Buttercup makes a good point. For much of human history, women (and some men) have turned to work in the sex trades out of desperation. They came from poor backgrounds, lacked sufficient education to develop an adequate trade, were forced into it by family or predators in their communities, were victims of war, were suddenly widows, etc. The social safety nets so often decried these days as "socialism" were virtually non-existent until the last century of so. Until the late 19th or early 20th century, the best level of support a poor, unemployed woman could hope for was possibly a couple of handouts from the church or taking up a space in a work house. Frankly, life as a prostitute was preferable for most poor women to life in a work house, where people literally lived like rats crammed into small rooms, infested with disease, lacking heat, food, privacy and basic sanitation.
Crude as it may sound, but sex has always had an element of commodity to it. The very act of sex is a negotiation between the two parties. Is it a means of bonding, an expression of love and trust, a means of procreation? Yes. But it is also means of survival for many women who have no other options. Historically it has been a means to hold on to a man who acts as provider and protector. Eventually that became monetized. None of this is new. It's as old as civilization itself, if not older.
But back to Buttercup's larger point. There is no shame in our basic sexuality. Humans are sexual beings. We are one of the rare species on earth that appears capable of having sex for pleasure as well as to procreate. It's unreasonable, impractical, presumptuous and downright creepy to assert that it should only occur in one way and under particular preconditions. Not every cultural norm fits with this very western, very Judeo-Christian, very male-centric outlook. Women have exercised their sexual power in very positive ways in non-western cultures where they are free to openly express their desire and to choose their own partner. Male dominated societies have long practiced a double standard where men could be viewed as heroic, morally upstanding citizens while openly practicing sex outside marriage, while women were expected to be chaste, submissive, humble and only receptive to sex at the request of their husbands. Thankfully, we've moved past that sort of limited thinking at least in this country. If there are side effects and consequences to go along with that, so be it. That is true of any significant social change.
Freeing the slaves and granting them citizenship (under the 13th and 14th amendments) in the US removed a significant source of free labor from American southern states and had century long impact on their ability to compete economically with northern ones. It also started the ball rolling for much of the social change experienced domestically by Americans. Still, no one is arguing seriously that we go back to subjecting a significant portion of the populace to unpaid labor to boost economic growth or reverse various changes. Desegregating schools (
Brown v. Board of Education), done with the intent of equalizing access to education, had many side effects. The legal arguments made in that case (based around various clauses of the 14th amendment) laid the foundation for other landmark decisions: the aforementioned
Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception-due process);
Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage-equal protection);
Roe v. Wade (abortion-due process);
Lawrence v. Texas (private, consensual sexual contact between same sex adults-due process). Those are all controversial rulings for some segments of the population.
Brown also eventually led to black and white children crossing paths in social circles on a more a regular basis in and out of school, listening to each other's music, watching each other's movies, etc. Those children ended up raising their own kids who had a very different outlook on race relations. Those kids are now dating and marrying outside their race in numbers growing faster than ever in this country. Demographically, non-white population groups are outpacing white and are projected to continue doing so for the next 40 years. I'm sure that bothers some people a great deal. Yet no one is seriously arguing that because of those unintended "consequences" we should either not have decided in favor or government mandated desegregation or that we should repeal the 14th amendment or that we established too much equality because those changes may also lead to too much swearing on tv or women in skimpy outfits.
Dislike some of those things all you want, but to argue against progress just because of a few percieved stumbling blocks strikes me as misguided.
ETA: Bluebonnet, I recall reading about prostitutes and women who used their sexuality as a tool as a 6 year old. Their names were Jezebel, Bathsheba, Salome, and (depending on your interpretation of the text) Mary of Bethany/Mary Magdalene. All biblical figures. All mentioned openly in church during readings at Mass. So shameful. How could my mother have allowed such a travesty?
Of course you are entirely right about children never, ever being curious about sex before they hit puberty. They never devise any games they can play to explore what all those funny parts are for. And if they do, they should be told to just go outside and climb a tree or play dress up.
She also let me watch Bambi, Dumbo, Snow White and E.T. around the same age. As I recall, those movies address violent death by firearm, intentional poisoning, divorce, forced servitude, animal cruelty, child abandonment and orphans. Pretty heavy stuff for anyone to deal with. What must she have been thinking? :think:
