"Why is there never any real difference between the picture on the cover of Cosmo and the picture on the cover of Maxim?"-adele Lang & Susi Rajah

This is a photograph by Helmut Newton. He was a famous fashion photographer from the Cold War years. He's known for his nude studies of women in which women were portrayed in demeaning manners.

The Male Animal. This is the title of chapter twenty-two of Gil Reavill's book. What is interesting about this chapter is that Reavill confronts what could be called feminist paranoia. A lot of times feminists and others who speak out against the role of women in society are portrayed as being paranoid. Those people are portrayed as arguing that men are conspiring against women and create society in a way to put women down (in some cases these people are indeed arguing this). In some ways their paranoia may be fact.

Right away Reavill points out that our culture is all about men. Actually, "much of the cultural content circulating today is created by twentysomething males" (p.149). He explain that in the marketing world (and not just the sex industry's marketing world) the targeted gender is male and the specifically targeted age group is called "PAMs" (p.91) which is short for postadolescent males. So not only do they make the products but they also buy the products. PAMs are really into anything porn related, they're the consumers (p.91). "Sure, there was always a smattering of females. But to great or lesser degree (greater in the realm of smut, lesser in the realm of book publishing, with magazines falling somewhere in between), PAMs predominated. And more than that, PAMs set the tone for the enterprises" (p.91).

In the business world PAMs are everywhere. "PAMs do the grunt work not only for smut rags but also for mainstream magazines, on sitcom writing staffs, in MTV studios, and with advertising copyrights" (p.152). Because they dominate in all the major areas where today's culture is created Reavill suggests that "America has basically handed over the keys to its culture to the PAM" (p.152).

So if culture is directed and driven by a group that is obsessed with sex (they are young men after all and it is known that men think about sex more that you'd think) wouldn't it be a logical thing to assume that the culture they output is somewhat sexual. In many career areas, like writing for example, some characteristics of the author's personality will come out in the piece. Usually when pieces of literature are being analyzed a biography of the author is examined so that a better understanding of the literature can happen. The personality and the experiences of an author influence his or her writing whether it be through tone or opinion or what not. Therefore, shouldn't the personalities of the authors of today's culture be considered as influential to their product? Reavill thinks so. He believes that this is part of the cause of the barrage of sex in today's culture. Maybe feminists aren't so crazy after all.

***

A popular television show that can be found on multiple stations during prime time is Family Guy. Personally I find it to be nothing less that mindless humor. Unlike the Simpsons, which is a satire masterpiece, I don't believe there is any hidden message or critique behind the show. Nevertheless, it does do a fantastic job at portraying popular beliefs. In the link to the video below is a clip from an episode on the current war. As usual the episode makes fun of a popular reason as to why the war exists: to spread Democracy. Specifically look at the video starting at about 1:48 and consider how 'Democracy' is being applied.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlIm-riMN6Q&feature=related

"If men are so into sports, why is the biggest selling issue of Sports Illustrated the swimsuit edition?"-Adele Lang & susi Rajah

Advertising is a rather troubling industry in this nation. It pushes the lines between acceptable and obscene. The government has tried to step in and deal with the issue but the results were just a handful of blunders. Chapter thirteen of Smut: A Sex Industry Insider (and Concerned Father) Says Enough is Enough, titled Ad Nauseam, confronts this issue.

Gil Reavill starts off by pointing out that advertising is everywhere. But advertising today doesn't just consist of simple ads for movies or the latest dress from a top designer, it consists of porn (p.87). Many billboards are indeed X-rated (p.88). You can find them in all major cities and not just in towns known as being risque. "Raunchy signage is popping up all over the country" causing the public space to become overcrowded with sexual imagery (p.91).

There really is a problem with advertising, but what can be done about it? The Bill of Rights allows these companies to market whatever they want. But the Bill of Rights isn't given to people who hinder the rights of other people. Many people consider the barrage of sexual advertising a violation of their rights as citizens. Reavill does have a suggestion for this issue. "...I don't believe in censorship. I don't think the government has any business telling me what I can and can't watch in the privacy of my own home. ...I nevertheless believe it has a place in our society. We can't deny the fact that sexually explicit entertainment is an incredibly popular multibillion-dollar industry, that people like it, or that adults, both men and women, consume it and voluntarily star in it. ... So, yes, porn has its place. I just don't think that pace is looming over a public street..." (p.89).

Being an insider in the sex industry he knows all the marketing tricks. He writes that when creating ads companies go out of their way to create something sexual. "I don't like to be so crudely manipulated, and I don't like the fact that advertisers know they can get to me by presenting certain images" (p.90). With this situation in mind, what can/will women do to fight this since advertising focuses on them?

"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?