The Cult of Female Sexual Power: A Boon to Women?

Today I came across a very interesting article: "Aging," by former supermodel Paulina Porizkova.

It seems to me that one of the things radical feminism has done, at least in years past, is to buy into the idea that women gain back power over their sexuality by deliberately flaunting it. It's something the whole fashion industry culture seems to take for granted. An overt, over-the-top focus on the sexual values of a woman's body is presumed to be a boon for women overall in the culture at large. Just look at the clothes in department stores for teen girls for evidence (I don't spend time doing this myself, but many others have commented on this phenomenon).

And closely connected to this is our culture's excessive and unbalanced worship of all things youthful. If it has to do with being young, a thing is presumed to be good. If something has to do with being old (especially looking old), it is presumed to be negative. The modeling and fashion industries, and advertising in general, promote these ideas. And there seems to be at least a kind of loose association in the culture between this and the progress women have made in society compared to years past.

It is true that things have become better in many ways for women over the last century. And this is, of course, a good thing. But consider the following excerpts from Paulina's article. I think she makes very prescient observations.

My first recognition of age setting in was exactly on my 36th birthday. I have no idea why, on this day of all days, I looked in the mirror and realized my face no longer looked young. I didn't look bad: only, the freshness had somehow disappeared. I immediately became hyper-conscious of my looks and went out and bought the most expensive cream on the market. (For your information, it did nothing.) And I began the battle of acceptance, something I have to do now almost every time I face a mirror. 

 And later,

But would I ever have dreamed that I would miss the time I couldn't walk past a construction site unmolested? These days when someone whistles at me, it's mostly a bike messenger about to mow me down.

And,

To me, to let yourself age means that you're comfortable with who you are. Yes, sorry, I do believe that all the little shots here and there, and the pulling of skin here and there and the removal of fat here and there, means you still have something to prove; you're still not comfortable in your skin. The beauty of age was supposed to be about the wisdom acquired and with it, an acceptance and celebration of who you are. Now all we want for people to see is that we have not yet attained that wisdom. Aging has become something to fight, not something to accept.

Contemporary fashion and marketing have made these negative experience worse for women. Does this indicate true progress for women?

According to the messages present in our popular culture (fostered at least in a background way by a radical feminist acceptance of the notion that control of sexuality is gained by flaunting it), the most important thing about a woman is her sexual power (and this is closely linked to her youthful appearance and exterior beauty). But in such a cultural climate what happens to society's valuation of women, and of women's own sense of worth to themselves, as they age?

I would suggest that the contemporary cult of female sexual power--the unbalanced hyper-emphasis of sexual values above all other human and personal values--has not been a boon to women. In the long run, it has turned into a curse, making them more vulnerable to abuse and to being seen as less than whole persons. The tendency to quickly demote and even disregard women as soon as they become less physically attractive with age plainly shows this. Women like Paulina know this. Do the rest of us?

"Sexting" Shows Failure of Radical Feminist Movement

There is a horrible phenomenon going on among American teenagers. It is called "sexting." This is where someone takes a nude photo (probably with a cell phone) of themselves and then sends it by cell phone message to another person, presumably a member of the opposite sex in whom the sender is either interested or is dating.

The consequences of this can be devastating, even to the point of suicide, such as happened with this 13 year old girl.

So many questions surround this. One is do parents have a clue about this? Another is how has radical feminism contributed to creating an environment where this is now possible on a large scale?

How has our society gotten to the point where a large number of teens, including those considered good kids, would even consider sending nude photos of themselves to other kids? This is not merely a function of technology being available (i.e. cell phones). I am quite sure that a mere 20 years ago, kids would never have been open to doing this in such large numbers as they apparently are today.

One of the bad ideas that has emerged from radical feminism is that if women choose of their own accord to embrace sexually provocative activities (e.g. provocative dress, pole dancing, nude photos, etc.), they can thereby "own" more completely their own sexuality. By "owning" their sexuality through acting out sexually, they supposedly somehow deplete the sexual control that men can assert. Somehow, some women have convinced themselves that by this sort of taking back of their sexuality, they can equalize the sexual power game between men and women. No longer will men have the advantage.

This line of thought is utter foolishness. And the fact that it is is tragically demonstrated by the suicides of teen girls (the girl above is not the only one) after they could no longer endure the humiliation by their peers after sexting a photo that got sent (of course) to others they had not intended to see it.

