"Some people — plenty of them women — believe I shouldn’t be as avertly sexual because I may inadvertently “feed the machine” in the process. Well, you know what? Trying to be less sexually expressive in hopes of putting an end to sexual objectification is a lot like promoting censorship in hopes of putting an end to violent pornography. […] Even Ariel Levy, author of Female Chauvinist Pigs, which criticized the rise of raunch culture (i.e. “the machine”) in America, told Susie Bright, “The whole point of sex radicals is to explore new and different and more creative ways to represent— and to have— sex.” And yes, in case you’re wondering, I do consider myself a sex radical. What concerns Levy are not women who are openly and publicly sexually expressive (like the triple threat Bright) but women “who weren’t prioritizing their own desires [and] were only automatically re-enacting what they saw around them.” In other words, intent matters. The major problem with the MacKinnon school of thought is that it ignores individual agency. […] When it comes down to it, I simply don’t believe that the way to achieve gender equality is by restricting those who are ballsy enough to own their sexuality and express it (in whatever medium). My blog and Girls Gone Wild are worlds apart, and at least in the environment where I live and learn, I get neither a gold star nor a trucker hat for flashing my breasts. What I do get is a lot of judgment, slut-shaming, and the assurance that I will never land the corporate gig expected of a Harvard graduate. So why do I feel compelled to blog? Not because I’m some passive victim of the male gaze but because I want people to stop thinking about female sexuality in such a limited manner. And if I can accomplish that, then occasional objectification is a very small price to pay."
the ch!cktionary: Is sexual expression and feminism incompatible?
Read the whole thing.
