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!

"Does our culture relate the worth of a woman to her sexuality?" - is a sound question, but unfortunately the evidence presented within the text by the writer does not provide any sound argument to solve the puzzle.

RObert, above provides a pretty good analysis of the dilemma. It's a personal matter of choice.

Some women flaunt their sexuality to be judged such as beauty quest contestants, glamour models and such. They use their sexuality to seek a living. They choose to do this. If that's where their best talents lay, then what's wrong with that as an individual choice? She seeks the culture to evaluate her on her sexuality and so culture does.

But which came first? The 'babe' or the culture?

I venture to suggest that both are as old as the history of sexually reproductive fauna.

However, some women choose to be other things. Judges, politicians, full-time wives and mothers, sports stars, etc, just as do men. The degree of their sexual evaluation by their peers will be determined by the degree of sexual behaviour they individually exhibit for their own individual reasons.

Sexuality is an inherent quality of humans. Both men and women will be evaluated sexually by others whether they like it or not. It's simply natural. It is NOT a social or cultural construct. It is NOT a product of patriarchy or matriarchy. It is a product of simply being human.

Some will relate a being's worth to their sexuality and some won't. To some, a clean chaste woman will have far more sex appeal that a dolled up tart ever could. A clean chaste man will have more sex appeal to some than a muscle bound toy-boy. It's not a simple cultural or social issue as feminists might argue. It's individual choice and desire. It's just simply human nature. You can take the human out of the jungle, but you'll never take the jungle out of the human - at least not for another million years of evolution, or so.

The idea that women too can be sexually liberated is in fact a faulty premise based on the MYTH that men ever had sexual liberation.

Us mere males never had that until the sexual revolution ushered in by womens liberation. Its ironic really. The author puts the cart before the horse. The so called sexual liberation spawned by womens' liberation has been moreso enjoyed by men than women. In fact women have freed men up from the need to commit and love them as a preabmle to sexual union.

There is a concept called the Mutilated Beggar. In Cairo there is a cottage industry in dismembering children and sending them out to beg. When one gives alms, both a good and a bad thing is being done. The good... feeding that child. The bad... perpetuating the henious practice. It sort of applies to the so called sexual liberation of women. By becoming sexually liberated you do both a good and bad thing. The good... you free yourself from encumbering sexual mores. The bad... you free the men from commitment and this fosters a basic disregard for women. Thus perpetualting a fundamental lack of respect. Its a bit of a loose allegory, but l think its valid.

Essentially... a faulty premise predicated on a myth-representation has created a self fulfilling prophecy... disregard and disrespect. This modus seems to be standard operating procedure amongst ideologues who are very astute at validating their notions and thus derive support (and eventually power).

As usual, the ideolgues have it back to front. Predictably, they shoot themselves in the foot without realising it. Is it any wounder that their thinking is under sustained and expanding attack?

Ideological zeolots are their own worst enemies and left to their own devices will argue with themselves into the void of irrelevance. Thankully the internet, with its fundamental respect for open, insensored dialogue, shines the light of reason upon these dark ideological constructs. That light has a way of shrivelling away the ideological rantings the specious.

Trade, well put. A million times better than your attack on our flag.

trade... well, it seems to me you are confirming some of the points made by feminists though, you say that if a woman if sexually active then she liberates men from the need to commit, but one would hope men would just commit to whomever they fall in love with, just as women would,regardless of sexual availability, or are you saying men need the "bate" of sex to commit?! or worse, that they would not commit to a woman who ewas sexually available. I don't think men are like that, or I hope not anyway!

and why would this lack of commitment imply lack of respect anyway? are you saying women can "respectably" have sex only if they are in a loving, committed relationship? but why would that be? why is it not respectable for a women to have a fling? or a one night stand?

is it respectable for men to do so? is there something wrong with sex that turns it into a desrespectul and desrespecting activity? or is it just so for women? then it is true that we judge women's worth on the basis of their sexual behavior!

