The Exploitation of Sexual Confusion
March 15, 2009
by Karen
|Editor’s Note: Guest contributor Karen is a college student and History major.
Our country no longer recognizes the difference between sexual exploitation and sexual empowerment. This confusion is one of the most dangerous threats to women’s empowerment, as it can lead to women’s groups unintentionally condoning exploitation and can further objectify their sisters. Until we realize the difference between sexual exploitation and sexual empowerment, we will have a steep and stark climb to the top, stumbling over our own efforts.
In that part of the nighttime, not tomorrow but not yesterday, there is a news program called World News Now on ABC, hosted by Jeremy Hubbard and Vanita Nair. I used to watch it quite frequently two years ago, but now I rarely watch. I did this week, however. In one program, Ryan Owens, a former anchor, reported on a new type of restaurant that emerged this past year. People who ate in these restaurants nicknamed them “breastaurants.”
All the waitresses have giant breasts, barely covered; their shorts look more like baggy undergarments rather than actual shorts; their full waist is visible. I was sickened and appalled. At first, I was furious with Ryan Owens for reporting on this and with the news company for giving him this assignment. However, as the report progressed, I realized this is part of a larger epidemic changing the way American people view women.
Owens addressed the question that this might be anti-woman, “Wouldn’t women be angry?”. He interviewed the women who work there and the women who eat there. All the waitresses were perfectly fine with it, and one middle-aged woman commented, “I wish I could dress like them.” Meanwhile, a chubby, bearded male compulsively grabbed a half-nude waitress and snuggled to her breasts.
These so-called restaurants and the behavior they elicit declare to the world, “It is okay to think of women only as breasts and thighs.”
The more people hear this message, the more they come to believe it and to view women only as body parts. Worse still, women will only think of themselves as the sum of their external parts.
The case of Britney Spears is repeating itself on a larger scale. Some people praised her for being a sexually-empowered woman, but I constantly reiterate the question: “How is portraying yourself as a sex slave meant to be sexual liberation?” Responses such as, “At least, it’s her choice,” and, “You don’t understand feminism,” have convinced me that liberalism has sputtered and died, enchained from the goals it sought during the sexual revolution. The only way for it to revive itself is to reinvent itself, perhaps to the more historic or ‘conservative‘ women‘s rights movement of the 1800s and early 1900s in which women valued their voices over their bodies—mind over matter, as the old saying goes.
The news report also raises the question: Do women understand the difference between sexual exploitation and sexual empowerment? The problem here is multifaceted. True, the owners of these places are responsible, but the fact that women willingly applied for these positions highlights an even worse tragedy—that of validating sexist attitudes, and encouraging more sexism through validation. As one female customer commented, “I wish I could dress like them.”
Should the goal of women’s sexuality be a random male wanting to snuggle and ogle her breasts?
Bravo, Karen! Thanks for grappling with this topic and having the courage to put it out there. I agree particularly with this:
Certainly women need to be aware of what a sexual ghetto so-called liberal America is. It’s the exact opposite of the sexually repressive conservative side. Women continue to be exploited on both sides because of it. It’ll take women on both sides to realize this and come together to fight it.
Thanks again!
Great article Karen! I love the last line, I guess that sums up the Third wave debate!
Thanks for posting this article and speaking up Karen!!!
This is a really, really interesting article, Karen. And a great question that all feminist should be asking – What is the difference between sexual empowerment and sexual exploitation?
I think contemporary feminists are so afraid of being thought of as ugly, unfashionable and anti-sex that many of the “pro-sex” feminists have embraced way beyond what could be truly considered sexual empowerment for women.
Honestly, I am not sure myself what is sexual empowerment and sexual exploitation. I think it would be hard for me, in some cases, to define and group this. But this is definitely a conversation I want to have!
Your mother must be so proud of you Karen. (Am I allowed to say that?)
Well done. You are a wonderful role model.
Well put, Karen! Actually the repressed conservative and the exploited liberal is the same thing — controlling women. They can’t accept who we really are as women, only what THEIR definition is of woman.
truly wonderful post. I am particularly delighted to see a young TNA fan having such sharp analysis on the topic. and Anna Belle and Sis I agree with your comments. “Mind over matters – our voices over our bodies” I am all for it.
last year strong women were characterized as either ugly (Hillary) or dumb (Sarah).
evaluation of beauty cannot be up to men – and we could line up, that beauty does not exclude a working brain behind it.
Love this article! Thank you so much for writing it.
I have very strong feelings on this subject. I believe that an empowered woman is one who knows that her beauty and self-worth comes from the inside. Isn’t it funny how women like this (such as Hillary or Sarah) never have problems attracting admirers, despite the fact that they dress modestly?
