Promiscuity does NOT equal independence.

Published on January 31, 2005 By dharmagrl In Misc

In my last article I talked about 'Cosmopolitan' magazine being nothing better than soft core pornography because of all of it's sexual content.

That article and the subsequent responses got me thinking about what it used to mean to be an 'independent' woman - and what it seems to mean today.

When I was in my teens and early twenties, being an independent or career woman was still a big deal. Women were still facing the 'glass ceiling' in the corporate world - they would get so far up the ladder, then would be passed up for their male counterparts. If a woman made her own way in the world, sans assistance from a man, it was either assumed that she was a lesbian or that she was somehow deficient in personality or looks. Women were, as far as my parent's generation was concerned, destined to have a job only until they got married and had kids. Having a house, a car, a successful career AND being a single female was something that still raised a few eyebrows.

But somewhere down the line, the definition of being an 'independent' woman changed. It's not all about professions and houses any more....it seems to be about sex. The freedom to have as much sex, in as many different positions, with as many men as you can seems to be the new standard. Cosmo, the magazine that used to be the flagship publication for independent women, no longer prints articles about single women and mortgage rates....it's articles over the past 3 years or so have become more sexually oriented. TV hasn't helped much either - the advent of shows like 'Sex In The City' have made it fashionable to be promiscuous. Young women emulate what they see in the media....and Carrie and her pals got their fair share (and then some) of men. And all this in an age where AIDS and Hepatitis C are running rampant. The message seems to be that as long as you use protection, it's okay.

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?

Promiscuity does NOT equal independence. We, as a society, need to make sure our daughters (and sons) know this.

Comments (Page 4)

Moderateman

on Feb 01, 2005

Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Tuesday, February 01, 2005don't think that adults ttoday are having any more or less sex than previous generations, they just talk about it more. I can see your a young person, sexuality in the 50s was defined by the base principal. 1st base.. kissing, with tongue..second base.. feeling her up over her sweater.. 3rd base feeling her up under her sweater. and no one I knew hit a homer..in the early 60s..A whole lotta lieing by boys about how they scored, but no action for the most part.I'll take the "young person" thing as a compliment. It depends on the demographics we are talking about --Marilyn Monroe and JFK were doing a bit more than touching sweaters. Like I said, it happened, people just didn't talk about sex as openly.

well I grew up fast and hard in East harlem and no one I knew was getting any.... I got my first at 16 and was considered a man among men, a stud, while everyone wanted to know the name of the "slut" I got some from. this was 1963

Moderateman

on Feb 01, 2005

Reply By: Helix the IIPosted: Tuesday, February 01, 2005I subscribe to Moderateman's pendulumn theory. I also think it applies to everything from politics to religion. Or another good theory is the rubberband theory. You pull in one direction hard enough, when it gets the chance it'll sling as far foward as possible with the equal momentum from which it was pulled back with.

thanx but I cannot take credit for that theory... was given to me by my sponser in first year of recovery {thank you big john}

Myrrander

on Feb 01, 2005

I got my first at 16

my favorite: "I got me sum." How poetic. What a lucky girl she must have been.

shadesofgrey

on Feb 01, 2005

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?

But clearly enough to get me blacklisted from your blog.

DragonFyre

on Feb 01, 2005

And to think, my wifewas just looking through the latest copy at lunch

Myrrander

on Feb 01, 2005

I admit, I will read Cosmopolitan or Glamour or Mlle if it's around -- I really love magazines.

It can't always be "Smithsonian" and "Scientific American."

Moderateman

on Feb 01, 2005

Reply By: MyrranderPosted: Tuesday, February 01, 2005I got my first at 16 my favorite: "I got me sum." How poetic. What a lucky girl she must have been.

sadly I cannmot even remember what she looked like. and am unsure of her name... what a putz I was {am}

indianblogger

on Feb 01, 2005

Nothing sells better than Sex. You want to sell an ice-cream, show half-clad women eating ice-cream and dancing suggestively on TV. More likely than not you will sell more ice-cream. Mags like Cosmo are following this simple principal, nothing more. You are naive if you think they are serving any high social or moral goal by publishing their mag. Their sole purpose is to get their mags out of the shelf and they will do anything within the fuzzy boundaries of the law to achieve it. In that sense, mags like Cosmo are no better than PlayBoy or other sleazy tabloids. The sad part is (I think)that they pretend to be a feminist, "progressive" magazine for Women. The truth is that they are as much progressive magazine for women as PlayBoy is for Men.

On a more general note, the main problem is sexualization of western media. The amount of sexual imagery on the american mainstream networks is just incredible. Every top-rated show has some form of sexual content in it. Some shows are out and out sleaze shows like Desperate Housewives. Ofcourse, media is a commercial enitity here in US and like every other commercial entity, the first & last goal is to make money. They cater to the age-group of 18-49, the one with the most disposable income. There is a whole generation of americans out there who have grown up without having to fight for anything. Everything has come just too easy for them. They didnot have to fight for their freedom, their rights. Opportunities are abound for them, naturally such people grow up with the notion that life is to be lived just for the sensual pleasures. For them, their is no goal more sacred than satisfaction of their desires. This Me generation is what the media caters to, because they are the ones most likely to watch their shows, buy their clothes, buy their CDs and watch their movies. Thankfully though, America is still a great country and there are enough outstanding selfless individuals in every sphere of life to keep the balance. There are fearless soldiers fighting for world peace in Iraq, there are publications like WSJ, Time , NYT doing their journalistic duties and there are people in this forum concerned about the moral decay of some sections of their society.

