An UN-Merry Go Round

Most Cautious Correspondent, 

What confidence you have that I am not a reactionary, over emotional female! No one can ever say we avoid controversy on our blog! :)

Here's the overriding message of our culture: Use what you have to get what you want. If there's collateral damage from that...oh, well.

Your friend's quote has some validity.  A woman using sex as a weapon of control may make herself into a "little hooker", and it would be because of her own manipulation, bargaining, materialism, etc.  In my opinion the behavior he outlines is worse than prostitution. A prostitute's goals aren't hidden. To pretend to genuinely care for someone or love them to further your agenda is wrong. (Yes, ladies, we see men do this all the time and we'll address it at some point. There's plenty of blame to go around.) Society used to provide all kinds of protocol, they were called manners, to insulate both men and women from this kind of behavior. A woman (well, a lady) wasn't allowed to accept a gift from a man she wasn't at least engaged to, for example. That properly protected the man from being used materially, and the woman from feeling obligated otherwise. It was considered highly dishonorable for men and women alike to "trifle with the affections of another." Again, while we've corrected lots of things that were wrong we've lost lots of practical protective ideas that served everyone's best interest.

This paragraph is straight from one of my comments on your recent blog post about this topic:

Women use to be the "powerless" but highly influential moral voice of the culture. Society's conscience, as it were. It was women who cared for the sick and poor in their communities and set the moral tone within the home. While I wouldn't want to return to the days when ladies were excused after dinner while men discussed important topics of the day (how frustrating that must have been for a well read, intelligent female!) one must admit that something quite valuable has been lost. Women were using those "wiles and manipulation" to try to even things out a bit, which is understandable. What you are describing here is something else. It is the use of power, control, and manipulation simply because one can. The most offensive reason of all. It is the game of "What can I get him to do?" not because she is powerless at this late date but because she is enjoying wielding the enormous power our culture gives to the beautiful. You'd be surprised how often this is in play even among females.

The moral imperative lies with the beautiful woman to check her motives. This goes far beyond sex.  Toying with someone's emotions because you find it an amusing ego boost or exploiting known weaknesses for personal gain is wrong. All of these problems are rooted in selfishness. In a true friendship or healthy committed romantic relationship there is a desire to do what is good for the other person. We can't always keep from behaving badly (selfishness is the human default mode) but from time to time, if we care at all, we examine not only our actions but our intentions.  If we aren't careful, we will lose our authenticity, our souls will shrink, our hearts will callous, and we will  become sad little shadows of the men and women we were meant to be.

As to the violet turn porn has taken in recent years, I do agree it's a backlash against the new female controlled, estrogen soaked culture. But there are undertones of retribution toward beautiful women as well. All men want an attractive partner; it's built in. Unfortunately, the person inside is often less appealing than the packaging (in large part due to how she's been treated by men--round and round we go). We've been so focused on what women want/need that we've done a very poor job in recent years addressing the real and unmet needs of men in this current culture. Men are feeling that even if they haven't consciously thought about it. Women who care about the well being of our husbands, brothers, sons, and male friends need to take up this cause. The female dominated rhetoric in the public arena makes it difficult for men to speak out and be heard on these matters.

Since you brought up Naomi Wolf, I think we should point out something she comments on when she discusses these issues. Men (especially young men) are being damaged by porn. She sees this when she visits college campuses and encounters a generation raised in our porn saturated culture.“For the first time in human history, the images’ power and allure have supplanted that of real naked women. Today, real naked women are just bad porn.”  Hedges documents the same thing in his interview with Scott Smith:

"Smith says the images crippled his ability to be intimate. he could not distinguish between the fantasy of porn and the reality of relationships. 'Porn messes with the way you think of women,' he says. 'You want the women you are with to be like the women in porn. I was scared to get involved in a real relationship. I did not know how extensive the damage was. I did not want to hurt anyone. I stayed away from women." (p.57)

I agree with you that in some cases his connections between porn and the other things he mentions are tenuous, at best. When you and I, who tend to see LOTS of connections can't see it, it is probably a bit of a stretch.

 I had a slightly different take on  the Abu Ghraib situation.  I didn't think it was as closely linked to the porn culture as the author. I thought it had more to do with the Lord of the Flies mentality that can happen in groups left to their own devices without the rule of law or authority (or when authority remains silent, or worse, participates). We see people behave in groups in ways that we would never see them behave as individuals. We see them  do things, that if you asked them beforehand if they would participate in such activities, they would deny that they would be capable of such things. Lots of studies have been done to show just how easy it is to get humans to inflict pain when it gains them approval.

I totally agree with you that he went into too much detail in this chapter. I think we could have gotten the point with a lot less information. It has, unfortunately, kept me from being able to recommend the book without reservation to everyone, knowing lots of people would be so offended by the language that they would miss his larger message entirely. Of course I always assume our readers are thoughtful adults who are looking for the truth, which sometimes means being exposed to some ugly realities. Aren't we proud of them for sticking with us! :)