Is the goal of every woman to be attractive? Partially, yes. It’s the goal of every man, as well. But the fact is, women do not have to work so hard in order to be attractive.
Develop your inner beauty, and the rest will follow.
This confusion between exploitation and empowerment has haunted me ever since I entered puberty, and it has deeply affected the way I think about women and myself.
I believe essentially that private parts should be kept private. When a woman uses these as a part of her business, she is exploiting herself.
I believe sexual empowerment is when a woman feels comfortable with her sexual desires, does not use sex or sexual parts for business, and only has sex based on some type of emotional or psychological fulfillment. The emotion does not have to be love or long-term fidelity; it can be a temporary relationship, but it does have to be fulfilling in some emotional or psychological manner.
Great piece Karen.
Thanks for taking time away from your college studies to write for us!
Bitingbeaver breaks it down in her famous Sword of Power essay:
http://againstpornography.org/swordofpower.html
“It slowly dawned on me that Power given from the Powerful to the weak based upon the weak’s ability to entertain the Powerful was not Power at all.”
Excellent article . Isn’t this the same as Hooters? They still have those around and I can’t imagine what self-respecting woman would eat in one.
Helen, thanks for linking biting beaver’s site.
Her essay captures and analyzes the topic Karen raised from everyday experiences in our youth to the most extreme examples.
also like the sentence you quoted.
Great article and it needs discussion. This sort of restaurant works in the favor of women who’s bodies fit the narrow definition of “right” for the job because they they don’t have to compete with the vast majority of women or men for these jobs. For women willing to go along with it these jobs are easy to get, easy to do. The same for most women in the MSM, if you look right and are willing to go along with the smarmy sexism you have little competition for your job because most women don’t want it. But here is the flaw in the argument that these women are avant guard and in charge of their sexuality , in these situations men are defining what is female sexuality and they are defining it as something for men to enjoy and approve and allow. So feminists need to offer an alternative to the pornographic male definition of sex and female sexuality. If you notice men have even tried to pornify and define lesbian sexuality which they also fell is primarily for their male enjoyment. Each womans sexuality is for her to enjoy and define, she doesn’t need male approval (which incidentally is not hard to get) and she also has the right to express her sexuality by sitting on her average sweat panted bum and checking out hot men rather than parading for their approval. This sort of crap will never end because some women go along with it, the question for me is why is there not a chain of mall restaurants with hunky male waiters dressed in subtly sexy clothes? Young teen girls love to look at men. A bunch of them almost flipped my mini van when one of them yelled hot boy and pointed and they all shifted sides simultaneously. They also never miss a men’s open water polo meet. So don’t tell me females are not visually stimulated, that is male BS.
Karen, thank you so much for starting such an important dialogue. You have a gift for distilling into words what has been a creepy feeling in me for a long time. You accurately describe the dichotomy between outdated chains of the past, and where the pendulum has swung today, which it into exploitation. We need to provide girls with education about and role models for a third choice — owning and controlling their sexuality as one part of whole beings complete with brains and hearts. Maybe, as Bes says, exploitation of women will never end because there always will be women who allow it. But if we can more clearly articulate an alternate path, maybe more young women will choose it. Has TNA been thinking about playing an active role in education regarding this third way? To some extent, we serve as role models by living the third way. But maybe there’s more explicit work to be done. Let’s keep this dialogue going!
Puma for Life, these so-called restaurants are the same as Hooters. In fact, they probably took their inspiration from that place. However, these new restaurants make the women at Hooters look modest and “prudish” in comparison. It was really disgusting.
Reading the comments, I think we all agree about what women’s sexuality is meant to be. The big part is getting that across to everyone else, and I believe that is something we desperately need to do. And there are many ways to go about it. Lobby for education in public schools – we can work to modify sex education and self-esteem workshops – sue sexist/exploitative portrayals, reward empowering portrayals… some women write books on the subject. I believe the combination of punishing and rewarding is more powerful than either one by itself. There are a lot of options, all of which I believe should be utilized. Because TNA is a new group, we should think about what resources we currently have or what resources we can obtain; that should determine what option to take.
I think about who these women are who “allow” it: they are mentally ill (no not necessarily of the drooling and raving type), women who have been used as sex slaves since childhood, or/and drug addicted women who can be the latter, women of colour, native women–the latter two who our sons, boyfriends and husbands (and some of us) view as worth even less than ‘their’ women are worth, women fleeing abusive husbands, women who are owned and sold in other countries to our sex trade, desperately trying and promising to support old people and their children back home, women tying to ‘get out’ (how many of Karen’s classmates?) using all they have–their looks to pay the tuition, and their brains to make it through. On and on.
