My girlfriend Code Name recently met a male suitor and upon witnessing their courtship, an acquaintance took him aside and warned him, “You shouldn’t date Code Name. Don’t you know her sexual history?” That’s so offensive. So WHAT if Code Name has dated men you’ve met before? That doesn’t mean their wieners were any more or less special than the wieners of someone you haven’t met! The blame hurt my friend and made her feel negative, guilty and lowered her self esteem. I hate when anyone feels bad about themselves, especially when they feel as though an extension of their physical body. My least favorite piece of misogyny this week is slut shaming.
Slut shaming, according to Communication theorist Leora Tanenbaum, is the implication that because a woman has had sex, or dresses in a certain sexual manner, she is “not worth knowing or caring about.” It enrages me because I think that EVERYONE is worth knowing and being cared about!
I hate the idea that anyone is somehow less worthy because they have laid with a man, as one lays with a man. That’s like saying, “This virgin is no longer pure! Now what are we going to throw in the volcano?! No, not pop rocks! Not after… the incident.” The notion of purity is ridiculous. Women aren’t dirty or tainted if they’ve had sex. Women can enjoy and love sex the same way a man does, or more often, better.
Someone attempted to deter that same guy from dating Code Name, saying, “everybody’s been there before” like she was a unicorn-themed bar that was so last year. The pronoun “there” literally reduces and dehumanizes a woman. And no one deserves to feel dehumanized, unless they’re an evil ventriloquism dummy that a wizard magically turned into a human, in which case dehumanize away, because, um, creepy. And whether or not Code Name has slept with a gaggle of people is not the issue, but even if she had, (as long as she’s safe and doesn’t feel in danger) maybe a more logical reaction would be, “Oh great! She’s probably awesome at sex!”
More after the jump!
The last gentleman I pursued was warned by a friend of his, “Don’t ask her out! Don’t you know she dated name-of-man?!” That really hurt my feelings to be solely identified by and villified for my sexual past. I have been called a slut constantly, incessantly, mostly on the internet, usually in the comments section of feminist humor pieces—wait why am I doing this to myself? Oh, right, the curse of the wretched scruples: my gift, my burden!
I don’t like being called a slut or being objectified. (Weird, right?) I hate feeling reduced to an extension of my body and my sexuality because I struggle vehemently to believe that I deserve to exist, assert my voice and take up space. It’s painful to believe that I am not entitled to be here, that my presence is somehow a mistake or hurting people. This guilt for taking up space has even bled into a guilt for taking up space on stage and has contributed to my huge body dysmorphia, pun intended. I feel as though I am incapable of being loved, because I don’t merit existence in the first place. The real reason I loathe misogyny and the concept of dehumanization so fervently is that I don’t want to feel shame simply for being alive. I do exist. Don’t blame me… blame my mom for sacrificing a lamb to the dark lord.
Slut shaming, objectification and anything under the ugly umbrella of dehumanization is damaging not only to the woman in question but to women and society as a whole. It can greatly affect a woman’s self esteem. Additionally, seeing other woman diminished reinforces a subconscious underlying belief that we are simply bodies. Ergo, it can perpetuate rape culture by reiterating the concept that we are physical things to be acted upon.
Guess what, women? We’re multilayered complex human beings who deserve to take up space and exist. And men deserve to take up space too! Because human beings are not things. We’re so much more than our physical self. We have the right to love, to be loved, to be known, to be heard. Please, feel good about yourself and your body and assert your ability to take up space! And if it offends you that I think everyone should feel empowered… well, just remember, I fucked someone to get this column.
Wait, is Code Name actually yourself? Because suddenly halfway through this you transitioned from third person to first person with zero explanation.
“Because human beings are not things.” This objectively and completely untrue. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/…
“Women can enjoy and love sex the same way a man does, or more often, better.” True, and then what? That’s a weird judgment call to make.
I don’t get it, was the ventriloquism dummy evil *before* it was changed into a human by the wizard, or only afterward?
Why is Graham?
I thought this was heartfelt and passionate, I liked it. You have a way with words.
Is no one paying attention to the substance of this piece? Oh right, of course not, because men.
@gaensbluemchen: Because the writing is confusing as it currently stands. It needs a good twice-over by an editor; starting with just the first sentence, “My girlfriend Code Name recently met a male suitor”. The primary and most common definition of ‘girlfriend’ is someone’s romantic or amorous partner. So we as the reader go into this sentence having to assume that this is some sort of polyamorous situation. But then that as a concept is never re-examined or explained.
I can understand that it’s frustrating when you feel like the ‘point’ is being missed because of tone arguments or concern trolling or that type of thing. But we need to have critiques of both content and prose, this is a necessary component of the commentary. We owe it both to ourselves and to the author to have a discussion that includes the methodology of how the argument is being constructed and the argument itself.
Overall, I strongly agree with the generalized points that Ms. Holm is making in this piece. But I do find it to be a rather limited analysis (questions of the purity of women are always rooted in economic models of property and chattel, but whatevs), but we can’t really have a grand unified theory of intersectionality in a humor column.
I’ve been slut shamed by lesbians which is just so, WTF?
Tune in next week when Barbara exposes Misogyny, at the hands of Evil Straight White Men, while folding clothes at the local laundrymat !
Graham, I thoroughly look forward to reading all of your other critiques of the other columns in the Mercury this week based on both content and prose. Surely you aren’t just interested in critiquing this piece.
@ETEETS: Nice try at dismissing my concerns as simply being agenda oriented. But you’ve got one major point wrong. This isn’t a column in the Mercury; this is a blogpost. So you’ve done a wonderful job of moving the goalposts and deflecting away from the criticisms to the criticizer themselves. These are all wonderful silencing techniques and I applaud your attempts at using them so skillfully.
But anyways, to address your baseless point: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…
Comment 10 in particular, I am addressing content & prose of the author’s argument. But again, I really do appreciate you feeding my narcissism by making it all about me. That’s just wonderful.
Just commenting to say you are rad! I would say that I want to read your funny intellectualizing on what you hate about misogyny forever, but I can’t because I have to hope that maybe, one day, in the very distant future, people won’t be so goddamn ignorant, divisive, and hateful.
In the mean time, I am thankful to read these pieces as long as you’re makin’ them because they are terribly fantastic. It also gives me hope for us all that the Mercury will actually host these! Barbara Holm, preach it.
“intellectualizing” ? you gotta be kidding.
I think the Merc is playing a joke on us by getting a High School blogger to fill space.
I don’t disagree with your points, but misogyny isn’t exclusive to men. I’ve met more female perpetrators of “slut-shaming” than male; “Don’t sleep with her you might get X,” and “you’ll probably get herpes from being in the same room as her” are things I’ve never heard a guy say regarding a girl, but I’ve heard girls say about each other.
anyways, anecdotal evidence, radda-radda
I’m on the outside of this circle, but I think I may know the suitor (or ones like him) that Code Name was courting and if she’s smart, she’ll take a look at his sexual past. Chances are if he’s vague about it, he’s lying and you’re in for some trouble. Unless she wants to be cheated on and/or given an STD. If its someone she only recently met she should talk to some of his ex’s or his friends to save herself the trouble. If its someone she knows, then chances are he already knows her past and doesn’t care.