Sunday, July 26, 2009

Pure misogyny: the sequel

A while back, I wrote a post regarding 'purity balls'. My main beef was the double standard; that sexual purity was/is only ever applied to girls, whilst boys were ignored. In hindsight, I now realise I missed something equally as problematic; that religious fundamentalists and hardline conservatives can't separate morality from sexuality (when I say 'sexuality' I'm referring to one's sexual self, not which sex they're attracted to. Sexual orientation is a component of sexual self, but the sexual self also encompasses views on sex, sexual drive, etc).

Check out 'sexual morality' and its sister page, 'sex-negativity'. It becomes very clear what the far-conservatives, religious and areligious, believe that any form of sexual expression outside of your married partner is inherently amoral, and this reflects on your person; that you are amoral as well. This is a concept so ridiculous I have a hard time trying to formulate a proper response, but this is a good example. Turtle is a prime example of sexual absolutism; s/he is unable to discern a hypothetical gay teacher's sexual orientation (viewed as sinful) from the teacher's moral beliefs. As far as Turtle is concerned, the teacher's immorality begins and ends with his sinful orientation-no other information, such as compassion or charity work, is required.

Similar, if more crude and insulting, views can be found by searching 'slut' or 'whore' in FSTDT. Once again, we peoples'-in this case womens'-morality totally defined by their sexual self.

This actually explains a great deal of fundie beliefs. Fundies believe that sexuality defines morality; therefore, someone who adheres to traditional sexuality (no premarital sex, no contraception et al) is moral, regardless of their other beliefs and actions. You can be pro-war, reject any compassion or kindness to the poverty stricken, you can lie, defame and hate those different from you, yet you are moral because of your sexuality. Equally, somebody who doesn't conform to such rigid sexual norms is amoral, no matter who they are. A sex worker may regularly fundrais to support anti-poverty measures, but they will still be considered completely devoid of morality by religious fundamentalists.

Shakesville gives an excellent statement regarding that 'sexuality as morality' philosophy, in this case in the context of purity balls:
This transaction immutably and inextricably links a girl's virginity with her character—to the exclusion, Hart worries, of all else. "[T]hese dads and daughters may be falling for the misperception … that some sort of righteousness is inherent in the status of virgin, or any outward appearance of propriety. But what if that same virginal girl has a heart full of bitterness, envy, lust, greed? Would her dad still be proud? Would she? Should they be?" Good questions all. Here's another: Is there not something deeply troubling about a parent who finds it quite impossible to be proud of his daughter, or a daughter who likewise finds it quite impossible to be proud of herself, if she has a heart full of love and kindness and generosity, and is also an unmarried non-virgin? How many girls, knowing their father's love and respect is contingent upon their "purity," will resist telling their fathers if they are molested, or raped?
To say that defining morality as sexuality is dangerous is a spectacular understatement. A low key example is this, where a city manager was fired because his wife is a porn actor. This also shows that people (such as the aforementioned Turtle) are unable to distinguish a person's private life from their public life. Mr. Janke was fired not because of ability to his job, but because the council was uncomfortable with his private life. I don't care if it was Ms. Janke who was the city manager; the idea that one's personal life is also their public life is ludicrous. Thankfully, the community is at worst, neutral, and a best, supportive of the Jankes.

This, I feel, doesn't only show the inherent danger of 'purity' but, on an unrelated note, provides an adequate explanation for the fundies' support for Bush; in return for their vote, he gave America abstinence-only indoctrination, disenfranchisement of gays, and attempted to roll back Roe v. Wade.

Other good stuff here, here and here.

No comments: