Posted on 03/19/2002 7:13:02 AM PST by TLBSHOW
If you were to visit a women’s studies department at an elite university, you would encounter a wide variety of courses on the sexual liberation of women. The main thrust of these courses is that for too long, various social institutions have prevented women from exploring their sexual desires. Now, thanks to the heroism of such women as Gloria Steinem, Margaret Sanger, and Bella Abzug, women have been partially freed from the oppressive forces of male patriarchy. In other words, young women are encouraged to be whores.
The chant of Gen. Y college babes might as well be “We’re here, we’re whores, get used to it!” No, most girls are not actually uttering those words, but the slutty sentiments are implicit in the standard female college behavior – wearing tight shirts and pants, getting publicly drunk, hanging on every guy around, and engaging in random sex.
The concept of “behaving like a lady” is an anachronism. If a college girl acts like a lady, she is considered boring, prudish, and old-fashioned. Why is this happening? Five important explanations come to mind.
(1) Feminist thought has taught young women that equality is achieved by acting like promiscuous sluts.
In Who Stole Feminism? Christina Hoff Summers writes extensively about how the women’s rights movement was hijacked by gender feminists, who supplanted equity feminists. While equity feminists were concerned with such mainstream issues as equal pay for equal work, gender feminists were obsessed with proving that (a) there are no biological differences between men and women and (b) men are evil. When the gender feminists seized control of the movement, they encouraged women to behave just as immorally as many men. This was seen as a step toward gender equity.
But why is it liberating for a college-age woman to jump into bed with a man that is not her husband? Why is it freeing to become intoxicated and to hook-up with anonymous frat guys? Why is it an expression of equal rights to give into men’s animalistic instincts?
Presumably, women could exercise their true power to tame men by using celibacy (and other ladylike behavior) to induce men into monogamous stable relationships and eventually into marriage. Along the way to healthy relationships, women could also gain some self-respect.
(2) Young women have turned away from God.
As women have strayed from the church, they have replaced what is holy with what is temporally pleasing. For Catholics, the model woman is Mary, the virgin Mother of God. She is beloved by the faithful for her unflappable devotion to and trust in God, her nurturing of the Son of Man, and her deep love for all humanity.
Today’s college girl looks to Ally McBeal, the trollops of Sex in the City, and the floozies on Friends to set their moral compasses.
The sad truth is that college girls are so desperate to find love that they are willing to degrade themselves to get it. But true love can only be understood in the context of the Word of God. Any other notion of “love” is secular and, by definition, limited and finite.
(3) The costs of sex have rapidly declined.
The explosion in availability of the birth control pill fueled the so-called sexual revolution of the ‘60s, the consequences of which we still see today. With the ability to partially regulate the probability of pregnancy, women can choose to have sex more liberally. Expanded abortion-on-demand services have also permitted young women to engage in more sex because of the greater ease with which a major consequence of sex can be disposed. Abortion providers have recognized the prevalence of sex by college girls in their choice to locate close to our nation’s colleges and universities.
Perhaps just as important as the reduction in the economic costs of sex is the decline in the psychic costs of sex – specifically, the social stigma associated with nonmarital sex. In an earlier era, young women who chose to engage in sex were socially ostracized and their behavior denounced. Today, if a young woman engages in a one-night-stand (“random hook-up”) she is a liberated studette.
(4) Marriage has been devalued by young women and replaced not only by cohabitation but also by new, bizarre social arrangements such as “friends with benefits.”
Young women have traditionally looked to men for marriage and family formation. This is no longer true. College girls look at men not as marriage material, but as sex partners and roommates. Many college women live and sleep with their boyfriends. This is the norm.
Additionally, other sex-based relationships have become commonplace. In recent years, a new and disturbing arrangement known as “friends with benefits” has emerged. In this arrangement, men are not even forced to perform the normal duties of boyfriends, i.e. flowers, Valentine’s Day cards, rides to the abortion clinic, etc. Instead, girls consider these guys “just friends” whom they happen to screw every now and again. No strings, no attachments, no dinners. Just sex when they feel like it.
