"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)