Regarding “outdated chains of the past”. Nothing has changed but the number of men who are your owner, one husband, or a neighborhood; and nothing has changed but how many men make a profit off your back–with one owner, a partner, it’s really no different probably just cleaner. We used to call it f**king for new carpets. The attitude is the same: women are not human. If an individual man treats you good, that’s his choice, not yours. You don’t really have civil rights, human rights. It all depends on who owns you. And young, good looking women, they have a kind of rights granted them, as long as they use it for the man.
Right on, Voice. For young attractive women this way of earning “easy” money is often the path of least resistance. As my daughter struggles with three children and getting 0 child support from their deadbeat dad I do not know what her options would be if I was not constantly “helping out.” She’s pretty enough to use her looks for financial gain, but she’s too much like her mom to do so. But if I were not here to help financially I can tell you, she would do whatever it would take to make sure her kids are cared for.
And don’t discount the 24/7 media bombardment of how women are “supposed” to look and act.
This is a very important topic.
Among the more infuriating, not to mention daunting, elements of the campaign just past was the mindless glomming of so many women (especially but not exclusively young women) onto the sexist/misogynist attitudes of Obama, his advisors and media/blog accolytes, and his supporters: the awful tee-shirts, the “shoot Sarah” performance art exhibit (created by a woman artist), the endless fantasizing about and infantilizing of Hillary and Sarah, etc.
I do take issue with your observation that “the fact that women willingly applied for these positions highlights an even worse tragedy—that of validating sexist attitudes, and encouraging more sexism through validation.” I tend to give women and girls in the sex trades a pass. The vast majority of them take such jobs out of economic necessity, because they lack the training, education, or opportunities for jobs with dignity, and/or because life experience and social conditioning have wrung out of them the ability or sense of self-worth to aspire to better things.
IMO these women and girls are the people most victimized by these horrible practices and attitudes; in no way can they be blamed for any “validation” of them.
Karen, great article. This evokes some of the points raised in Levy’ “Female Chauvinist Pigs” book about raunch culture.
I agree that not all choices are empowering, esp where they are choosing to enable the view of women as sexual objects.
I think a blanket statement that all sex workers are dupes of the patriarchy would be innacurate, though. The feminization of poverty means that for some women, these are still the jobs that make sense economically. The solution to that is helping women better access education and job opportunities, not to cut off certain jobs in the hopes that things will miraculously fall into place thereafter.
For some women, also, using sex appeal strategically to better their professional or economic position vis a vis men is another strategy. This was discussed in Amy’s article about Lynn Tilton.
I also disagree with “I believe sexual empowerment is when a woman feels comfortable with her sexual desires,… and only has sex based on some type of emotional or psychological fulfillment.”
So, men can have casual sex but we cannot? How is this feminist? If indeed women are more vulnerable to rejection after sex or must preserve sex as ammunition, then the solution to both of these is not to disallow casual sex but to attack the root problem. The problem is that hetero relations in patriarchy depend on a trade of assets — sex for money/security. If women have equal amounts of the latter, then our sexual decisions do not carry with them any implications of selling or trading, but simply enjoying. Which, as human beings with equal rights, we have the perfect right to do.
Octogalore, I was just about to reference Lynn Tilton myself, and how much comment was prompted by that article. Several women were so quick to criticize her and label her “not a feminist.” I don’t think we should let this issue divide us. We are not going to change thousands of years of brain washing with the flip of a switch. For many women it will be a process, but as long as we all lean in the right direction I believe progress will be made.
A woman on another site posted that “you can’t be a feminist and a stay home mom.” That made me very sad. Raising children is one of the most difficult and rewarding job any of us can do. For her to feel that way made me think she has bought into the male propaganda that your contribution is only meaningful if it is “men’s work.” Why must we insist on a rigid set of standards in our movement toward gaining equal treatment?
Octogalore, I don’t understand how you interpreted my statement about sex needing to be based on emotional and psychological fulfillment as a condemnation of casual sex, especially when I said these emotional and psychological needs do not require love or long-term fidelity.
I do not condemn the women who work in those places or eat in those places as being anti-feminist – simply confused between sexual exploitation and sexual empowerment.
A feminist is someone who works for feminist issues and/or helps other women break through discrimination.
Lynn does that. Therefore Lynn is a feminist.
My impression is that her flamboyant appearance and manner is part of that.
And perhaps Palin’s feminine wardrobe and big hair are part of it too. We shouldn’t NEED to wear tailored dark pantsuits to be equals in business or politics. Hillary needs pantsuits, but hers aren’t dark. Everyone’s wardrobe is where it’s at.