This type of arrangement is the next logical step in the direction that young women have drifted in the last few decades. These women have become unpaid whores. At least prostitutes made a buck off of their trade. These women just give it away.
The truth is that women actually lose power by becoming tramps. When they give away one of their main sources of bargaining power in a relationship – sex – men gain total power by achieving everything they want…free sex with no obligation.
(5) “You know exactly who’s to blame…the mother and the father.” – The Oompa Loompas in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
College girls are clearly responsible for their own behavior, but their parents have shaped their values. The verdict is in -- their parents have failed. Too many parents, particularly mothers, have eschewed their moral obligations to raise their daughters to be respectable ladies.
Instead, many moms want to be their daughters’ friends, talking late at night about boyfriends, parties, who’s hot, etc. Young women do not need more friends, they need mothers who will provide moral guidance. Unfortunately, these self-absorbed moms cannot deal with the fact that they are old and will never again see their early 20s. Thus, they attempt to live their sorority days all over again through their slutty daughters.
“Now Sabia,” you say, “you’ve been very hard on young women. But don’t young men deserve some blame? Aren’t you just a bitter, cranky, rapidly-aging misogynist?”
The answer to both questions is ‘yes.’
Young men are awful and they have gotten worse over the years. And let me be clear – young men are responsible for their own behavior.
But women have historically been the civilizing forces for men. That is biological. Moreover, several verses in the Scriptures refer to the important role that women have in the moral uplift of men.
It should surprise no one that sexual activity has historically been more frequent among gay men than among heterosexuals. This is because there is no civilizing female force in the gay community. Whenever men want to have sex, they just go ahead and do it. Neither of the partners has much of an incentive to refrain from sex since monogamous relationships and traditional familes are generally not the final goals of these partnerships. Recently, the behavior of young heterosexuals has begun to resemble that of gay men because young women are imitating men in their sexual promiscuity.
The result of young women’s abdication of responsibility has been significant moral decay on America’s college campuses. Can the moral high ground ever be reclaimed? Perhaps…one church pew at a time.
Well, perhaps. However, if you look back at the traditional roles, the sexual mores for men and women had different sources.
Men were supposed to treat women as people whose virtue must be protected (from men). Women were supposed to be virtuous, and to save themselves for marriage. The social value of this arrangement is best understood by looking at the damage caused by its demise -- as, say, among unwed black mothers and their children.
Note the unsurprising assumption in the traditional approach: it was all about protecting women from men's urges. For men, the motivation was to forego their natural desires in deference to the woman's sanctity -- IOW, men are assumed to be pigs. Women were supposed to be concerned to protect their own chastity -- it is they, after all, who always have to bear the cost of their indiscretions, regardless of whether or not the man does.
The difference between then and now is not with the men (whose urges are unchanged), but with the women. Men have no reason to hold women's chastity in any higher regard than the women do. If women are willing to take upon themselves the cost of sexual promiscuity, there are (as there have always been) men who are willing to let them do so. (This explains why there are so many more prostitutes than gigolos.)
Which is a long way of saying, the women probably do bear most of the responsibility for the availability of cheap sex.
except the author...
Huh?
Then we remembered how we were dressed!
Next time I'm burning heretics at the stake I'll send you an invite as well.....RSVP is waived of course....dress: casual....preferably a horsehair shroud...we'll shave yer head for you.
Flaming Embers Regards!
Personally, people are free to make their own mistakes. They just have to be willing to live with the consequences.
Young girls are seeing imagery that they can defend themselves against male attacker- which is false most of the time-and that further emulates the male behaviour once that component of men wanting to proect the female goes out the window.
The young girls today are being taught to fight/act like boys and we are suprised when they have casual sex.
Oddly enough, putting "Linux" in the title tends to do the same!
:-)
He's probably spending a lot of time with his "five friends" instead. (wink, wink)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.