shades is exactly right...as is myrrander.   the word 'slut' is very much like the word 'witch' with which men hijacked the healing arts from women.  a slut is nothing more or less than a woman who refuses to let men (or women who are acting as male proxies) control her sexuality.  apparently many men find that frightening and they react by striking out--with the taliban being the best example of where that takes ya.

i have a problem with cosmo not because it deals frankly or openly with sex...but because it does it in such ridiculously puerile manner.  if i had enough money to capitalize a monthly publication, i wouldnt think twice about investing every cent to produce an intelligent, sophisticated and erotic woman's magazine.  im sure id make a fortune.

I don't and never have read Cosmo but do hear females complaining all the time about the double standard.  Women are different than men.  Little boys are different from little girls even if you give them the exact same toys, education, food, etc.  Facts of life.

Women are fooling themselves if they think sleeping around gives them any more independence or control.  They have always had control.  My mom always told me "those guys who were studs were only that way because girls slept with them".  We create the situation we complain about.  Promiscuity doesn't mean equality for the woman.  It means there will be more "studs" and bigger sluts.

Good blog Karen!

because it does it in such ridiculously puerile manner

hear, hear! This would be the only problem I have with Cosmo and it's ilk.

Best article I've read in ages!

"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?"

Exceptional point. One that many people don't even think of or consider.

~Sarah

Does that mean screw around as much as possible? No. It does, however, mean that society still paints women into a corner when it comes to sex. No sex? You're frigid, or uptight, or a dyke. Too much? You're a whore, slut, or tramp. No matter the strides women have made conquering the corporate world, the working-mom world, the rock n' roll world, whatever, the sexual sphere is still the #1 area of inequality between men and women.

I do use the word "slut" but not in reference to a girl who has "too much" sex. I reserve that label for the ones who use sex to take advantage. One example would be the female soldiers in Desert Storm who "slept around" so they could get pregnant just to be redeployed back to the U.S.

As far as women (and girls) who "sleep around", I just think it's sad that some feel the best way for them to get "respect" is sex. Especially since sex has never brought respect.

Excellent piece, Dharma,

As the father of four girls,I have tried to instill in them the values of their great grandmother, a TRUE feminist who made sure her daughters received every opportunity available to them, but who, after evaluating her options, found home and hearth the place where she would practice HER career. Unfortunately, popular culture seems to want to turn women into whores, selling themselves to advance their careers, and flushing every vestige of a conscience right down the toilet. Now, granted, there is a strong counter culture that encourages the opposite, but popular magazines such as Cosmo are thrust into their faces at every checkout counter.

Unfortunately, though, Cosmo's circulation definitely doesn't seem to be hurting.

the obsession with sex in the major religions (the Judeo-Christo-Islamic trifecta, Hinduism, and even Buddhism) is the greatest factor in making people "overreact" in sexual liberation. Making it "dirty" just makes a person more likely to go crazy to break free of those chains.

Reformation of sexual attitudes isn't just for the promiscuous.

Unfortunately, popular culture seems to want to turn women into whores, selling themselves to advance their careers, and flushing every vestige of a conscience right down the toilet.

This is what gets me. Simply because women do not choose to stay at home doesn't mean that they have been turned into whores.

So everyone who is up in arms about all this sex, sex, sex is going to honestly tell me that their current spouse was the first person that they slept with, right? (even if you didn't wait until marriage). Good on you if he/she is, but I venture to guess that for a lot of you saying that would be a lie. It's very easy to judge from our ivory towers of marriage and "morally responsible living," isn't it?

Simply because women do not choose to stay at home doesn't mean that they have been turned into whores.

I didn't say that, shades. BUT, promoting the idea of a woman using sex to advance her career, as many of these articles do, DOES promote turning them into whores.

In the future, when referencing my responses, I would sincerely appreciate you NOT taking me completely out of context.

Sorry for the hijack, dharma.

So everyone who is up in arms about all this sex, sex, sex is going to honestly tell me that their current spouse was the first person that they slept with, right? (even if you didn't wait until marriage). Good on you if he/she is, but I venture to guess that for a lot of you saying that would be a lie. It's very easy to judge from our ivory towers of marriage and "morally responsible living," isn't it?

My wife is the only woman I've ever had sex with, shades. That is,however, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

In the future, when referencing my responses, I would sincerely appreciate you NOT taking me completely out of context.

It wasn't out of context--you said popular culture wants to turn women into whores by selling themselves to advance their careers--my point is that plenty of women, myself included, have advanced our careers without sleeping our way to the top. But either way, what happens in a person's bedroom should stay in a person's bedroom. It's not my business to judge others.

That is,however, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

No, it's relevant--it points out the hypocrisy of the "morally superior" attitude (yourself clearly excluded as you have practiced what you are preaching).

promoting the idea of a woman using sex to advance her career, as many of these articles do

Sorry, I just re-read and now I am stumped...I do read Cosmo occassionally (I will admit not very often, I usually can't justify spending $4 on a magazine), but I have never seen the articles that promote sleeping your way to the top. Most of the articles are about how to snag a guy, or what moves to use, or what he's thinking during sex.

I must have missed the "Do your Boss for a Bonus" articles.

Correct me if I am wrong.

It wasn't out of context--you said popular culture wants to turn women into whores by selling themselves to advance their careers--my point is that plenty of women, myself included, have advanced our careers without sleeping our way to the top.

This is why it's out of context--at NO POINT did I state or even INFER that a woman HAD to sleep her way to the top. The discussion was about Cosmopolitan, if I remember correctly, and the attitudes it advances towards sexuality. Personally,I'm with the crowd that thinks we've attached far too much taboo to our attitudes towards sexuality, but was revolted with the "Girl Power" mindset of the 90's (which permeated the culture in which many young women were raised) that clearly stated that, to get ahead, you hike your skirt and lower your neckline. Using sex to get ahead, as this mentality stresses, IS whoring onesself out, and it's a poor way to raise up women; in essence it tells them that their minds do not matter and that they are somehow inferior to the dominant male culture, and that the only way to advance in that culture is by selling yourself.

My point was glibly stated, but obviously the following sentence was overlooked in your appraisal of my entry:

Now, granted, there is a strong counter culture that encourages the opposite, but popular magazines such as Cosmo are thrust into their faces at every checkout counter.

Incidentally, that sentence DIRECTLY FOLLOWED the one you quoted. By choosing to omit it, you DID take me out of context.

*laugh* I'll reiterate on this thread -- do to all the anti-Cosmo rhetoric, I bought my wife a subscription just to see what all the fuss was about. Hehe. I also bought a subscription to "Bitch" magazine, too, just to keep the universe in balance.

Om Ah Hum.

Now, granted, there is a strong counter culture that encourages the opposite, but popular magazines such as Cosmo are thrust into their faces at every checkout counter.

I guess I didn't understand exactly what "counter culture" you were referring to--I thought you were referring to the "morally superior no sex until marriage" crowd. So taking you out of context was not intentional--more of a misunderstanding of your original point.

So you can stop using the ALL CAPS feature and yelling at me now, ok?