Sex Positivity and Conservatism

I was wondering about something.  I wondered if sex positivity and conservatism could possibly go together.  Many more liberal minded people would probably say no.  After all, conservatives want to take away birth control,  and access to sexual health information.  Is that exactly true?  I don't think so.  At least not for me.  Sure, some republicans, mostly of the more fundamentalist religious stripe, want to take away those things.  That is NOT what I believe.  I have said it before and will say it again.  Everyone should have access to health information and that includes accurate information about sexual issues, birth control, STDs, etc.  People should be educated about consent and the possible emotional issues involved with sexual activity.

Thing is, though, that I seem to lose touch with this sex positive stuff when they start saying that promiscuity is a good thing for some people.  Yes, I understand that not everyone is the same.  Not everyone lives by the same moral standards or views sex the same way.  I realize that I am reading this through my own views.  I also realize that promiscuous cannot really be defined and that it is typically used against women and not men.  It is a loaded term, for sure.  I am introducing bias into this.

First, I want to say that sex doesn't do anything to anyone that a lot of religious presentations say it does.  Women do not become "used goods" or "chewed pieces of gum."  That is a horrible way to think of a human being.  Sex has in no way an on the worth of any human being.  However, it is an activity that carries a lot of risks, physical and potentially emotionally.  In my view it is not something to be taken lightly.  Something can potentially produce new life, or introduce disease should be treated carefully.

It is it wrong that if I had children that I would want them to have a positive view of sex while at the same time discouraging them from sexual activity until they are older?  I wouldn't want to focus on the negatives.  I wouldn't want them to be shamed and scared like I was.  This where my bias comes in.  I would like for them to be in a relationship where they are mature, trust their partner and are educated in all aspects.  Maybe this is because I can't imagine having sex in a situation where I didn't have an emotional connection to the person.  That is my thing.

Studies have shown fewer risks for women who wait until their early 20's to have sex.  In part, because they typically have fewer partners.  Possibly because they are more mature more likely to practice safer sex.  Maybe because they are more emotionally mature and know more of what they want  out of a sexual relationship.  Of course, all of this could be conjecture.  Anyway, my point is that waiting has its benefits and I don't want that to get thrown out.

Sex can be a wonderful experience in the right situation with the right preparation.  It is natural and healthy.  Of course, I have my views about my own personal situation and so does everyone else.  I don't want tell anyone how to run that very private part of their life.  Anything that happens between consenting adults is nothing I would legally fight.  I just don't want to live in a society that makes sex a very causal thing when in so in many ways it is anything but.

So what does this make me?  Am I sex positive or still too "puritan?"

Objectification of Women

Saw this cartoon on Pinterest and thought it was interesting.  Got a laugh out of it but at the same time I actually found it fairly thought provoking.  How we view women's rights and objectification is actually fairly dependent on culture.  The woman on the right might believe that she is shielding her body from men so they notice other, non-physical, things about her.  The woman on the left may believe that she is exercising her right to present her body how she sees fit.  Both think the other is giving into the male dominated culture.  But isn't the point?  They are complaining about a male dominated culture, which they recognize they are both living in.  Sure, it looks different but yet it is very much the same.

To me, the important thing in all of this is the women be doing this out of free choice.  Problem is, the way society is currently set up I don't think this is entirely possible.  Does the woman in the full body covering have a choice in if she wears that?  Is she threatened or sanctioned if she were to choose something else?  Similarly, is the woman in the bikini wearing that because that is what she wants to wear?  Is she doing because she feels it is the only way to be attractive to men?  It is tough to make these calls when we live in a society, along with other societies, that objectify women.

Ideally, a woman be able to wear what she wants without fear of being assaulted, demeaned or stifled in her day to day life.  Objectification is what makes all of this so complicated.  It's related to rape culture and the purity movement.  In either situation a woman can be reduced to a body.  In one case she could be reduced to a "loose woman" who is "asking for it."  In another case the woman could be again reduced to her body because she must cover in order to keep men from being led astray if she were to show some skin.

