Quebec against "Hypersexualization"

I new the Conservative government in Canada was bad news for women's rights. Still, knowing the progressive nature of Quebecois people, I hoped that the Conservative patriarchal agenda wouldn't be able to penetrate Quebec. But money talks everywhere. Canwest News reports : "The federal government has allotted nearly $355,000 to help reduce sexual violence, in part by promoting self-esteem and "solid values" among Quebec girls. The latest grant announced by Helena Guergis, minister of state for the status of women, is for a $144,361, three-year project in the Matane region "targeting the hypersexualization of girls as a root cause of dating violence."" I have to say that I haven't seen a statement quite as offensive for a while. Why are girls more in need of "solid values" than boys? If we want to prevent sexual violence, why do we target girls? Are they the ones who perpetrate violence? Or are they to blame for acts ov violence committed against them?

In spite of the seemingly feminist rhetoric about reducing sexual violence, the real goal of the project is to create a "purity drive" similar to the one that has been inundating public education in the US. The Canadian government feels somehow threatened by young women being in charge of the manifestations of their own sexuality and wants to exercise control over female sexuality. Here is the definition of the concept of hypersexuality provided by governmental aggencies: "Mansour [director of communications for Guergis, minister of state for the status of women] defined hypersexualization as a social phenomenon in which adolescents adopt attitudes and bearing that are too sexual for their years. Examples are young girls who wear clothes emphasizing the shape of their bodies or very young, immature adolescent couples who become sexually active in response to the influence of peer pressure, the Internet and mass media." Note how nobody cares about controlling the way men dress.

The idea that dating violence has anything to do with the way women dress is extremely offensive. After they make such statements, any attempt by the government to deny that they engage in victim-blaming cannot be believed.

The I-phone: Helping You Stay Pure

Jessica at Feministing reports that the I-phone now has an app that helps people make purity pledges: "For just 59p, consumers can download an application that allows them to take a purity pledge and then display a silver ring on their phone to prove their commitment to abstinence." The good thing is that purity is pretty cheap. In the bad news department, however, purity pledges notoriously achieve nothing good. At least, in the opinion of those who don't see the rise in teenage pregnancies and STD rates as a positive thing.

As somebody said, the virtue that needs to be guarded isn't worth guarding.

Here is one of my previous posts on Jessica's great book The Purity Myth.

Valenti's The Purity Myth

As I have said, Jessica Valenti's The Purity Myth is a very good book. Its main idea is the following:

"The lie of virginity - the idea that such a thing even exists - is ensuring that young women's perception of themselves is inextricable from their bodies, and that their ability to be moral actors is absolutely dependent on their sexuality. . . While boys are taught that the things that make them men - good men - are universally accepted ethical ideals, women are led to believe that our moral compass lies somewhere between our legs."

Everything that Valenti says here is certainly true. It does, however, sound extremely dated. How sad is it that in the XXI century a developed society would still need a book-long discussion that virginity is a patriarchal myth.

Although I agree with the central message of Valenti's book, I do have a criticism to offer. On several occasions, she refers to "our sex-saturated culture" and "our porned culture." One of the chapters is even titled "A Porned America." Valenti insists that "pornography is pervasive in America. . . we're simply inundated with it." It is sad that a generally lucid feminist writer would slip into these tired puritanical cliches. I don't know where Valenti manages to see all this sex and porn around her. I somehow never see it unless I specifically search for it. As for being "simply inundated with porn," this is just wishful thinking.

Purity Balls

I'm discovering truly scary things from Valenti's Book The Purity Myth. Turns out that there is such a thing as "purity balls." In 2006, more than 1,400 of these federally funded freak shows were held around the US. This is what happens during these events:

"Fathers escort their daughters to these promlike balls, where at some point. . . the girls recite a pledge vowing to be chaste until marriage, and name their fathers as the "keepers" of their virginity until a husband takes their place."

The reciting of the virginity pledge is often accompanied by a girl giving her father a little pink box (honest to God!). The fathers of these poor creatures, in turn, recite a pledge that goes as follows:

"I, [daughter's name]'s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity."

Cover?? For some strange reason, Valenti refers to these insane practices as "pseudo-incestuous." It's hard for me to see what is "pseudo" about them. These are fully incestuous rituals.

Now, there is a similar type of event for young men and their mothers. It is called an integrity ball. The young men are not expected to pledge their virginity to their mothers. Instead, they promise "not to sully someone's daughter or future wife."

Isn't it just totally bizarre that the taxpayers end up funding this idiocy? If some weird people (this is the mildest sounding expression I could find for them) want to participate in these purity/integrity balls, good for them. But why should the taxpayers foot the bill for this?

What counts as sex?

Jessica Valenti's great book The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women (Seal Press, 2009) offers the following beautiful solution to the perennial problem of what should "count" as sex:

It isn't sex unless you've had an orgasm. That's a pleasure-based, non-heteronormative way of marking intimacy if I've ever heard one. Of course, this way of defining sex isn't likely to be very popular among the straight-male sect, given that some would probably end up not counting for many of their partners. (21)

I have been present at way too many discussions of what should or should not be considered sex, and this definition seems perfect. I need to go and rethink some aspects of my life now that I have accepted Valenti's definition of sex.