dharmagrl dharmagrl

Promiscuity does NOT equal independence.

▼

Promiscuity does NOT equal independence.

from JoeUser Forums

In my last article I talked about 'Cosmopolitan' magazine being nothing better than soft core pornography because of all of it's sexual content.

That article and the subsequent responses got me thinking about what it used to mean to be an 'independent' woman - and what it seems to mean today.

When I was in my teens and early twenties, being an independent or career woman was still a big deal.  Women were still facing the 'glass ceiling' in the corporate world - they would get so far up the ladder, then would be passed up for their male counterparts.  If a woman made her own way in the world, sans assistance from a man, it was either assumed that she was a lesbian or that she was somehow deficient in personality or looks.  Women were, as far as my parent's generation was concerned, destined to have a job only until they got married and had kids.  Having a house, a car, a successful career AND being a single female was something that still raised a few eyebrows.

But somewhere down the line, the definition of being an 'independent' woman changed.  It's not all about professions and houses any more....it seems to be about sex.  The freedom to have as much sex, in as many different positions, with as many men as you can seems to be the new standard.  Cosmo, the magazine that used to be the flagship publication for independent women, no longer prints articles about single women and mortgage rates....it's articles over the past 3 years or so have become more sexually oriented.  TV hasn't helped much either - the advent of shows like 'Sex In The City' have made it fashionable to be promiscuous.  Young women emulate what they see in the media....and Carrie and her pals got their fair share (and then some) of men.  And all this in an age where AIDS and Hepatitis C are running rampant.  The message seems to be that as long as you use protection, it's okay.

It saddens and disappoints me...and if it has ME feeling that way, I can only imagine how it makes the generations of women before my time feel - those who burned their bras in the streets and protested for equal rights for women.  Is this really what they had in mind?  Did they fight so that their children's children could indisctiminately sleep with multiple partners, so they could, to be blunt, whore around with whoever they felt like?

Promiscuity does NOT equal independence.  We, as a society, need to make sure our daughters (and sons) know this. 

 

misc
31,496 views 87 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
I admit, I will read Cosmopolitan or Glamour or Mlle if it's around -- I really love magazines.

It can't always be "Smithsonian" and "Scientific American."
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: MyrranderPosted: Tuesday, February 01, 2005I got my first at 16 my favorite: "I got me sum." How poetic. What a lucky girl she must have been.


sadly I cannmot even remember what she looked like. and am unsure of her name... what a putz I was {am}
Siege of Centauri
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nothing sells better than Sex. You want to sell an ice-cream, show half-clad women eating ice-cream and dancing suggestively on TV. More likely than not you will sell more ice-cream. Mags like Cosmo are following this simple principal, nothing more. You are naive if you think they are serving any high social or moral goal by publishing their mag. Their sole purpose is to get their mags out of the shelf and they will do anything within the fuzzy boundaries of the law to achieve it. In that sense, mags like Cosmo are no better than PlayBoy or other sleazy tabloids. The sad part is (I think)that they pretend to be a feminist, "progressive" magazine for Women. The truth is that they are as much progressive magazine for women as PlayBoy is for Men.

On a more general note, the main problem is sexualization of western media. The amount of sexual imagery on the american mainstream networks is just incredible. Every top-rated show has some form of sexual content in it. Some shows are out and out sleaze shows like Desperate Housewives. Ofcourse, media is a commercial enitity here in US and like every other commercial entity, the first & last goal is to make money. They cater to the age-group of 18-49, the one with the most disposable income. There is a whole generation of americans out there who have grown up without having to fight for anything. Everything has come just too easy for them. They didnot have to fight for their freedom, their rights. Opportunities are abound for them, naturally such people grow up with the notion that life is to be lived just for the sensual pleasures. For them, their is no goal more sacred than satisfaction of their desires. This Me generation is what the media caters to, because they are the ones most likely to watch their shows, buy their clothes, buy their CDs and watch their movies. Thankfully though, America is still a great country and there are enough outstanding selfless individuals in every sphere of life to keep the balance. There are fearless soldiers fighting for world peace in Iraq, there are publications like WSJ, Time , NYT doing their journalistic duties and there are people in this forum concerned about the moral decay of some sections of their society.