I’ve seen women on conservative Palin blogs with taglines like “Put on your highest heels and reddest lipstick, and give ‘em hell!”
Feminism is some things you do. Not what you wear (for whatever reason).
And it doesn’t matter whether you do it from home with lots of children. On the internet, no one knows ‘what’ you are — just what you DO!
Well said, Flora
Flora, I meant about the feminist post. lol
I agree with some of the other posters that rigid rules for women (behavior, dress, thoughts, whatever) is not feminist in nature.
I have been thinking along the same lines as Bes, that another angle to get at the problem is to find way to make men equally as sexually objectified. First of all I think most people would see it as somewhat ridiculous to have men walking around with their bulges displayed and therefore it might trigger some kind of realization that it is ridiculous for women to be expected to do so (and we are *expected* to do it — how many women’s t-shirts are NOT tight fitting?). Second of all, it would be fun for women which is another thing women aren’t allowed. Third of all, I think it might shift power dynamics, like a backdoor into equality.
I have noticed that some things that come with gay culture and the sexualization of the male body have caused some shifts in thinking in some of the men I know. When they have been exposed to commercials for “Guys Gone Wild!” they might become offended that something like that could even be on television, and this is a way in to talking to them about what it’s like for women. I also wonder if the fact that in many other parts of the world penises are allowed to be seen in movies whereas here it is the ultimate taboo might have something to do with sexism being, at the very least, less blatant (which may or may not be a good thing).
Anyway, I just think we need to do some creative thinking on these subjects. I personally think we need to get as many feminists as we can involved in creating media (such as Iphone apps) because it has such power in shaping our perceptions.
Carolyn,
Aw, shucks.
Flora — thanks.
I guess the distinction I am making is allowing sex (work or play) to control a woman as a trap to squander her ambitions and possibilities, or whether the woman is controlling the use of sex (work or play) to enable her ambitions or possibilities.
It is true that the latter does emanate from the concept of women as the sex class. But the entire pictue needs to be examined, as you state. If the overall goal of moving herself and/or other women forward in terms of economic or life empowerment is a net positive, then I think it can make sense from a feminist perspective in certain cases. Even though I would not argue that it is a feminist act.
“Feminism is some things you do. Not what you wear (for whatever reason).”
But chosing what to wear is still a action. It is something that you do and what you do choose to wear reveals a piece of your personality and who you are. I think it is perfectly fine for women to appear pretty or beautiful and to want to appear pretty or beautiful. There are also many ways to achieve that appearance – such as lipstick and high heels – without being exploitative.
I don’t understand the need for such broad blanket statements on what could be a great dialogue on this interesting topic.
Saying that “parading around” is just being a tool of the male gaze, or that people who “allow it” are mentally ill (shame much?), or someone w/ an Ivy League degree would never need to strip. Kind of harsh and really not productive. We as women can only speak to our own experiences. It is dangerous to the feminist cause when we venture to speak for people who are not ourselves.
Like Octo says, it isn’t always about titillation or approval of men. Some women are victims of patriarchal standards that tell them to look one way or act another. There are others still who choose to make the money they need w/ the only tools and resources they have, themselves.
A woman doesn’t always have to be meeting the male gaze when she is “parading around”. Enjoying your naked and natural self is just as much your choice to do as “sitting on your average sweat panted bum”. Women are capable of acting out of motives beyond that the patriarchy demands. Just like shaming women for choosing work in or out of the home, or having or not having children, shaming a women for how she chooses to express her sexuality is just as damaging.
It might be easy to say that no self respecting woman would eat at or work at an establishment like those mentioned above, but when we look at the work options often available to some women, a job like that might pay well in tips, and tips mean money. Money is a pretty motivating factor when you have mouths to feed, tuition to pay, or student loans to pay off.
Ouyang, I think I understand what you are saying and I agree. The real key is to make sure whatever we do, however we dress, should be on our own terms and for our own benefits and reasons. Easily half the men I know would not go to a strip club or to a “breastaurant” (unless the food was exceptionally good). Their reasons vary.
We are all, male and female, too complex for generalizations. The thing I got from Karen’s article, and I think she did a great job, is that we as women need to examine these things carefully using the template of what is best for me and all my sisters. To develop an awareness and make informed choices, not just knee jerk responses to patriarchy.
Women literally have thousands of years of brainwashing to overcome. My father was so protective and Puritan that there was a time in my life I would have felt incredibly liberated to strut across a stage naked. We are all dealing with issues that have made us feel dinimished as a woman. That is what must keep us unified.