Rather than neutralizing or equalizing sexual power with men, this sort of behavior only makes women the agents of their own further sexual degradation. It makes them agents of their own abuse by men who most want to abuse them. They are handing themselves on a silver platter to exactly the sort of men who want to use and abuse women as mere objects.

But hey, let's just keep on selling sexually suggestive fashions to ten year old girls! Let's dress up 7 year olds in pageants like they are 20-year-olds flaunting their bodies. Let's have school counselors tell teens they can do what they want sexually as long as they are "ready" and they do it "safely." Let's have music videos and TV shows that display younger and younger girls flaunting themselves as sex objects. Let's have special web sites set up by Planned Parenthood specifically for teens that give explicit directions on perverse sexual techniques. Let's have school health classes that instruct, in a clinically neutral manner, how to do certain sexual things "safely" (if you are ready, of course).

The dark spirit behind a strand of radical feminism that is so misguided as to encourage women and girls to flaunt themselves as sex objects is part of the reason sexting is now common. It is merely another form, using technology, of the flaunting that is downright approved by radical feminism as part of the quest to "take back ownership" of their sexuality.

But this whole idea is absurd--that one could "take back" one's sexuality by degrading it and cheapening it.

One does not gain ownership of something by giving it away easily as though it were worth nothing to begin with. The most vile men--the sort who do not care to relate to women as whole persons but only want to use them as sexual objects for their own pleasure--I'm sure, do not look upon a woman strutting herself sexually as "empowered." They look upon her as an easy target, readily handing over to him exactly what he wants with little effort. And I'm sure such men are only too happy to let her believe the silly fiction that by handing herself over by her own choice to be used sexually as an object she is becoming more sexually empowered. Ridiculous. But, so long as she thinks this, she will convince herself not only to continue letting herself be used sexually as though her sexuality were worth nothing, she will tell herself she is happy in so doing. And the vile man smiles and thinks to himself, "What a deal! I can treat her like worthless dirt and she comes back smiling for more! Wow! Hurray for women's liberation!"

Among those teens who are sexting, I wonder which gender--boys or girls--sense somewhere in their hearts that by doing this they are making themselves potential targets for abuse? Thanks radical feminism. You have done such a great job that teen boys can now get girls to deliver sexually explicit photos to them simply by asking! Thank goodness these girls have become "empowered," or they might be easy targets for becoming sexually objectified and treated as things rather than as whole persons.

Song of Songs, 7 [on spousal love]

[To see all of the earlier posts and this one gathered together in this my sporadic running commentary on the Song of Songs, look to the sidebar on the right under, "Labels," and click on Song of Songs.]

Chapter 1, v 13-14

The maiden is still speaking. These two verses go with verse 12.

As an aside, I would like to note that ancient cultures made extensive use of tangible, concrete things from the natural world as symbols and metaphors for higher things (with some exception for Greek culture, whose abstract philosophical language was remarkable for its being outside the norm). The Song of Songs uses metaphorical language abundantly. (Our language does this as well, but to a lesser extent. We make more use of abstract, theoretical, philosophical terms.)

In verse 13 she speaks of myrrh--an ancient and valuable ingredient in perfumes and incense. In ancient cultures, myrrh was both very valuable in itself, and, valued for its scent (cf. Gen 43:11, Ps 45:8).

And so the maiden uses metaphorical language to speak of her bridegroom as myrrh--myrrh lying between her breasts. [Please note: this is Sacred Scripture, so any temptations a contemporary reader might have to perceive this kind of language in an objectifying, reductionistic, shallow, pornographic sense, ought not allow himself to go down such a path. Any erotic language in the Song of Songs must be seen as fully in harmony with the dignity of the human person and the nobility and beauty of romantic love--a love in kinship with all that upbuilds and supports a mutually reverent and respectful relationship between man and woman--a love that would never abuse another in any way.]

So, notice that she is using something to symbolize her bridegroom that provides a pleasing physical reaction (from the scent) and is highly prized. Its location provides an obvious connotation of sexual attraction. However, notice also that there is no hint of the sort of physical attraction that might be dominating. The myrrh lays in place. She is aware of it and may be reminded of her bridegroom at any time; however, while its effects may be strong it will not overpower her. A further symbolic consequence, no less important, of the myrrh's location is that it is near her heart. Her bridegroom is always near her heart. The heart is the figurative center of the person; it is where the deepest wellsprings of the self are found.