Being a foreigner in this country, what is of great concern to me is the export of the worst of american pop-culture to my own home country, India and to other parts of the world. This is a side-effect of globalization, and from my first-hand experiences I have seen people back home who have embraced the negative parts of western culture. Promiscuity is on the rise and marriage is no-longer a sacred institution it once was atleast in the most "progressive" sections of the society. It is sad but India too is a great country with some outstanding individuals which I hope will keep the balance towards morality and uprightness.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, you're right, promiscuity doesn't equal independence and I also think Cosmo is full of sex (well, sex and ad space).

I do disagree with what you've said about the independent woman ideal has changed. As a female in her early 20s, I don't think that being independent means that we're all going around trying to bed as many men as we can. What my friends and I are finding now that we're out of college is that we're still running after our dreams and trying to establish a career. I myself am no where near ready to get married and setlle down, but I'm also not running around being a turbo slut. I think it's not the that that women are having more sex with more partners, I think that's it's just more talked about now, which is both a blessing and a burden. Sex and the City and other TV shows haven't made being promiscuous popular, they've simply opened up a dialogue that has existed for years between women and their friends and brought it into a public medium. I've seen/heard interviews with the writers of that show who have said that they have based a majority of their storylines on their lives and the lives of their friends (who are most likely all over the age of 30), so the show really does deal with things that happen and hey, one of the things that happens is that women have sex. And if they're not married, then it's likely they'll have more than a few partners.

What I don't understand is that people don't seem to think that a woman can have an active sex life and be single, something dealt with many times in the show. If a woman is independent, can financially support herself, dates men and likes to enjoy herself, what is so wrong with sleeping with different men? As long as it's safe and consensual, who the hell cares?

Besides, it's not like men haven't been doing it for decades and no one seems to care or comment on it.... One more thing, in Cosmo's defence, at least they offer advice and provide health centre/counsellor's numbers so that women can be further informed and receive support within the community. A far cry from the 60s and 70s I'm sure.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nothing sells better than Sex. You want to sell an ice-cream, show half-clad women eating ice-cream and dancing suggestively on TV.


True, sex does sell, it is the ploy of writers, advertizers and comedians too incompetent to come up with an original idea.

On a more general note, the main problem is sexualization of western media. The amount of sexual imagery on the american mainstream networks is just incredible. Every top-rated show has some form of sexual content in it. Some shows are out and out sleaze shows like Desperate Housewives.


Too true, and usually it is sex with no consequences (unless of course the episode happens to be about making a statement specifically on teen pregnancy, single parenthood or STDs). Isn't it strange that hollywood and mag editors will pat themselves on the back for being so "socially conscious" because of a 1/2 episode on one of those issues, while at the same time, insisting that the countless hours of sexual content (with no consequences metioned) doesn't mean a thing. ;~D

Make up your minds hollywood, are you really expecting us to believe that 1/2 hour of "social consciousness" speaks louder to your audience than a whole season of trash?
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top

sex does sell, it is the ploy of writers, advertizers and comedians too incompetent to come up with an original idea
 

the only thing more boring than having to produce dumbed-down stuff  (trust me on this) is having to produce dumbed-down supposedly titillating stuff (where stuff=advertising collateral, articles, routines, segments and films).  engaging in that endeavor for any period of time requires a uniquely robotic mindset.  it's not incompetency; it's all about being able to do whatever it takes to make a buck.  no different than being employed at national crap and turning out stuff that aint worth making.  you can bet natcrap dont hire incompetents...they want the best compliant crapmakers they can hire at the lowest wage theyll accept.


Make up your minds hollywood


hollywood (youre referring to the entertainment industry as a whole i believe) isnt run by minds.  the only thing youll find in executive offices are pockets. with very few exceptions, the biz dont creat demand, but it sure the hell responds to it. (a baseball film rings the cash register bigtime? prepare for next season's tsunami of baseball flix and shows; there'll never be another major motion picture focussed on the blues--or a lotta other stuff--solely because 'crossroads'--or its equivalent--closed before it opened.) 

the choir that needs preaching is made up of morally valuing consumers. 

Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kingbee, you make some good points here, but nobody ever said incompetence couldn't be profitable... In fact, I think making incompetence profitable has become the only thing the entertainment industry has ever really accomplished with any kind of regularity.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
Promiscuity does NOT equal independence. We, as a society, need to make sure our daughters (and sons) know this.
I'm with you 100 percent AND I'm glad you included "sons"; for in the end promiscuity takes two.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top

In fact, I think making incompetence profitable has become the only thing the entertainment industry has ever really accomplished with any kind of regularity.


whattaya expect?


a theatre is nothin but a snackbar that people pay to visit.  there's also a screen and some seats.  the snackbar owner's only consideration vis-a-vis the screen is directly related to how many popcorn customers it attracts.  when all the owners get together with the distributors (studio execs), they tell em what they wanna buy.  the execs tell producers what to make.  

the biz is more market-driven than any other enterprise in the world.  garbage in...garbage out.

Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
If people weren't so obsessed with sex, sex wouldn't sell. Even articles like this that rant about sex just serve to make people more interested in sex.

But that's cool. Sex is fun. Talking about sex is fun. Reading about sex is fun. Promiscuity can be fun. But I suppose I have no morals. It doesn't bother me, but of course it wouldn't.
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
If people weren't so obsessed with sex, sex wouldn't sell. Even articles like this that rant about sex just serve to make people more interested in sex.


True, sex sells, and as long as that is true there it will be a big part of our popular culture, but if that's all a writer, advertiser, publisher or comedian has in their bag of tricks, they are nothing but incompetent hacks.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
Advertisers wouldn't use it so much if it didn't work so well. So that means the consumer has some complicity here. By all means, throw away your television, radio, computer, books, and magazines -- better throw out the Bible, too because there's some pretty racy parts.

Or maybe we should just all get over it.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
At the risk of being a voice of the Biblical world view, let me say that sexual promiscuity has been a part of the world since the first generations after Adam and Eve. While it has always been popular, it has always been unacceptable behavior and a profaning of what God designed our sex drive for. Sadly, in our "enlightened" modern society, the rampant growth of Secular Humanism, and the ever-growing attitude that if something becomes widespread enough it will simply take over as being the new "norm", we've created a world of "Relative Good and Relative Evil".

When gutteral discussions of conquests, etc., use to be kept in hushed voices and darkened rooms, such socially destructive and potentially deadly behaviors were at least kept in reasonable check. However, as magazines, movies, and television have been allowed to say more and more reprehensible things and show more and more provocative, suggestive, and destructive things, all to younger and younger audiences (largely while irresponsible parents watch right with them) we've made this all more "open" as one poster put it. Once you make things more "open" you make them more palatable. When they are more palatable they are less objectionable. Then you eventually get to a point where common decency isn't common, and what was rude, disgusting, immoral behavior to our grandparents is now perfectly acceptable in our President. Wow, how far we've progressed. And what a wonderful world we've created.

What I'm saying is, that little girls are growing up watching not only a plethora of immoral behavior (by both men and women) being shown as models of behavior, but they're seeing their parents model it, too. It was bad enough when pre-teen boys were sneaking around a copy of some irresponsible adult's Playboy and getting oversexed at that age. Now we have girls in the same boat, preferring to dress as the likes of Brittany or Christina. Anyone who's in touch with the younger kids is aware that little girls are getting very aggressive---it's not as uncommon as you think to hear of a little girl shoving her hand down the pants of some boy. Why? It's what they're being shown. It's what their big sisters are demonstrating and big brothers are bragging about.

Instead of demanding that the immorality of young boys be brought to task and corrected, we've allowed, with the aid of popular women's magazines, girls to lower themselves to the degenerate level of the boys. And we call that advancing the cause of women? At what sacrifice? I applaud any woman who stands up to the onslaught of media that justifies behavior that condones or encourages lowering of their decency, all under the fallacy of making them equal to men. I say, "Why do you WANT to be equal to the lowest common denominator?"

My wife and I are friends with a couple who has a 10 year old boy, an 8 year old girl and a one year old boy. And it's amazing the questions and conversations we all get into with the two older kids, particularly the boy. He's just now getting caught up in what peer pressure is like, and he's being faced with the challenges of being a Christian (a real one, not one just throws that moniker up when it's convenient) in a Secular Humanist society. We are constantly wrestling with how to explain in terms that make sense to him what behaviors are considered holy and acceptable and why---not just saying "because God says so". And the little girl is coming up on the heels of that. We have to make certain the boy understands there's a code of behavior LOFTIER than most of his "peers" and that he has the particular responsibility to exemplify that for his little sister. She needs to know that her older brother, as well as her father, model what is correct male behavior. Just as her mother demonstrates behaviors that a lady exhibits. Understanding that the two can be---are demanded by God to be--equal without compromising that which is holy and moral. Success, acceptance, etc. are not mutually exclusive to being moral and proper. But when we give kudos to such things as "presidential behavior" rather than express true moral outrage and denouncement, or glorify promiscuity with such shows as "Sex and the City", what else are children, of either gender, expected to believe?

Dharmagrl, thank you for being a voice of sanity. You are awesome.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
Advertisers wouldn't use it so much if it didn't work so well.


They use it because they are lazy. Defend their incompetence all you want, but that changes nothing.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wow.  Just wow.


Give me some time to formulate responses to each and ever one of you, please...but in the meantime, I will say this:


Shades, please don't think that I'm accusing you of being promiscuous.  I'm just saying that the general public is being given an impression that today's modern independent woman sleeps around....just be cause she can.  It may be true, it may not be true, but I'm just saying that's what the average person on the street sees.


For those of you who've suggested that I'd like the subject of sex kept in the dark, in secret - nothing could be further from the truth.  I'm all for talking about it, I'm all for bringing it out in the open.  We HAVE to, if we stand any chance of curbing the epidemic of AIDS and STD's, we have to make sex not to taboo to talk about.  But, there's a big difference between promoting responsible sexual activity and promoting promiscuity...and one that I'm not so sure society as a whole has grasped yet.


Also, I have to point out that I'm not Christian.  I used to be, but not anymore.  I'm Buddhist, and I hope this article shows that Christianity doesn't have exclusive rights to morality. 


I will get back to everyone who's been generous enough to express their opinion personally - I'm just sore and tired and broken right now and I need some rest.....so please, excuse my frailty.


 


 

Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't the big difference between "responsible sexual activity" and "promiscuity" pretty subjective?

and to whoever, sorry, I didn't scroll back up -- advertisers can afford to be lazy because most consumers are also lazy slobs. which is why most morons won't take the time to pop a BCP every day or put on a rubber. laziness. so sure, i can join your blame of advertisers, if only because my view of the human race as a whole is not very high.
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
p.s. and no, while Christianity doesn't have the monopoly on "morality," it also doesn't have a lock on the sexual repression of women. Buddha and subsequent bohdisattvas all said in various places that women were weaker than men. Any religion made up by man will have mankind's weaknesses -- and since all of them fall into this category, none of them can possibly have a lock on "true morality" or "equality."
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Advertisers wouldn't use it so much if it didn't work so well. So that means the consumer has some complicity here. "

It works well because there is a built-in audience for such stuff and that audience happens to be the hormone charged young male or female(like some people in this forum).. It is just like a built-in audience for the sequel to a successful movie. Whoever liked the movie will sure go for a sequel even though the sequel is very likely to be garbage(like recent Star Wars movies), but it sure is guaranteed to make a quick buck. That sexually charged audience may be a minority but there are enough of them out there to guarantee a huge rating . Sure if dumb stuff can guarantee ratings why bother to come-up with original quality stuff which may or may not work. Now, the situation has reached such a passe that if you want to
watch quality stuff on TV, either turn on the PBS or watch re-runs of Seinfield. Dont expect anything from ratings obsessed network TV.
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is, indianblogger, you automatically assume people who like a bit of sexiness in a product or magazine are stupid. This is a very arrogant viewpoint I've seen on this thread from a lot of people. You are better because you're a prude. You aren't better for being promiscuous. But you're more fun
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
But, there's a big difference between promoting responsible sexual activity and promoting promiscuity...and one that I'm not so sure society as a whole has grasped yet.


agreed. Don't worry, I wasn't taking personal offense--though I appear to have caused some, and for that I am sorry.

