next »

[sad_goat]

I want to know why any of this is anyones damned business. And, on the CHE? What on earth does this have to do with educating students?

[mouseman]

I want to know why any of this is anyones damned business. And, on the CHE? What on earth does this have to do with educating students?

Where else will they learn how to be respectful and assertive with green sheep?

[t_r_b]

I want to know why any of this is anyones damned business. And, on the CHE? What on earth does this have to do with educating students?

Well, to be fair, the author is addressing scholars interested in young female sexuality, and I assume that's a pretty wide-ranging, interdisciplinary bunch. Also, the article relates to ongoing discussions about college-age sexuality (the Girls Gone Wild phenomenon, etc.) which is clearly of concern to many in higher education.

And let's face it: this topic is interesting and important. I know a fair number of absolutely wonderful girls, ranging from toddlers to nine-year-olds, and I worry considerably about their future well-being. In a few years they'll be stuck between half a dozen different prescriptions for how to relate to boys, what romance and sex are all about, etc. Boys have it a little bit easier, but the models for behavior they have to follow often aren't any more conducive to healthy relationships. The more we know about this stuff the more we'll be able to help kids get through it relatively intact.

Heck, the flower girl at my friends' wedding, which was less than five years ago, is reportedly now prostituting herself to feed a meth addiction - despite having an outstanding role model (the bride). There are a lot of kids at risk out there, and acting like their sexuality isn't "anyones damned business" isn't going to help matters.

[litcrittr82]

I find it curious that, amid the subject/object discussion in the article, 'exploitation' has a clearly gendered object (women), but no gendered subject.  Who is doing the exploiting?  The marketers?  The voyeurs/admirers?  The porn industry?  It's of course all of the above; but the author discusses these as disembodied systems, without gender-coding them.  Sure, the implication is that we're talking about male-dominated, patriarchal forces that drive these systems; but leaving this bit out of the writing is, I think, a symptom of the broader ambivalence toward studies and critiques of masculinity. 

The exploitation is distinctly gendered.  The marketing of female sexuality is all about male sexuality.  Patriarchy produces the 'assertive' (read: forward), 'empowered' (read: sex-starved) woman in the image and likeness of the prototypical male.  We know all of these things, yet we continue to approach female sexuality as if it's some sort of enigma, absent any discussion of masculinity's role in this scenario.