Err, Laurie?

The distinction between sexuality itself and the submissive, identikit heterosexual performativity currently demanded of young women and girls is a crucial one. Only when we accept that girls have sexual agency can we ask why it is so often stripped from them by structures of violence, shame and abuse. Only when we understand that young women and girls have legitimate sexual desires can we demand to know why those desires are stolen, exploited and sold back to them by a culture that bombards them with images of perky, passive, pouting women whose defining characteristic is their erotic availability to men.

Yes, it\’s OK, I do know that there are more variations of sexuality under the Sun than anyone has quite managed to catalogue as yet (no one has as yet listed all of the examples of Rule 34 for example).

However, in a species which reproduces sexually it\’s really not all that much of a surprise that the general, widespread, most common, \”normal\” if you like, expression of sexuality is about sexual reproduction is it?

You know, Tab A, Slot A, availability or not for that activity, that sort of thing?

6 thoughts on “Err, Laurie?”

  1. However strident her final paragraph, I am persuaded (if I actually needed to be) by the main thrust of her argument which seems to be ‘stop panicing and trying to control everything’ – at least as far as girls and sex goes.

    This “The moral panic over ‘sexualisation’ assumes instead that sex is only ever damaging to young women, and that having sex or behaving sexually must be resisted for as long as possible,” seems perfectly reasonable.

    Yes, there is a moral (and a medical) argument for both an age of absolute consent. There are arguments for special extensions of that for people in a position of trust and (although I am less convinced by these) for social disapproval of people who skirt the rules.

    But CiF publishing an article by a lefty who says “hands off – it’s their own business” is surely worthy of praise?

  2. “Ultimately, it is easier to slut-shame young women by telling them that their clothes are too sexy than to tackle cultural violence at its root. ”

    What is being asked for here as a solution ? Some sort of moral code for sexual behaviour ? Perhaps a bit like the Christian one that existed before it was wiped away by the likes of people who write for “progressive” newspapers on the grounds it was oppressive ?

    “can we demand to know why those desires are stolen, exploited and sold back to them”

    How exactly do you “steal” a “desire” ? Abstract bullshit writing at it’s best, this is what you get from a random sentence generator.

  3. There are no exceptions to Rule 34. Rule 35 explains how if there is not yet porn of an object, it will be created upon request.

    Thus, there is no purpose to documenting all examples of Rule 34, as it would be a catalogue of all existence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *