- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
The New Prudes
'Sex-obsessed culture' excites 'good old days' fantasies.
Lil' Kim: The new Elvis?
- Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!)
- Center Street (2007)
Carol Platt Liebau is proud to be a prude. In fact, "Proudly, A Prude," is the concluding chapter in her teen-sex-shockfest Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!). What sets Liebau, an attorney, political analyst and commentator, and self-professed "voice from the right," apart from the spate of other recent books decrying the ills of teen sexual exploration, is her unabashed conservatism and real desire to roll back the clock -- sometimes as far as previous centuries.
Nostalgia is omnipresent in Prude, which reluctantly reckons that the sexual revolution did, in some ways, overhaul bedroom mores in her country: "With so many sexual taboos having been effectively dismantled, perhaps it's no surprise that sexual experimentation doesn't carry the stigma it used to, especially for young girls. Previously unacceptable sexual behavior, like same-sex relationships, is increasingly common, and at younger ages." [Emphasis mine.]
This is a typical Liebau sentiment, one that does nothing to distance itself from its clearly homophobic message. For Liebau is not simply bemoaning the fact that it's easier, and more socially acceptable, for young girls to be sexually active, but also that adult women dare to act this way as well.
Sluts and virgins
Liebau is just the latest in a series of writers essentially pitting the good girls against the bad girls -- the good girls being the ones we need to protect, the slutty, bad girls being the ones who are ruining things for the good girls. Her examples are unoriginal and largely unconvincing. While Wendy Shalit cited Bratz dolls and Abercrombie and Fitch in her more nuanced Girls Gone Mild, Liebau's original research leaves much to be desired. (She concludes that R.A. Nelson's young adult novel Teach Me "encourages young girls to fantasize about their teachers as sexual objects, thereby ripening them for exploitation by real-life classroom Lotharios." In fact, the student, Nine, almost winds up getting herself and her best friend killed due to her obsessed stalking. It would be quite difficult to read the book and want to emulate her.)
Both books come after a wave of tomes telling us how far we haven't come, baby, from Ariel Levy's feminist take in Female Chauvinist Pigs to Laura Sessions Stepp's supposedly objective journalistic take in Unhooked, and from Jillian Strauss's you-waited-too-long scold The Unhooked Generation to Hayley DiMarco, who has made a cottage industry of selling girls insecurity around sex (tag line on the back cover of Sexy Girls: How Hot Is Too Hot?: "If it ain't on the menu, keep it covered up!").
To be fair, the issue of girls being marketed sex-related products at increasingly young ages should be of concern to everyone -- feminists and conservatives alike. Naomi Wolf zeroed in on a Liebau target, Gossip Girl, in the pages of the New York Times. The shifting sexual landscape, threats of STDs, and reports of younger and younger children becoming sexually active are important issues, but as even Liebau herself points out, simply harping on the twin horrors of pregnancy and STDs is not the best approach.
Scolding the grown-ups, too
But Liebau's arguments throughout the book show that she doesn't want to shield only girls from sex, but adults, too. Liebau is horrified that burlesque performer Dita Von Teese was featured in the Los Angeles Times's calendar section as "fashion's 'it' girl" when she's known for "stripping down to her pasties." She is not just talking about girls when she writes, "... the idea that everyone has his or her own, individual sexual morality -- which no one else is entitled to challenge -- has contributed immeasurably to the sexualization of American culture. It's also contributed to the death of the concept of sexual shame, which is nothing more than an inner recognition that one has violated established standards of propriety, good taste, and morals." Whose standards? Whose morals? Liebau's? George W. Bush's? Mine? To pretend that Americans can all agree about anything, let alone sex, is preposterous.
Liebau makes the same tired mistake that so many do, assuming that "sexual freedom" means living in a world where sex doesn't matter, to anyone. In her world, you're either in a committed, monogamous relationship, or out there screwing anything that moves.
In other words, it would be nice to read a book advocating chastity that does not resort to the "why buy the cow" analogy, whether explicitly or implicitly. Liebau goes there, even in 2007: "...rather than being taught to value those who decline to engage in easy sex, boys are simply learning to avoid them; it's easier to seek out the girls who will meet their sexual needs while asking nothing in return."
First, this is not necessarily a new trend. Nor is it one I think anyone's applauding. I certainly don't want to see the next generation of teenagers assume that sexual pleasure is for men, while acquiescing to it is for women. I don't deny that there may be gender-based differences when it comes to our approaches to sex and what turns us on; however, the answer to this gap cannot simply be to make girls ashamed of sexual curiosity. It cannot be to urge girls to lord the possibility of sex over boys as a way to "obtain" a relationship.
What 'good old days'?
Liebau pits those of us who are sex-positive against those who favor abstinence until marriage, and I'm still not sure why we should have to pick a side. I'm not anti-abstinence or anti-abstinence education. I'm against abstinence-only education, which leaves those who are already exploring sex, or are simply curious about it, at a complete loss. But reading Prude, you'd think we have armies of sex-positive feminists like me recruiting teenage girls to forget their homework, whip off their clothes, and get busy with their boyfriends. If anything, I'd rather give them vibrators so they can learn about pleasuring themselves first.
