sex

Mary McC. of This Book Is for You draws our attention to a link to the full text of a book called “The Stork Didn’t Bring You.”

The book, written for adolescents in 1948 by Lois Pemberton, is surprisingly thorough! But, as Mary said, has plenty of “cringe-worthy” parts, including this tidbit from the chapter Trouble, Trouble, Trouble:

A triple-header of shocks awaits the eager beavers who insist on turning deaf ears to all adult warnings. They’ll awake to one or all three one black morn, in exchange for the few fleeting moments of stolen experiences… You know them already: an illegitimate child; an abortion; or a social disease (p. 158).

Thanks Mary!

Disclosure: My dissertation, called “Female Genital Mutilation” in the American Imagination, is about how different U.S. constituencies (mainly doctors, activists, journalists, and academics) have framed female genital cutting over the past 30 years.  I offer this context for the images below (submitted by Craig C. and Breck and found via boingboing and adsoftheworld):

There is great conflict among feminist activists over how to go about decreasing the prevalence of “female genital cutting,” better known to most as “female genital mutilation.” One of the reasons for this conflict is the tendency of “Western” feminists to impose their own worldview onto communities where we find cutting (mostly among some ethnic groups in Africa, but also found in the Middle East and Asia). For example, the importance of sexual pleasure derived from the clitoris, and the relationship between orgasm and women’s liberation, is a central tenent of post-second wave feminism in the West. From this perspective, reduction of the external clitoris (clitorectomy) appears particularly horrendous and an obvious sign of women’s oppression. However, many women who are part of communities where cutting occurs find this logic to be irrelevant to their lives. Sexual pleasure takes a backseat to the benefits that come with cutting for the women themselves (group membership, attainment of adult female status, marriageability, becoming fully feminine — it varies tremendously, but be sure that the practices are important and meaningful in their own contexts). In any case, if “Western” feminists are going to try to “help” women in other parts of the world, many women say they’d much rather have clean drinking water and freedom from penalizing economic policies imposed by the U.S., than sexual pleasure. (I should point out, by the way, that whether and which and how much genital cutting practices actually do eliminate sexual pleasure and orgasm is hotly debated.)

These images are part of a campaign to raise awareness about and opposition to female genital cutting in Spain (I editorialize below):

I try not to get too emotional on this blog, but this hits me right where it hurts, and I find these images utterly appalling. The idea, of course, is that when women’s sexual pleasure has been excised (and remember, this is a controversial assumption) they feel nothing, but the implication is that they ARE nothing. These ads suggest that women who have experienced genital cutting are equivalent to fuck toys. Everything else about them disappears in these ads.  They are completely defined by the status of their genitals, and the status of their genitals is the status of their souls.  Even if it is true that these women no longer experience clitoral orgasm, or even experience pain during intercourse, they are still multidimensional human beings who love others and are loved by those around them for their uniqueness and individuality… yes, even the men they sleep with. 

What a horribly offensive ad campaign. The fact that it is likely made for people in Spain and may never be seen by women who are genitally cut makes it no less offensive.  Instead, it is an excellent example of the kind of ethnocentric, arrogant transnational activism that makes people in the West look like total assholes. 

I should clarify: I am making these observations as a sociologist, not as an activist.  I do have opinions about various sorts of male and female genital cuttings, but that’s not my point here.  My point is not whether or not FGCs are oppressive to women or whether individuals in the West should be involved in eradication efforts.  My point is to interrogate how we go about expressing opposition and intervention.  There are many ways in which to go about this.  As you can tell, I do not particularly like this one.

UPDATE: Racialicious made my day when they asked to repost this post on their own blog. It is well worth taking a look at how different the comments are here versus there and thinking about what that means.

Were you aware there is a sub-genre of romance novels focusing specifically on pregnant women? I wasn’t.

I like the titles–Innocent Wife, Baby of Shame…so scandalous! Here’s a link to the image.

I am not, at this very moment, entirely certain of how you could use these in a sociology course–I guess in a discussion of how we think of pregnant women’s bodies (are they beautiful or not?), how we feel about pregnant women have sex or of men being attracted to pregnant women who aren’t their wives (I bet a good number of people would find it kind of creepy), or whether we still think there is such a thing as a “baby of shame.” It’s interesting that the women are pregnant but still very skinny everywhere but in their “baby bump,” as the tabloids call it these days. This might be a starting point for a discussion of changing ideas of pregnancy–that the amount of weight you’re “supposed” to gain has decreased, that pregnant women ideally say thin everywhere else, and that they’re supposed to lose the weight immediately. Or you could contrast pregnancy with just being “fat”–can you imagine a similar sub-genre of romance novels with large, non-pregnant (or even pregnant) women?

Whether or not they’re useful, I know that they’re funny. Secret Baby, Convenient Wife? Awesome!

Thanks to Jason for sending it along!

Erik sent us this Hungarian commercial attempting to promote bike riding by suggesting that it will make you horny and sexy, even if you’re on in years.

Translation from Erik:

at 33 sec – Woman: “What do you think of a cup of tea?” Man: “It would be pleasing.”
at the end – Woman says to her husband, while cutting the head of the rose: “You should cycle more as well, Rezső”

Also note the girls-as-using-their-looks-and-friendliness-to-manipulate and boys-as-using-money-to-get-what-they-want themes:

Thanks to our reader, Laura L!

Also in the sexualization of kids: the Miley Cyrus scandal ‘n stuff and modeling, tramp stamps, and stripper poles for kids.

This article on modesty was in Women’s Care, a free magazine that showed up in my mailbox yesterday.

I assume the way the girl is posed and the look on her face are supposed to imply immodesty. Her clothes don’t strike me as at all problematic (I mean, are peace signs sexy?), so if it’s supposed to be an image of the “comeback” of modesty, the pose and look are extra creepy.

Some quotes from the 1-page article:

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Victoria’s Secret executives who have long asked, ‘What is sexy?’ are now trying to figure out, ‘What’s too sexy?’…The revamping of the company’s product lines follows a drop in sales. Questions to chat about: Is modesty making a comeback or is the decrease in Victoria’s Secret’s sales the results of a sluggish economy?

Where can mothers find modest clothing for females from little girls to teens?

Again we see the assumption that caring for kids is women’s work–it’s not parents who are looking for clothing for their kids, it’s mothers.

In addition to the cut and length of clothing, the article discusses “slogan” tees that say things like “So many boys, so little time.” There is no mention whatsoever of boys’ slogan tees, which are also often offensive or at least questionable. We only need to worry about modesty in reference to girls, apparently.

Andrea G. in Switzerland snapped these pictures of an ad campaign for TerraSuisse natural agriculture. Their tagline translates as “TerraSuisse guarantees natural Swiss agriculture.” They might be useful for a discussion of doing gender (West and colleagues) or gender as performativity (Butler). As Andrea S. noted, it’s obvious instantly that the bird is supposed to be female and the chipmunk male by their pose alone.

Posed like a chick:

Posed like a dude:

They might, also, be a nice contrast to this one for which a gender is not immediately apparent (to me…but who knows in Switzerland):

Thanks Andrea!