." Countries from around the world are being influenced everyday by America due to globalization and technology. Because of the advancements made in satellite technology and television people in most parts of the earth can now access American television. Many of the programs they can now watch (e.g. the shows on MTV, HBO, CW) are saturated with sex. So not only are we now pushing our overly sexed culture on others (and possibly turning them into a sexed up society because every country wants to be like America) but we are also offending other countries. Many other countries are very conservative when it comes to sex (e.g. Middle Eastern countries). We offend them by pushing our vulgar culture on them when we seek to Americanize them. We also make fools of ourselves when we try to push other countries to see women as equals to men and to respect them, when all over our culture are images and lyrics that are overtly degrading to women. She suggests that we need to stem our sexed up culture so that we can be taken more seriously as a nation and set a good example for other countries without being a hypocrite.

Those are her nine points. But before she ends her book she leaves readers with some words against her critiques and a final thought concerning her beliefs. "For those who seem unconvinced, it's worth asking: Have the sexual revolution and the do-me feminism allowed America's young girls to really live happier, more wholesome lives? Are their thoughts, conversations, activities, and preoccupations more elevated? Are they healthier in body, mind, and spirit? The answer is obvious" (p. 248). Again I want to state that this book focuses primarily on abstinence as the answer to the problems our sex obsessed culture has created. Because of this, this book has been critiqued in a negative light profusely. Though I don't wholly agree with the idea that abstinence is the absolute answer, she makes a thorough argument and gives a reasonable answer to the sex issues.

There is a price for our collective unwillingness to confront a culture
dominated by sexual libertines. From our silence, young people can infer
consent, drawing the mistaken conclusion that adults believe what's happening
today is jut fine. Worse yet, our reticence can lead to abdication of the right
--and the responsibility-- to exercise judgment in the area of sex, as we do in
almost every other facet of our communal life. And exercising that judgment is
crucial to the happiness, health, and well-being of young people, boys, and
girls alike. (p. 249)