I will get back to everyone who's been generous enough to express their opinion personally - I'm just sore and tired and broken right now and I need some rest.....so please, excuse my frailty.


What's going on? I hope all is ok with you. You know how to reach me if you need to chat.
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
Amen to this. I heartily agree with Angloesque on this one...I read this and thought it was cool when I was in high school too. I dreamed that i would be that kind of woman...until I grew up and realized that I really didn't want to base my self esteem and morality on what was fashionable. I'm worth more than that and i hope other woment realize that too.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess part of the point I was making, again within the context of the Biblical world view, is that sex is extremely powerful and was, I maintain, designed so by God so that a truly unique physical bond would accompany the spiritual one between a man and a woman. Sex, by itself, is certainly a most simplistic animal force found in nature. However, we lower ourselves to being simply rutting animals when we take it out of the context it was designed for. It's meant in nature as purely a drive to ensure procreation. But in humans God added much more potent facets, both obvious and subtle, the go way beyond mere physical drive for propagation of humanity. What SHOULD be a powerfully wonderful uniting of a man and a woman, in an ordained combining of physical and spiritual has been turned into something much less significant, profane, and debasing as we parade it around and equate ourselves with dogs roaming the neighborhood. You can romanticize it all you like, but if you really are honest about how it's portrayed and how society acts on it in increasing numbers, you must admit that it's no longer the beautiful thing God made it----it's "just sex". Guys are initially at fault for allowing and being allowed to demean women and the value of sex, but this diseased way of behaving has poisoned women to the point that they're nearly as cavalier about it as men are. And, boy ain't we proud of ourselves for that?
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top

You can romanticize it all you like, but if you really are honest about how it's portrayed and how society acts on it in increasing numbers, you must admit that it's no longer the beautiful thing God made it----it's "just sex".


and you can cite with historical accuracy other eras during which things were different?  the turn of the 20rh century?  the 1950s?   the 1930s?  the 1830s?  the middle ages?  the 3rd century ad?   ill be most curious as to when human sexuality reached its apex before declining so drasticaly.   

Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cosmo must be doing something right. Look at all the fuss it's caused. (Isn't cosmo more interested in sales?)

Are society's promiscuous attitudes a result of mags like cosmo, or is it the other way round? People will explore their sexuality, and life, regardless of the content of cosmo - and will grow and learn from their mistakes. Promiscuity does equal independence, for some people. Fair enough, for such people there’s room for growth. But isn’t that the case for us all? As long as we let it ruffle our feathers, there's room for growth. Life is rich, and cosmo reflects a shade of it.

(Am I being too clinical here?)
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kingbee, I suspect that if you don't have a Biblical world view, then you won't get this, but I contend that it started it's decline right after Adam and Eve blew it. As a general course, I think throughout history a majority of society (globally) has tried to maintain basic conservative ideas and behaviors regarding marriage and sex. The World's Oldest Profession has always been there, and certainly there were plenty of people who were much more raucus in private than they were in public. But that was what I argue helped keep the reigns on open promiscuity. The fact that, by and large, society generally looked down on it, even if it was only for appearances. What we have seen steadily, though, is the ever-increasing move to no longer hide it. In fact, not only has shame all but left society, people are pushing through the media anything that GLORIFIES being a slut or a dog. Those who want to justify it or rationalize it try to give it other names, like "exercising independence". I'm sorry, but they're either a slut or a dog, plain and simple, with no real respect for themselves or the other person(s) involved, and certainly no respect for the something that was supposed to be for those in a holy union. I simply defy anyone to convince me any reason why someone like that deserves my respect. If a person is that cavalier about something so important as sex, I can only imagine how absolutely horrible they are with other important things.