Tizziana, if you think society unfairly sexualises women, how do you explain the fact that fashions for young women could fairly be described as very revealing (and not just in the amount of flesh revealed?) These revealing fashions are creeping more into workplaces. Where is the male equivalent? R0bert is right, it is a matter of individual choice. The advertising industry takes its cue from the personal choices women make in the way they present themselves publicly. If female flesh is alright on the street, then isn't it alright on the advertising page or sign? Why does PC morality support one and condemn the other? There was a time in our society when any publicly revealed flesh was shocking. Many now wonder what the limits are to the way women dress. When did it become PC to disengage revealing female dress from sexual imagery? How can anyone seriously expect this to occur in men's minds? It is even apparently acceptable for pre-teenage girls to dress like sex-kittens but not for men to sexualise them. Women haven't yet figured out how to balance up their freedom to dress how they please, and how this will result in often unwelcome male attention.

Sexuality is no promiscuity. Sexuality is good in itself.
Patriarchy is no evil. The author refers to patriarchy as if it is a given that it is a bad thing. I know in feminist circles this is the case. However, it doesn't have to be that way. God help a man who was so off handed in their apraisal of matriarchy. I think when both are given equal status and respect then both are worthy of that power. They don't have to cancel each other out. However, when one suppresses another, as has been the case in the past, then that is wrong. True patriarchs need to rile against anything that belittles the worth of women. That is a true man's job. Curse the limitations of language. From now on to be a true patriarch you must be a feminist. (Father)

Schmuck

I had a one night stand with a really good sort 11 years ago next month. We celebrate our 10th anniversary September 2006. Yo!!

Cheers
Kay

DFXK... l deliberately use a somewhat confrontational style at times in order to tease out folks REAL opinions on highly emotive subjects. There's a real tendency to disguise and obfuscate... political correctness being the scourge on honest public discourse that it is. The 'attack' was not on any particular piece of coloured fabric. It was on the specious and unfounded notions that people attach to the thing and how they use it as an excuse to do what they do. Fancy putting someone in jail for destroying a symbol that they themselves bought, a piece of fabric no less... l see that as bizarre, or at the very least very harsh punishment. Again, it is my contention that symbols do not unite. They divide and divsion has infected our social consciousness to a perilous point. Lets agree to disagree.

Schmuck... In terms of respect regarding sex. l dont really go for the ideological constructs of the self serving politically motivated, pretty much dismissing their ideological nonsense, on principle as l have strong aversion to ideologies... products of a closed mind and fosters same. My position is a biological evolutionary one, rather than a socio-political one.

Biology is REALITY and no amount of intellectualisation can validate the denial of physical, palpable TRUTH. Sure one can call an apple a nugget of gold, but just try and get the coin dealer to pay spot price. Good luck. l can collect an orchard of apples and consider myself richer than Fort Knox. Thats delusion.

In biological terms, sex and particularly promiscuity (liberation?) have very serious implications. A woman KNOWS she is the MOTHER. A man must make a LEAP of FAITH. He must trust the woman, he has nothing else. He cannot compel a paternity test without $10k in legal fees and 'reasonable' grounds. A man is PRESUMED to be the BIOLOGICAL father of any child born in wedlock. Crazy Huh?

(cont.)

(cont.)

After 40yrs of feminism these archaic realities still exist. Dont ever hear women protesting about it nor agitating for change, rather making a concerted effort to maintain the status quo. Even to expand the crazy notion by some nutters campaigning for so-called social fathers.

A decent human being who develops a bond with the child of a single mother partner can be on the child support hook. Yes, l know, bizarre, yet there it is. Alleged child's best interest is often a smoke screen that mothers hide behind, using their kids to promote self interest. Yep, men do it to, in the odd event they get the chance to manipulate childs interests for themselves. It is what it is.

Physical reality renders completely different outcomes and potential consequences. All a man has is his faith, his trust, his confidence. Fragile things in life, hard to acquire, very easily lost. This can evolve into an apparent double standard and yet so what. Duble standards permeate our actions and they are all a function of self preservation.

We strive to convince ourselves we are consistent. Its an illusion that makes for a peaceful sleep, sans the valium. Practical, physical reality of self preservation. Head spins and word games be damned... do or die. If my belly is roaring with hunger there's no use in conjuring up a standard that keeps me hungry. Eat or die.

l see it in terms of duality... the pysichal reality versus consciousness. The mind as a filter is great at denial and delusion, hence ideology (and theology). Those who want to send their genes down the evolutionary pathway maintain whatever means required (intellectualised double standards) to ensure SELF PRESERVATION.

