Well, our "Porny Poetry" debate has gone on so long I decided to start a new thread. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look here on the blog. Or if you don't have time to read the entire exchange but you want to get up to date, click here for the Independent Women's Forum's quick summary of our discussion, which appeared yesterday. (You know something's getting long when other bloggers have to provide Cliff Notes.)
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts. . . .
I am a 30-something, African-American female, who was one of 'those girls' who waited until I got married (3months ago) before I had sex. I can somewhat understand where you are coming from when you address the 'double standard' that exists in sexual relationships, or the notion of 'why should we as women shield our sexuality to protect a man's sexuality?' (I know I probably butchered your statement, so please forgive me) But I have had the unique privilege of having my father as my primary caretaker and four older brothers who all schooled me when it came to men. And if you had sat on the other side of my 'tutorials' growing up, women wouldn't argue so forcefully about this issue or have to read books like, He's Just Not that Into You.
I am so grateful that I skipped over a lot of relational 'drama' because I was trained to see it (or him) as he was walking my way. Some of these insights I'd love to share sometime (perhaps after the holidays, I have relatives coming into town). But let me reiterate something I often tell my young single girlfriends: I am currently president and CEO of my own company. All of my employees by the way are male. Soon I hope to hire a janitor for a new building I am thinking about buying. So, before he has the privilege of sitting accross my desk, in my office, and shake my hand, he will have to fill out an application (like all the other applicants) with his real name - not Mookie, Ray Ray, or whatever alias he's going by this week. I will need his social security number, last several places of employment, character references, etc. And this is just to clean my toilet!
How much less discretion do the majority of women have, who decide to take off all of their clothes and have sex? Yes women can do whatever they want, but is it wise? Especially in light of the fact that women pay the highest price when it comes to the consequences of having sex outside of marriage. We are 20 times more likely to contract an STD because we are recievers in this act (if you think condoms work, check out HPV) and men don't get pregnant.
Where does modesty come into play in all this? It goes back to a few things my father taught me as a girl. He was a military strategist and retired from the Air Force after 27 years. He said, 'if you don't know your opponent's strategy you don't have one.' I hate to put such a beautiful relationship in terms of combat but our culture forces us to engage in the 'him versus her' syndrome. Simply what is the average woman's strategy in male/female relationships? Is it companionship, love, communication? If this is indeed it, then the average guy is not going to notice her cute smile and bright eyes when her skirt is so short it is a belt. Why? Because like it or not, men and women are different and we function and operate off of two different sources of power (ask me about this some other time). Companionship, love, and communication are not the relationship strategies that the average guy wants in a sexually saturated culture. If you just want to attract a guy to have sex, and that is a top priority, by all means sport those crazy 'daisy dukes.'
How can I, a career woman, be taken seriously when I testify before Senate hearings, or conduct a corporate meeting if I was wearing lingerie? My husband however, loves my lingerie when we are alone together. What women don't understand by how they dress is that, you don't attract want you want . . . you attract what you are. Like it or not, clothes say a lot about us.
I know this is a long response but there is so much to say that hasn't been said. Hope to hear from you soon--