The next verse, 14, nicely confirms this chaste, pure yet passionate vision of love. Here a metaphor for her bridegroom is used that doesn't seem to have such a direct sexual connotation--henna blossoms among the vines (vineyards) of En-Gedi. Henna flowers (photo here) are clustered like lilacs and are very fragrant. They grow in dryer climates. And according to this source, henna plants were used as a protective hedge around ancient vineyards. So, there is a suggestion of protection and safety (enabling grapes to grow and later be turned into wine), as well as the powerfully pleasing factor of its strong scent. Also, there is an idea suggested by the term En-Gedi of something fruitful and rich amidst a surrounding area of barrenness, for the En-Gedi is an ancient oasis on the western shore of the Dead Sea. Here there is a spring of fresh water making possible the growth of palms and other plants amidst surroundings otherwise too dry for such greenery. This, too, suggests protection as well as providing something vital for the full flourishing of life. This kind of protection does not constrict her in the least; rather, it enables her to blossom.

And so the bridegroom is pleasing to the maiden, like a strong perfume in her nostrils. He arouses desire in her and she values him greatly. She keeps him near her heart. She sees him as a protector whose protection will help her to bring forth the rich wine she is meant to produce in her life. To her he is like the most powerfully noticeable and "fragrant" thing in the center of a great oasis. As one emerges from the dessert and approaches this oasis, when the henna is in blossom, perhaps the first thing to catch one's notice is the scent its flowers.

Such is merely a partial portrayal of the character of the maiden's love for her bridegroom.

[Photo of EinGedi garden by Ester Inbar, available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ST]

Sexual Purity

For anyone interested in the subject of purity (that is, spiritual purity--purity of heart), I heartily recommend this blog post by Fr. Angelo Geiger, FI, on his blog MaryVictrix. (The theme of his blog is "Marian chivalry for the modern world.")

In his post, Fr. Geiger delves into the meaning and purpose of shame in light of the important work on this subject found in the writings of Dietrich Von Hildebrand and John Paul II.

The issues touched upon include that there are different types of shame (e.g. negative and positive shame), the difference between prudery and shame, and the fact that human sexuality has by its very nature an element of mystery built into it. Human sexuality, properly understood, is sublime. And the ways in which we can hurt each other sexually, as well as honor each other, are many and various. Holy shyness (a result of a deep reverence for the profundity of the human person) is a lovely and noble thing. Unlike mere prudishness, it protects and safeguards the beauty and mystery and secret intimacy of a healthy sexual relationship between men and women.

British writer suggests topic for Holy Father on visit to Britain

The online version of the British publication, The Telegraph, today published a post in its blog section, "The Pope Should Talk About Sex When He Comes to Britain," by David Lindsay.

Apparently, the Holy Father is scheduled to make a trip to the UK next year. This is historic, as it will be only the second visit by a Pope to Britain since Henry VIII split with the Church in the 16th century. John Paul II made a pastoral visit in 1982. Though he was warmly received, JPII's visit was not by official invitation of the British government. This upcoming visit by Benedict XVI is in response to an official invitation given by Gordon Brown.

Linday's post includes the following sobering information:

He will, after all, be visiting a country where condoms are practically thrown at children. Yet sexually transmitted infections are at epidemic levels among teenagers and twentysomethings. One woman in three will have an abortion at some point in her fertile life. No one really knows how many underage pregnancies there are, because abortions on underage girls are frequently recorded as other things, if at all, in order to distort the figures. Hardcore pornography is everywhere. Lap-dancing clubs, unknown here (except perhaps in Soho, I don’t know) even only ten years ago, are now all over the place. [read the whole post here]

As bad as we may think things are here in the United States, unfortunately, things seem to be worse in the UK. I would attribute this at least in part to the state of the Christian faith. The British public seems to be less religious as a whole than the American public. Although, interestingly, I understand that among British Christians who attend Church regularly Catholics have become the largest segment to be found in the pews.