PK,

sorry, I am not sure I get it, so you think that it is the personal free choices of young girls which drives the advertising of big fashon designer firms?

Maybe I am wrong, and obviously there is a bit of both going on, but I would have thought that it worked the other way round. That is, that the "choice" of what was fashonable was very much shaped by advertising.

It seems pretty likely to me that if a young girl sees a really famous, adored top-model wearing certain particular models for a trendy designer they are very likely to be influenced by that and to want to look just like her. So it seems the decision about what's going to be considered fashionable is made by big fashion designer firms who hire the model for their clothes. It's a bit like young girls "choosing" to starve themselves so they can be as thin as the top models.

If it was just a matter of personal choice then why advertise? all you'd need is to do periodical surveys to see what girls like these days and produce that. You'd save millions!

Of course it's true that girls then choose to buy those models, but what do you expect of them? they are young, impressionable and want to be accepted and liked by their friends. Aren't you giving them a bit too much responsibility for something which seems to be more the choice of big fashion firms?

I guess that's precisely one of the ways in which women are "sexualised" by society, by promoting a certain way of dressing which concentrates a lot on sexual appeal. In that sense it's interesting that you should note that there is no male equivalent...

Kay, good on ya! congratulations!

Trade,

I am not sure I understand you. What is “ideology” to you?

I am sure you are right that one of the main reasons why societies through the centuries have tried to control women’s sexuality is that it was the best way for men to be sure they fathered their wives’ children. So what?

It’s an explanation, but what does it tell us about how we should behave? Should this practice continue? Or are you saying we have no choice but to behave that way?

Another was of making sure you genes get through to the next generation is that practised by male lions: kill off the cubs of the previous dominant male once you take its place in the pride, so that the females can mother new cubs and concentrate on them, well?

It makes sense, in evolutionary terms, to concentrate your parental attention on making sure the strongest of your young ones survive, by letting the weak die, or maybe even killing them off. So?

In fact, in general it would make sense, evolutionary speaking, to let all weak and sickly individuals die, to make sure they do not reproduce, any takers?

We are animals, and part of our behaviour is explained by our biology. But we are a special kind of animal, we have reason and a moral sense with which to reflect on, and evaluate our own behaviour. If you call these reflections “ideology” and despise them all, I am not sure there’s much left we can talk about. What do you suggest we do?

Schmuck, I think my point is that advertisers push the use of female sexual imagery to the limits sometimes but they take their cue to at least some extent from what seems to be accepted by those wearing street clothes. Of course street fashions are influenced heavily by the fashion and clothing retail industries. I suppose there is a circle. The 'liberation' of social mores involves leaders and followers influencing each other. It is a chicken and egg situation. Not all the people who make choices to wear very revealing clothes in public are impressionable young girls. There are plenty who are old enough to be the mothers of such girls, and probably are. One thing they have in common is their gender. Good luck to them if they feel good doing it, it doesn't hurt. Just let's not hear too much of the 'society is to blame' line. I acknowledge your point but I don't think it detracts from or is really at odds with the opinions I was expressing.

The fashion industry is dominated by women and gay men - hence the figure whose smaller breast and lean look are more reminiscent of an adolescent boy, rather than a real woman. Some female designers, my fashion-conscious sister has told me, are designer clothes over the last year which have been more tailored to the true female form.

Advertisers are suitably faceless and amorphous that its easier to blame them than anyone else. They are just selling the garbs created by designers. There is no social direction given to fashion design, only a desire to make something nove and appleaing, and push boundaries. Societal dress standards moderated the aforementioned process, and that, it seems, is what many people want.

To a certain degree, the sentiments and "culture" (to degrade the word) of the youth of today influence what they want to buy, and to a certain degree it is conformity. That wouldn't be a problem if they were conforming to something that professed to protect dignity and inspire respect, however that is not what the fashions of today do necessarily.

In conclusion, there is no single person or group you can blame for this, no elusive "patriarchy" either seeing as women and making these choices, and (along with the effeminate) are facilitating it by designing. The lack of a voice from "society" means we feel (and are) powerless to enforce the basic standards which would slow and temper the process of change.

PK and DFXK,

I am sure that it is a circle. But if I think of how difficult and hurtful it is for my female friends to conform to the standards of beauty presented to them by the media, I have the impression that the power seems to be more on the side of the firms.