Karen,
Certainly choice of clothing etc CAN be a feminist gesture. But when it is not, or when the clothing seems counter-feminist, the woman can still be doing other very feminist actions. The high-heeled receptionist can be blogging here between clients, for all we know.
Btw, I think hireheels blog is back up!
Flora — totally agree that actions and motivations are often not connected in any way that outsiders can appropriately evaluate.
Carolyn, Karen – completely agree with ” The thing I got from Karen’s article, and I think she did a great job, is that we as women need to examine these things carefully using the template of what is best for me and all my sisters.”
Karen, re “I don’t understand how you interpreted my statement about sex needing to be based on emotional and psychological fulfillment as a condemnation of casual sex…”
Pretty much b/c casual sex is mostly associated with physical rather than emotional fulfillment. I don’t understand why mutually agreeable, safe, casual sex is worse for women than for men, whether or not it has a deeper emotional component. Personally, as a risk-averse person, I think any sex with a sexually active, uncommitted person carries with it a greater-than-zero chance of disease, so I was never a big fan of a lot of activity for that reason, but I don’t see that as a gender issue.
Exchanging some sort of sexual based favor for survival is a large part of the whole feminist issue. Women who can’t get out of bad marriages because they can’t survive on their own. Women with children of deadbeat dads having to take the job where they can earn the most money, regardless of what that is. Women trying to get an education or get ahead the best way they know how.
If we could wave our hand and eradicate all sexual exploitation of women that would be wonderful — but who is going to pay the bills for the ones dependent on this very thing? What do we have to offer to take the place of it? And shouldn’t our campaign to protect women from violence include these women too?
If we block the opinions and experiences of those who have been affected by this how will we inform, enlighten, educate? Every woman, regardless of her choices or opinions are my sisters in this struggle.
Indeed.
“If we block the opinions and experiences of those who have been affected by this how will we inform, enlighten, educate?”
And I’ve been blocked. But unlike Octagalore, my opinion is not just about me.
What? You mean they put you on moderation, Sis? I have been enjoying your comments. Please email me at: MysticalRealm@att.net
I am sorry I could not respond to all these comments earlier. I was at work. I think all these people who glorifiy striping/prostitution/etc., indicate my point that some women don’t know the difference between exploitation and empowerment. Some women think they are empowered when they are merely exploiting themselves. Poverty and exploitation by poverty is an entirely different topic that has nothing to do with my article.
And I have no idea how certain people like Octo got the impression I condemn a group of women….
I would love to hear all of your thoughts on the matter, Sis.
Prostitution and stripping are one of the key ways in which the patriarchy keeps women down and reinforces the patriarchy. 4000 years ago or as long as human civilization existed, those were the only job choices women had because men viewed women solely as tools for their pleasure. To endorse prostitution because it makes money is contradictory to women’s empowerment. I think that rather than endorsing the dehumanization of women, we should condemn the practice – without condemning the individual – and search for ways to further empowerment.
I think we should condemn the men who set up the system and still to this day exploit women. I think the idea that if only women would stop participating in certain actions or wearing certain clothing or behaving certain ways with men (or whatever else) then it would all be okay and we would stop being the sex class is completely wrong. Am I the only one who has jogged past a group of men while wearing sweats and no makeup and still been harassed? It’s not what women do, it’s the fact that women are portrayed as subhuman sex-toys almost everywhere we look. The librarian who is antisocial, doesn’t wear sexy clothes, doesn’t wear makeup, wears flat shoes becomes the kinky librarian sex fantasy. The nerdy girl becomes the crazy sex-fiend ala American Pie.
If this is what feminism is, I guess I am not a feminist. I can’t hate women who feel empowered making $100 an hour to get ogled at all night at a stripclub rather than $8 hour to get ogled at all night at a Burger King (and hey, at least when they go to their car after working all night at the stripclub there is a body guard there to protect them from creeps).
I think we should be spending our time trying to lobby the FCC to make guidelines on media portrayals of sexuality gender neutral (IOW if they want scantily clad women in every beer commercial, there has to be scantily clad men of equal attractiveness doing the same thing).
This is all just anger about the idea that it’s those women over there who are making women’s lives miserable instead of the men in charge. Why aren’t we hemming and hawing over the men who go to strip clubs, are pimps by trade, make porn, buy porn, portray women as empty-headed titbags in movies and TV, abuse their girlfriends or wives, harass women online, etc. etc. etc. ???
Then we’re on the same page Karen.
Thanks again for your essay. I look forward to reading more from you.
Thank you for enjoying it! I looked up Melissa Farley on Alibris and found one book “Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections” I added it to my wishlist. It looks like a really informative read.
These sites:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/WhyIMade.html
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/blog/
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...