Saturday, August 29, 2009

As far as we've come...

I watched a program on the sexual revolution of the late 60's and fairly extensive interviews with Hugh Hefner were featured in one section. Now, I’ve got to say that I don’t have a lot of respect for the man. For one thing I find it really creepy that you only ever see him in pictures where his arm is around a couple of girls that are young enough to be his granddaughters. Oh wait a minute, I mean his great-great-granddaughters. Maybe I wouldn’t have so much of a problem with that if the road were not firmly labeled as one way. It is glorified for a man to score with a hot, young, nubile girl that (if she’s lucky) has just graduated from high school. Can a woman date someone who is 60 years younger than she is? No. 40, 30, 20, even 10? No. If there’s one thing that makes me angry, it’s a double standard.
Ok, back to the subject. Hugh said something that I agree with. He said that he thought that it was funny that what was (and still is) considered obscene was nudity, instead of violence. He considered sexuality to be one of the nicer sides of humanity; so why censor that? To an extent, I agree.
Here’s where I think ol’ Hugh went wrong:
Playboy did open minds in some ways, but it was not glorifying sexuality in general, it was glorifying male sexuality and a standard of female flesh, and even worse so today. It’s not a message that says “Sex is not a bad thing” it says, “Sex with this is not a bad thing. This is beauty, this is what should be valued.” The sexual revolution was about all people being beautiful, all people being able to freely experience the guilt and shame-free ecstasy of love.
In Hefner’s magazine and TV shows, there is nothing about two people being free to love and enjoy one another, it is about the entitlement of men, and the accessibility of women, whether that’s for serving you drinks, or being there whenever you want to have sex. I have a problem with that.
I certainly have a problem with sex only being viewed as useful for procreation, and all positions other than missionary being illegal (oh yes, that was the case). But I also have a problem with the fact that to this day when a man has a lot of sex he’s viewed as a virile stud, and when a woman has a lot of sex she’s a slut and a whore. I have a big problem with that.
I have a problem with the fact that in a professional situation a man has to be driven, committed, and aggressive to get to the top, and that’s a good thing; the traits of a big league player. When a woman does that, she’s a career driven bitch who clearly just needs a good lay to remind her that she’s a woman.
The Women's Liberation movement was absolutely invaluable; socially, politically, and sexually, and I believe that it made a crucial change in US culture. I owe a huge debt to the women who spoke out. The longer I'm alive the more I could be classified as a feminist. In reality all I want is equality; funny that that should still come with a stigmatized label, huh?


luckeyfrog said...

Yeah- definitely double standards all over the place when it comes to sexuality.

There's very much a mentality of showing off your body and your sexuality- if you fit a certain standard. Or if you're a guy.

Hugh just wants to feel good about what he does. Yeeeah, right.

Renee L. said...

Well said!
Based on his statements, I really feel like he has no clue why anyone would be offended at anything he does.

Anonymous said...

Ladies and Gentlemen: the Male- Female double standard is THE STANDARD and in many more ways than discussed here! There is much more work to be done before this Revolution is complete- woman can make as much money as a man-vote like a man- cuss like a man- but she is still stupid when it comes to what she will to GIVE to a man. As my divorce attorney husband states: WOMEN GIVE TOO MUCH !!!!
As far as the revolution of attitudes about sex- females lost bigtime there- the only thing gained there has been for the male who feels just or more entitled as he ever did- lets get smart gals- and take care of ourselves.
Mean Old Mammy

Renee L. said...

Of course there are many more disconnects than were mentioned here. Blogger doesn't have that much webspace!
Anyway, I disagree. Your divorce attorney husband suffers from sample saturation. He mostly talks to women who are getting divorced. There are just as many women in the world who are smart enough not to stay in an abusive situation or even not to get into one in the first place.
As far as men being the only ones who have profited from the sexual revolution, I disagree again. When we go to report a rape we're actually believed now, instead of it being assumed that we must have been "asking for it". We can say no, even to a husband, if we don't want to have sex. We can only have sex with other women, we can only masturbate, we can not have sex at all if we want! And even if a double standard does still exist, it is no longer impossible for a woman to get married if she's *gasp* not a virgin.
So definitely, women should get smart and actually use a little intelligence when it comes with relationships, but we only have the freedom to do that because of what has happened.
When it comes down to it most people are going to be stupid most of the time though, so...there's that.

Anonymous said...

cheeky ain's she?, and right of course, but i still think women give too much