Saturday, November 22, 2014

The Problem with this whole "sexual liberation" thing...



There's been a lot of hoopla going on since Nikki Minaj's anaconda, Miley Cyrus (and whatever the hell she's doing), and Kim Kardashian once again plastering her naked body for the world to see in various forms of media.

Some people are for it, saying that these women have the rights to exhibit themselves freely in any way they see fit. Which is very true. A woman's body is her own possession, and she can choose how she shows/doesn't show it.
Others see it as self objectification. It's one thing when men reduce us to mere sexual objects. It's another thing entirely when we do it to ourselves. 

Then the whole discussion of restrictions versus freedom enters the fray. Yes, we are free to do and wear what we want, however does having that freedom imply acting upon it?

Is it really freedom?

Could this just be a different form of the same restriction women have been dealing with for decades, only now it's labeled at freedom?

We are only free if we show off our bodies were only liberated and areas of sexuality. 

We still don't make as much as our male counterparts. 

We still are restricted to certain gender roles. 

Yet when it comes to sexuality, we are encouraged to be "liberated", which can be seen as code for "get naked, get in a sexually suggestive position, and get in front of the camera".

I don't really have answered about any of it. But I do have a lot of questions:

What is sexual liberation really?

Why does the "sexually liberated woman" have to constantly have sex to prove her sexual liberation? 

What if she proves her liberation by not having sex? 

What if she proves it by abstaining from any sexual activity? 

Maybe purity is her way of being liberated? Maybe in her choice of not having sex, not conforming to the backward and often mysogenistic view that she has to make or allow herself to become a sexual object, she is freer than those who bow down to this societal standard?

Maybe she knows that her value lies in a place that's not on her chest or between her legs?

And why does she get demonized for that? She gets called a prude, a nun, and a slew of other names just because she won't spread her legs for every Tom, Dick and Harry, or Julia, Jenny, and Jane. 

Is that fair? Is it fair for someone who feels that she is liberated from the restraints of to be forced to have sex to prove it?

Thoughts?