A serious and wholehearted embrace of Christianity provides protection against a gradual slide into moral depravity. Without a lasting resurgence of Christian faith Western nations will continue an ever-worsening decline into cultural and moral decay, with aimlessness and violence an inevitable result. We are in a bad way. But hope is not lost. For Britain, as for us, with Christ all things are possible.

The Wonder of the Womb; The Ignobility of IVF

I would like to reflect again on a bioethics-related topic. It has to do with the human womb. (In medical terms, the 'uterus.' But, 'womb' seems a more personal term so I'll use this.) More completely, my topic here deals first with conjugal union as the only appropriate means of bringing about a new human life, and second, with the womb as the only appropriate place for that life to be brought about.

A few months ago at the blog of a friend the situation of the "Octomom" was being discussed. In the midst of this discussion someone stated the opinion that she saw nothing undignified about conceiving a child through in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Another commenter made the astute observation that the IVF process results in "life conceived in the unloving confines of a glass petri dish." I thought this was an excellent and very thought-provoking phrase; and right on target.

I share here some of the ideas I gave then about the contrast between human life conceived how and where God planned for it to be conceived--through the marital embrace and in the womb of a woman--vs. life conceived in a petri dish (as in IVF). . . .

The only appropriate means for conceiving life. Sexual union between persons has inherent meaning. It is full of meaning. In a proper context (spouses who love each other), the meaning of this act is, "I give myself fully, completely to you--I love you, I give myself to you, I commit myself to you, holding nothing back." A husband and wife say this to each other through the built-in symbolism of marital intercourse. With IVF, the creation of the child is divorced from the inherent meaning of conjugal union between spouses. But the two physical events (sexual union and the creation of a child) are meant to be always united together because their meanings are so inherently one.

There is no symbolic meaning built into the act of using lab equipment to unite an egg and sperm in a petri dish corresponding to this profound, built-in, natural (and God-ordained) symbolism of intercourse. The IVF lab procedure simply does not posses the great meaning of natural marital union.

In other areas of life we have no problem seeing the difference between the inherent meaning of human physical gestures and less human, technical processes. Is a physical hug between friends the same in significance as saying hello on Facebook? Technological processes simply have no ability to carry the meaning that is woven into thoroughly human, personal acts. And what more profound and deeply human, personal act is there than a husband and wife giving themselves to each other in love, freely, in the marital embrace?


The only appropriate place for conceiveing life. Sometimes we Christians (perhaps Catholics especially) are accused of a kind of inappropriate womb-worship because of the way some of us privilege the womb as the only place proper for the beginning of human life. We do not worship the womb (to do so would be a pagan thing not a Christian thing) when we point out that the womb is the privileged place God designed for the special and unique event of bringing new human life into the world. God loves human beings in a special and privileged way among all the earth. He would not provide anything less than a very special place for the hidden realm wherein He would lovingly "knit together" (see Psalm 139) the fragile and beautiful beginnings of every human being. There is no impropriety in drawing attention to this beautiful truth. As the place where new life should begin, being more fitted to the inherent, God-given dignity of every human person--hands down, the womb beats a glass petri dish every time!

Indeed, without being inappropriate, I think that the womb certainly is worthy of particular reverence because it is a three-dimensional living canvas in which the master artist of the universe lovingly forms and brings to life His greatest and most cherished creations. Would it be strange to suggest the womb is somewhat like a custom designed studio, perfectly suited for what the master artist who designed it intends to create there?

Only one place was made by God for the purpose of sheltering and nurturing nascent human lives. He could have made various other places. But he made only one: the womb. This is the sacred place He made within which He might reach down and bestow His divine power of creation upon the spiritual-physical union of husband and wife. It seems almost crazy to me to suggest the idea that an inert, non-living object such as a glass dish in a lab could ever be just as appropriate a canvas for God's creative power to touch as the living womb of a woman who is herself precious to and beloved by God!

The ultimate purpose of our lives is to become living vessels of divine grace--each a unique, living jewel of divine truth and love--sharing as a family in the bliss of the heavenly paradise. Our Father in heaven arranged the world in such a way that we--creatures with such high dignity and transcendent purpose--should come into being in a context worthy of the nobility He has given our lives. This context is that we should appear on the stage of existence through a loving soul-body union of our mother and father. And the only place adequate to the great worth of each of us as we begin the earliest stages of our fragile life is the womb of our mother. How beautiful this is!