Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Friday, July 27, 2007
Mona Charen :: Townhall.com Columnist
Girls Gone Mild
by Mona Charen
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
What did you think of Gov. Sarah Palin's acceptance speech Wednesday night?




Wendy Shalit is loathed by a certain kind of feminist. When as a twentysomething college graduate she published her first book, "A Return to Modesty," she was scorned by The Nation's Katha Pollitt as a "twit," a "professional virgin" who should be given the task of designing "new spandex chadors for female Olympians." Others were less civil.

Shalit, who had raised eyebrows even while at Williams College for opposing co-ed bathrooms in student dorms, has now probably put herself even further beyond the pale by marrying young, giving birth to a son, and looking radiantly happy on the jacket cover of her new book, "Girls Gone Mild."

Her skepticism about the bacchanal we call modern sex is undiminished. The book opens with a discussion of Bratz dolls (sold by MGA Entertainment), apparently aimed at ages "four-plus." "Bratz Babyz makes a 'Babyz Nite Out' doll garbed in fishnet stockings, a hot-pink micromini, and a black leather belt . . . . the baby also sports a tummy-flaunting black tank paired with a hot-pink cap. 'These Babyz demand to be lookin' good on the street, at the beach, or chillin' in the crib.'" Another of the dolls wears heavy red lipstick and bright toenail polish to match red panties. One is almost reduced to sputtering.

For the slightly older set, the "tweens" (girls between 9 and 12), Target markets thong underwear. Apparently you can find "Care Bear" thongs at some retailers and "push-up" bras at Kohl's for the first-time bra purchaser.

American popular culture seems determined to obliterate innocence -- even in the crib! But Shalit's critique is not so much prudish as pitying. Her deepest insights concern the new repression that has been imposed on young women. Repression? In this "liberated" age? Read on.

Consider the "hook-up" scene on college campuses (and many high schools). Under the new dispensation, with Ludacris providing the soundtrack, young women are expected to have casual sex with no strings attached. Some girls consent to be "friends with benefits" for their male friends. Magazines like Cosmo and Seventeen, cultural bellwethers, advise young women to "keep your heart under wraps." The very worst thing a woman can do, apparently, is to express a desire for some sort of emotional connection or (gasp) commitment from her sexual partner. That amounts to being "boring and clingy," declare the magazines.

Scarleteen offers a "sex readiness checklist" for young girls to help them gauge whether they should plunge into the fun. Among the items: "I see a doctor regularly," and "I have a birth control budget of $50 per month." The emotional readiness a girl should demonstrate is "I can separate love from sex." Shalit notes, "Those who can separate love from sex are mature, like jaded adults. They are ready to embark on a lifetime of meaningless encounters."

In fact, Shalit argues, all of this advice and deprogramming aimed at women is necessary because women do not by nature thrive on casual, meaningless sexual encounters. They crave emotional intimacy and fidelity -- desires the women's magazines are at pains to quash in the name of maturity. Psychiatrist Dr. Paul McHugh describes the vast numbers of young women who consult him asking for Prozac because they have sex with lots of different men, all of whom say they're "not ready" for marriage. "'But there's nothing the matter with you,' I tell them; 'what's the matter with the world? Let me help you find a way of not hopping into bed with all these guys right off the bat . . .'"

The good news is that a small but significant backlash is underway. Eleven-year-old Ella Gunderson became a minor celebrity when she wrote to Nordstrom complaining that she could not find a pair of jeans that didn't show her underwear. Sixteen-year-old Taylor Moore travels the country advising girls to follow their dreams. She tells them, "There's nothing wrong with being a good girl . . . . You put yourself in a position of being a girl who's classy and having dignity, and eventually people will treat you as such." The "Girlcotters," a group of Pennsylvania teens, pressured Abercrombie & Fitch to pull T-shirts with sayings like, "Who needs brains when you have these?"

There's a teenage inspirational speaker who uses the word "dignity"? Together with the savvy culture warrior Wendy Shalit, it puts a smile on your face.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist, political analyst and author of Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Mona Charen's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Subject: Feminism caused Sluttyness...
I blame this all on the feminist movement.

Most young men would rather talk his way out of getting arrested than start a conversation with a young lady he finds attractive. Hence a girl had to have an attraction level of "x" for the boy to have the courage to iniatite contact with her.

Post feminist manbashing, the opportunity cost has increased and thus the girl must have an attraction level of "x+y" to make it worthwhile for the boy to iniatite contact with her.

So women, wanting men interested in them, have had to be more aggressive in marketing. Hence the rise of the sl*t -- in most academic environments, girls jump into bed with boys in hopes that the boys might be interested enough in them to learn their last names. (I am not making this up.) And in dressing like a streetwalker did 30 years ago - well why did the streetwalkers dress that way in the first place?

There is more - reducing all the other non-sexual aspects of male/female relationships - but the most basic is that girls who would have had boyfriends 20-30 years ago have to go much further to have them now.

Look at the movies from the '70s & '80s -- many of the actresses would be deemed too fat or not pretty enough today. The standard of female beauty has become higher as it is the only socially permissible thing that a boy can see in a girl now....

Defending co-ed bathrooms (seriously)...
> BrianR writes: Yikes!
> Co-ed dorm BATHROOMS?

First, there is a building problem -- when they built the dorms, they were single sex. When they made everything coed room to room, there still was only one bathroom. Maybe on the entire floor.

So at a place like UMass, the girls feel more comfortable going into the boy's bathroom rather than walking up/down a dark staircase where who knows might be lurking. It make sense.

Second, there are real proposals for a third "transgendered" configuration, hence it will only be one in three bathrooms available. Seriously, bathrooms designated "transgendered."

And third, exactly what is the difference between a girl going into a bathroom with a man there and a girl going into a bathroom with a lesbian there? Both are going to look at her in exactly the same way.

The co-ed bathrooms essentially are individual bathrooms. Instead of the open showers and such, there are private showers with attached private changing areas, private toilets with doors that shut and all. Instead of the privacy being the entire bathroom, the privacy becomes the individual fixture, instead of being unclothed in the common bathroom, one is unclothed in the restricted personal space.

It is the same thing with the building code. Prior to 1985 or so, you had to have TWO bathrooms in small buildings, each identical with one toilet, one sink and the only door being the exterior one. Now you just have one and label it "restroom" and it is coed.

Coed bathrooms sounds risque but it really isn't. Now as to kids walking the halls half naked in front of the other sex, well that has nothing to do with the bathrooms they are using and everything to do with something else.

And the nice thing about coed bathrooms is that it ends the gay/lesbian problem. With a coed bathroom (and the resulting privacy) one doesn't have to take a shower in front of gay men anymore...
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.