Think of the huge number of girls with eating disorders, there doesn't seem to be much purposeful choice there. Why should you choose to starve yourself to reach a weight way below what's healthy for you?

The fact that they are not all young, sure, but they were once, and if they have been influenced as girls by certain standards they are likely to still be influenced unless they consciously challenge them as adults.

On the society's fault point, I agree with you that there is a danger that people might blame "society" for everything without taking responsibility themselves. But then, we must also recognise the kind of pressures individuals are liable to if we are to be fair.

Otherwise we run the opposite risk, to say it is all down to individual choice when in fact people are strongly influenced by the society they live in, in ways that are sometimes very hard to resist.

If, as a society, we put no limits, for example, to how much kids are bombarded with ads we can't very well turn around and say that the attitudes and tastes they devellope are nothing to do with us and just a matter of individual choice, especially when the ads get them to think and behave in ways that are negative for them and everybody else.

On patriarchy, patriarchal systems are not ones which are imposed only by men, they are systems which favour men and give them more power and authority.

But women have often, if not always, participated in their pepetuation. This doesn't change the fact that, as a system, it tends to favour men. This is not to my mind about men versus women, it's about the kind of society we wish to build together.

Schmuck, loved that last point you made.

On the broarder topic it probably is a circle. As adults we can opt in or out to varying degrees and accept the associated consequences.

Definitely harder for kids - for one thing peer pressure is much more direct. We can do our best as parents to try to teach our kids values which will help them deal with this stuff. We can model the kind of lives and values we hope our kids will hold. I suspect that the direct influences are a much bigger issue than adds in magazines - do their friends devalue overweight people, do their parents devalue overweight people. Some will get it wrong but if we do our bit they have a much better chance.

R0bert

Robert,

yap! I totally agree with the points you make. It cannot be just ads, it is the values we hold more generally. It must be tough for parents, I am sure.

I just wanted to add a couple of definitions, I had the feeling we all had different things in mind when referring to patriarchy, so I looked it up:

From the concise Oxford dictionary

patriarchy
• noun (pl. patriarchies) 1 a form of social organization in which the father or eldest male is the head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line. 2 a system of society in which men hold most or all of the power.

matriarch

• noun 1 a woman who is the head of a family or tribe. 2 a powerful older woman.
— DERIVATIVES matriarchal adjective matriarchy noun.

it seems to me feminists have point 2 in mind

also in relation to rancitas post above, it seems that by definition patriarchy and matriarchy are incompatible...

Scmuck: if, as you suggest, young girls are too young to resist the images shoved at them by the fashion industry to be able to make a responsible choice about the way they dress, there is something at hand to assist them. It is called 'parents'. As the parents of a teenage daughter, my partner and I often exercise this guidance and if necessary, veto over dress standards. We talk about issues of gender stereotyping and the like. I am sure most parents do likewise. I am not going to blame the fashion or marketing industries for the way my daughter turns out. None of us are helpless victims of big business.

PK,

No, of course, I agree with you. All I was trying to point out is that first of all, not all young girls are as fortunate as your daughters, some lack this kind of careful guidance and attention unfortunately, and I think as a society we have a responsibility towards them.

Secondly, I think it would make the parents’ job easier if we were, as a society, to encourage big firms to be a bit more responsible in deciding which models of behaviour and values they choose to publicise. I don’t see what would be wrong with that, to be honest with you; after all, people making these decisions are fellow citizens and parents, too!

Ultimately, it is for the child to decide for themselves. Yes, you may have trouble admitting it, but this is the truth. No amount of guidance will stop a child from endangering themselves if it is their personality's prerogative. And in whose mind is the behaviour defined as endangering? Parents are responsible for their child's behaviour, but keep in mind that as a parent you don't always know best. Certainly not the government nor the rest of the country. If a parent is balanced and thoughtful, it is all that can be done. From there, it is up to the child.

yes, of course it is up to the individual finally, but they are children! We must be concerned with what they get taught and what influences their lives. I am very puzzled by this defeteat attitude, as if there was nothing we could do, but there is a lot that we can do as a society to decide how we want our kids to gorw up. Yes, it is them who make up their minds in the end, but shouldn't we help them by providing a supportive and fair environment? This is not the jungle, it's society!