Being a foreigner in this country, what is of great concern to me is the export of the worst of american pop-culture to my own home country, India and to other parts of the world. This is a side-effect of globalization, and from my first-hand experiences I have seen people back home who have embraced the negative parts of western culture. Promiscuity is on the rise and marriage is no-longer a sacred institution it once was atleast in the most "progressive" sections of the society. It is sad but India too is a great country with some outstanding individuals which I hope will keep the balance towards morality and uprightness.

eventide82

on Feb 01, 2005

No, you're right, promiscuity doesn't equal independence and I also think Cosmo is full of sex (well, sex and ad space).

I do disagree with what you've said about the independent woman ideal has changed. As a female in her early 20s, I don't think that being independent means that we're all going around trying to bed as many men as we can. What my friends and I are finding now that we're out of college is that we're still running after our dreams and trying to establish a career. I myself am no where near ready to get married and setlle down, but I'm also not running around being a turbo slut. I think it's not the that that women are having more sex with more partners, I think that's it's just more talked about now, which is both a blessing and a burden. Sex and the City and other TV shows haven't made being promiscuous popular, they've simply opened up a dialogue that has existed for years between women and their friends and brought it into a public medium. I've seen/heard interviews with the writers of that show who have said that they have based a majority of their storylines on their lives and the lives of their friends (who are most likely all over the age of 30), so the show really does deal with things that happen and hey, one of the things that happens is that women have sex. And if they're not married, then it's likely they'll have more than a few partners.

What I don't understand is that people don't seem to think that a woman can have an active sex life and be single, something dealt with many times in the show. If a woman is independent, can financially support herself, dates men and likes to enjoy herself, what is so wrong with sleeping with different men? As long as it's safe and consensual, who the hell cares?

Besides, it's not like men haven't been doing it for decades and no one seems to care or comment on it.... One more thing, in Cosmo's defence, at least they offer advice and provide health centre/counsellor's numbers so that women can be further informed and receive support within the community. A far cry from the 60s and 70s I'm sure.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 02, 2005

Nothing sells better than Sex. You want to sell an ice-cream, show half-clad women eating ice-cream and dancing suggestively on TV.

True, sex does sell, it is the ploy of writers, advertizers and comedians too incompetent to come up with an original idea.

On a more general note, the main problem is sexualization of western media. The amount of sexual imagery on the american mainstream networks is just incredible. Every top-rated show has some form of sexual content in it. Some shows are out and out sleaze shows like Desperate Housewives.

Too true, and usually it is sex with no consequences (unless of course the episode happens to be about making a statement specifically on teen pregnancy, single parenthood or STDs). Isn't it strange that hollywood and mag editors will pat themselves on the back for being so "socially conscious" because of a 1/2 episode on one of those issues, while at the same time, insisting that the countless hours of sexual content (with no consequences metioned) doesn't mean a thing. ;~D

Make up your minds hollywood, are you really expecting us to believe that 1/2 hour of "social consciousness" speaks louder to your audience than a whole season of trash?

kingbee

on Feb 02, 2005

sex does sell, it is the ploy of writers, advertizers and comedians too incompetent to come up with an original idea

the only thing more boring than having to produce dumbed-down stuff (trust me on this) is having to produce dumbed-down supposedly titillating stuff (where stuff=advertising collateral, articles, routines, segments and films). engaging in that endeavor for any period of time requires a uniquely robotic mindset. it's not incompetency; it's all about being able to do whatever it takes to make a buck. no different than being employed at national crap and turning out stuff that aint worth making. you can bet natcrap dont hire incompetents...they want the best compliant crapmakers they can hire at the lowest wage theyll accept.

Make up your minds hollywood

hollywood (youre referring to the entertainment industry as a whole i believe) isnt run by minds. the only thing youll find in executive offices are pockets. with very few exceptions, the biz dont creat demand, but it sure the hell responds to it. (a baseball film rings the cash register bigtime? prepare for next season's tsunami of baseball flix and shows; there'll never be another major motion picture focussed on the blues--or a lotta other stuff--solely because 'crossroads'--or its equivalent--closed before it opened.)

the choir that needs preaching is made up of morally valuing consumers.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 02, 2005

Kingbee, you make some good points here, but nobody ever said incompetence couldn't be profitable... In fact, I think making incompetence profitable has become the only thing the entertainment industry has ever really accomplished with any kind of regularity.

stevendedalus

on Feb 02, 2005

Promiscuity does NOT equal independence. We, as a society, need to make sure our daughters (and sons) know this.

I'm with you 100 percent AND I'm glad you included "sons"; for in the end promiscuity takes two.

kingbee

on Feb 02, 2005

In fact, I think making incompetence profitable has become the only thing the entertainment industry has ever really accomplished with any kind of regularity.

whattaya expect?

a theatre is nothin but a snackbar that people pay to visit. there's also a screen and some seats. the snackbar owner's only consideration vis-a-vis the screen is directly related to how many popcorn customers it attracts. when all the owners get together with the distributors (studio execs), they tell em what they wanna buy. the execs tell producers what to make.

the biz is more market-driven than any other enterprise in the world. garbage in...garbage out.

Myrrander

on Feb 02, 2005

If people weren't so obsessed with sex, sex wouldn't sell. Even articles like this that rant about sex just serve to make people more interested in sex.

But that's cool. Sex is fun. Talking about sex is fun. Reading about sex is fun. Promiscuity can be fun. But I suppose I have no morals. It doesn't bother me, but of course it wouldn't.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!