We have to face the fact that there wasn't a universal "good old days." (Liebau decries the existence of teen sex information online, claiming that this "intimate advice ... in an earlier day might have been solicited only in the darkest hallways of the roughest schools -- if there.") Sex, in and of itself, is not evil. Teenagers have been kissing, petting, making out and "going all the way" for decades, and while they may now be living in a "sex-obsessed culture," it's one we can teach them to navigate by separating fantasy from reality and relegating sex to a role worthy of its stature. It should not be the be-all and end-all of their lives, but it does not have to be treated as something that will immediately taint them.
By the end of Prude, one might almost forget that sex is not just something foisted upon us by consumer culture. It's actually something teenagers and adults are naturally curious about. Yes, they look to pop culture, adults and peers for answers, and certainly there are plenty of ill-suited role models for them. But part of growing up is learning how to synthesize the information presented to you, and every time Liebau criticizes the likes of Britney, Paris, Rhianna and Lil' Kim, she forgets that Elvis was seen as just such a threat in the 1950s.



7
Login or register to post comments
deeby
4 years ago
The Byline?
Why is the name of the reviewed work's author appearing in the byline, instead of the actual reviewer?
Just wondering....
nightbloom
4 years ago
Superb review article.
Superb review article.
The clock can’t be turned back on the Sexual Revolution, no matter how copiously we recite its excesses and document its casualties (or, conversely, carefully omit their mention.
But just as the faux nostalgia for the “good old days” doesn’t light a viable path into the future, just as troubling is the failure of the Sexual Revolution (now on its third generation) to develop a viable sexual ethic of the body. Freedom of choice is only the start, not the end. If youth of both sexes are actively seeking more conservative roles and traditional protections in the face of all these options, we have to ask ourselves what the underlying causes are that are driving this volte-face. They're actually not the "new prudes" - the new prudes are really the neo-Victorians of nanny-state academic feminism.
Danielle E
4 years ago
curiosity killed the cat
RKB nails it when she brings up the rarely discussed topic of curiosity. It starts with sex ed, or much earlier. Girls learn little or nothing about their bodies and natural curiosity about sex is ignored and even punished from an early age. We laugh when little boys play with themselves, but tend to freak when little girls do the same. The damage starts there. Then we read or see these stories about rainbow parties, etc, and the adults typically haul these girls out to repent or play victim. I've never seen the same thing happen with boys. We have this cultural belief that they're naturally curious and their curiosity is celebrated or at worst blamed on biology and/or girls. Ultimately all the kids get screwed.
jericho beach
4 years ago
turning back the clock, indeed
If one actually turned back the clock to see where sexual mores were at any given time one would reveal a very active population involved in what our evangelistic conservative folks would call "kinky" eroticism and/or "permissive" sexuality.
Despite the church or state rules, which incidently, have their own contradictions between what they call right and wrong and what evidence has show their own individual practices, people will do what they do.
I do however, agree with the author that commercially targeting very young people with sexual innuendo should be restricted as well as computer games that couple sex with violence.
Canis Latrans
4 years ago
Hmmm...
Odd, how them folks in those earlier prudish times did a better job of "replacing themselves", even perhaps "over-growing the human populations, than the current crop of self-proclaimed "liberated" boys and girls.
These earlier "prudes" really musta been cloning themselves "hands on" under cabbage leaves. Ya think???
Sometimes this "liberated" generation, even the "boomers" are/were just overfull with themselves-, thinking they invented "strong women", "strong men" and the sexual "fulfilment" of both.
Get over yourselves. Alongside modern women, for example, many, many who pale by comparison in their "liberation", in most cases, both my grandmothers were far and away stronger specimens of womanhood. As were many of the pioneer women of their generation.
Strong men and women have ALWAYS enjoyed "fucking" and each other. On the other hand, no pun intended, there has also always been those "insecure" with their own bodies and heterosexuality, for whom same sex, mechanical/manual manipulations should likely always be the preferred choice. Leave them in peace to it. Nature's culling methodology works in manifold strange and mysterious ways.
Budd Campbell
4 years ago
NEW PRUDERY NOT RESTRICTED TO THE RIGHT WING
Surely no one believes that new prudery, or neo-Victorianism is restricted to the political right. What about American feminists, who are supposedly on the left, or at least "liberals"?
Am I alone in recalling the ridiculous prescriptions of such feminist polemicists as Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Susan Brownmiller and others of the movement Susie Bright aptly labelled "McDworkinites"? And closer to home, do people not recall how followers of that psuedo-philosophy nearly destroyed Simon Fraser University with their harassment policies, or how this same mentality is still in power at Vancouver Rape Relief and WAVAW?
loblollyboy
4 years ago
Ill Suited, Indeed
Strange that, beyond a token bit of cant or two, these authors don't really seem to have a lot to say about or to the main agents of society's sexualisation of younger and younger children, the fashion, advertising and entertainment industries with their truly breathtaking cynicism and callousness. If they were really serious, they'd worry less about little Amber's curiosity and more about the maggot-inhabited suits who are trying to make a dirty buck off it.