Yes indeed sexuality = women still pertains, still a man’s chattel.
Lets see clitoris removal was last used as cure for ‘aberrant’ sexual behaviour in the UK what 1905-well we do advance. Votes for women when? own bank, acting independent of a male, going to a bar alone, when? And so on.
Mind you advertising now targets the male as sexual object albeit as having also the potential if not actual wealth and of course I can find no reference to removal of the penis for aberrant behaviour. I do agree the acceptable norms for men are much wider.
The West does not admit sexuality as a natural function free of guilt but as with some other religions the female is still the tempter and must be subject to correction if hierarchal norms are exceeded. Or indeed invoked as at the Salaam trial and similar witch hunts.
So what is it, the power of male dominance? Most religions are hierarchal as are most societies though separating the two as independently operating drivers is difficult.
Is it the power of sex, the pervasive flood of hormones often construed as love?
If we are to control this powerful force why not target women after all it is she who betrays backsliding, yes even now. In business transactions as the Government has shown any and all dissembling and tricks are fair!

Tiziana said:

"On the other hand, the supposed illiberalism of some groups is invoked as a relevant reason against the feasibility of their successful integration."

err.. close, but no cigar! In the case of Islam, my quarrel is with the authorization of domestic violence to discpline 'disobedient' wives !
Sura 4:34 "finally, you may beat her"

In one lengthy attempt to 're-interpret' this in a less malicious way, he concludes it 'really' means 'throw them out' (of the household) which seems to me 6 of one, half dozen of the other.
The author of that article makes an interesting assumption.
He begins with

http://www.quran-islam.org/228.html

"How does God, the Most Wise order us to beat our women?"

Thereupon he seeks to rehash it in more 'palatable' terms, and concludes with "Well.. we shouldn't beat them just THROW THEM OUT"

So, does he now ask "Why does God most wise order us to throw our women out" ? no...he just rests at that point.

Tiziana also said:

"One of the key points in this debate is the status of women within minority groups. The concern is that, in multicultural societies, some minority cultures may be more patriarchal then the surrounding majority culture."

NOOOOO ! Tiz... (Biblical Christianity is patriarchal, but we don't claim God allows us to beat the blith out of our wives, rather to love them as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her)

its about a culture which uses 'divine authorization' TODAY for domestic violence ! No matter which way you cut the cake, this religion is NOT compatable with either secular liberal or Christian Culture.

The Lord knocks even now, on the door of our hearts, calling us back to Him. Let us all open that door.

untutored mind

you have never heard of castration before? strange world you live in, castrations have been carried out much more recently than 1905 and I don't hear men complaining. Aberent behaviour needs to be stopped, some male sexual offenders recognise their disgusting behaviour as such and request castration.

Is it really men who are solely responsible for this major aspect of our culture? Women seem to be the ones who love fashion, and continually buy clothes designed to be sexually appealing (not that this would excuse any rape, ever). Is this the fault of men? If women aren't advertising themselves then why the sexually appealing clothing? It seems that women value eachother with regards to their pulling power, and value themselves according to their looks. As do men. But is this the fault of men?

Men are designed, after all, so as to chase the sexually appealing. Women are not designed in this manner, so the real question is why have they taken up male value systems.

The answer, ofcourse, is postmodernisms misreading of such values as equality. People take it to mean that all people are equal, rather than what it means, they are equal before the law and therefore have equal opportunity. Men and women are not equal (the same), they should be valued the same, but they are essentially different.

sexual liberation - Why is it that prostitutes are looked up to by young women in today's western world? Why is it that prostitutes see themselves as the most liberated of women? Why is sexual liberation, which I assume means the freedom of anyone to have sexual relations with whoever they want and whenever they want with no costs (and typically understood by the youngest females to mean they should act like the worst of men and use frequent one-night stands to obtain this 'freedom'), a good thing?

Just to clarify, I see this problem as one for both men and women. I have targeted women in this post because they continually blame men without seeing anything wrong with their own attitudes!

Reading the article a couple of things stuck out.
- In our society the "value based on sexuality" thing is mostly voluntary and pretty much an individual choice rather than something enforced. As a previous poster has pointed out much of this seems to be driven by women. Certainly the image is reinforced in the media but that does not make it compulsory.
- There does not seem to be much difference in the issue for women about appearance and the issue for men of their value often being based on net wealth or cash flow. We can choose to buy into it or choose not to. A choice not to buy into it will limit us in some ways and free us in others. Same deal for women.

R0bert

Women are rated, both by themselves and by men - somewhat on the grounds of attractiveness.

I would also suggest that the opposite occurs also - men being valued on their attractiveness to women, though this is manifested in different ways and is less aligned with appearance.

Ultimately, this "rating" is probably hardwired into us. We have a choice though as to how far we let this drive our decision making, as individuals, as groups and as a society.

There are two ideas which underpin this article.
1. That "sexual freedom" can exist without objectification and judgemental attitudes.
2. That descrimination exists because sexual behaviour is taken as representative of character.

One must question, when sexual activity moves away from the profound and eternal union of the two halves of the human race in loving exbrace for cooperation and the continuation, and instead becomes the expression of temporary desire, is objectification a logical consequence? The tendency with "sexual liberation" is to define sexuality in terms of oneself and rather than in terms of two people. Thus, when sexuality is defined in terms of oneself, the partaking of the many others in sexual activity is lowered to what is merely opportune, rather than what is profoundly important. That is where the objectification occurs, and thus it is no wonder that sexuality has been more greatly objectified in our society of "sexual freedom". Pornography can be celebrated nowadays because it is the most true expression of this sexuality defined with reference solely to oneself.

When sexual activity is intrinsically linked with how one views oneself, it is a step closer to vanity and egotism. Thus, is not a casting of judgement due to sexual choices actually quite apt, because it describes an actually change in the perception of sex?

Feminists have a question to answer. Do they want a permissive sexual ethic, or do they want to be respected more profoundly? The second does not dwell in the first.

Finally, there is a question of degree. Whilst maintaining a strong sexual ethic in society, without descending to puritanism when dealing with those who stray is a difficult thing, and a challenge as old as scripture (now go and do no sin again). Surely, to strike this balance would be more advantageous than to complain about being judged when one objectifies sexuality!