In both possible scenarios the woman is the one who is responsible for how men react.  They are reduced to bodies that must controlled in just the right way so men are kept in check.  Really, in both cases women would be the ones responsible if a man raped them.  Men are never responsible for how they react in either situation.  Of course, this is horribly messed up and shows how messed up things are.

I see this all the time in conservative religious circles when it comes to doctrines such as modesty.  You are supposed to cover all those alluring parts of yourself.  I can remember once at a church function getting told I had to change my shirt because my shoulders were showing another time I can remember being told I couldn't wear a certain bathing suit because it exposed my mid section.  Of course, I complied but I always felt so weird about it.  I wondered why men couldn't handle being exposed to a shoulder, for crying out loud.  It was because I would incite them to lust.  They couldn't choose how to respond?  Now, I do dress fairly conservatively.  I always have but I do now wear things that would not be considered appropriate by Baptist standards.

It's amazing how the more I turn a critical eye to society and gender all this stuff is tied together.  Women cause men to lust, rape them and objectify them.  NO!  Men choose these actions.  Men choose to view women as just a body.  To make assumptions off of the way they are dressed.  Are they a "nice" girl or they a "bad" girl?  They will be treated accordingly.  I believe that men have control over that.  I believe that a man chooses to be a rapist.  They choose to objectify women.  They choose to respect women.  They are NOT slaves to biology, just as women are not.  To be clear, I am not trying to put the blame on individual men entirely but rather to a societal system where women are assessed for "goodness" or "badness" by their clothing choices.

 I wish women had a choice.  I wish women were treated as human beings worthy of respect, no matter what they are wearing.  I wish women were not viewed as bringing on rape.  I would hope that women on both sides of this picture were able to make a choice, free of coercion, about how they are present themselves.  No woman is the sum of her body.

Women Should be Silent in the Church

Anybody ever heard that one?  Of course, I heard it so many times growing up Baptist.  Now the phrase kind of makes my scalp itch.  This single verse has been used more times than I can count to put down women and refuse to listen to their points of view.  I think all the time growing up I knew there was something wrong with this but I didn't feel safe expressing it.  After all, this was the orthodox Christian view.  Who was I to argue with God?  Well, times have changed and now I see this for what it is.  It is a cultural view from long ago that is used to maintain male power and dominance in the church.  I am not saying that all men consciously feel this way or even really think this way it is there.  Of course, this thing, patriarchy, is everywhere.  Sounds very liberal and feminist of me, doesn't it?  I guess that's where the modern part comes in.

The plethora of books in evangelical circles about women is a sight to behold.  When I say sight, I mean unsightly.  Oh goody, now's a chance to mention my favorite *cough cough* book, Created to be His Helpmeet.  I was only tempted to throw the thing across the room several times. I think I did well.  Basic premise of the book: women were created to please men.  Too bad if you don't like something that is just the way it is.  It encourages women to stay with abusive husbands, with the only solution being more submission on their part.  It even states in the book that a woman fails if she has no man to please.  This is so wrong in so many ways.  A woman's worth is never dependent on a man.  Woman deserve to be treated with respect just like men.  That means having an equal say in relationships and in the church.

It means that a woman can go into a church and expect to listened to.  A women can get up in front of the church without fear of reprisal for stepping out of bounds.  A woman doesn't feel she has to be silent in the event of abuse or any type of wrongdoing.  Women are taken seriously and never dismissed because something is "merely" a woman's issue.

Women are hearing some pretty terrible things coming out of the pulpit.  Books written for women are pressuring women to adopt these dangerous attitudes because it is biblically "correct."  Girls are growing up hearing they are not as capable as men.  They are taught to lay down their rights.  They are taught to accept unfair treatment and even abuse in the name of "biblical womanhood."  Well, I have had enough.  I am not going to offer religious arguments.  I am just advocating for decency.  Women are human beings and have the right to be treated as such both inside and outside the church.