Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Slut Walks and Slut Pride

Should women be able to wear (or not wear) whatever they want? Are we really islands unto ourselves or do our actions effect others?

Natural law says that we are not islands, but that for every action is a re-action. In the book "Why Gender Matters" Dr. Leonard Sax discusses those biological differences and if the imperical data proves that men react to visual stimuli differently than women do, then we as women would be forced to accept the truth that we CAN NOT wear whatever we want, or walk half naked down the street for that matter, and not expect that men would be aroused. Now, I am not saying that gives a man the right to rape a woman, which is what the "Slut Walks" or "Taking Back The Night" walks being organized around the world are protesting but rather what I am saying is that women must accept the fact that they can not dress like an object for decoration or use and then protest being objectified. Women can not dress like an object and then be suprised when a man desires to use her as an object.

We cannot accept statements like "There is increasing evidence to suggest that the brain is a sexual organ, that brain sex (ie.the sex of the brain) is paramount in determining human gender identity" by Pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Gaya Aranoff at Columbia University, but then say that a man's mind should not be affected sexually when he observes the breasts and naked or half naked flesh of the feminine form.

On a biological level, men and women are different hormonally but also different in the way the brain utilizes the senses for information. One example of built-in gender differences is in hearing. Barbara Cone-Wesson, Glendy Ramirez and Yvaonne Sininger have done careful studies of the hearing of new born babies. An acoustic brain response occurs in any baby or child that hears a sound. After testing over sixty newborn girls and boys they discovered for every 1,500 Hz tone played 80% of the female subjects had a greater response than the male subjects. This tone Hz is significant because it is the range of sound that is critical for understanding speech.

This study was confirmed by Louisiana State University Professor Jane Cassidy using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions. She concluded that the male and female difference only gets larger the older they get. This built-in gender difference has a real consequence with speech and is also why females respond overwhelmingly better to music therapies than men as well as language development. (So mom, if your son is not talking as early as your girl babies did, don't be alarmed, it may be a gender difference!). However, this may be why some women feel men are "yelling" when they think they are not. So now we see that a man's difference in hearing can have implications on how a woman will react or respond to him. Contrarily, girls may hear better, but this also causes girls to be very distractible in a classroom setting.

Visually, men and women differ as well and this is the area in which particularly concern me when discussing whether or not a woman wearing little to nothing as she walks down the street is free from all culpability for her "choice" to not wear clothing that covers her breasts and other decidedly feminine attributes. University of Cambridge researchers did studies on why women seem to interpret facial expressions better than most men. They did a study in which newborn male and female babies were given a choice to look at either a dangling mobile or a young women's face. The boys looked at the mobile and the girls looked at the woman's face. The results suggested girls are born prewired to be interested in faces while men were more interested in moving objects. The reasons were linked to the anatomy of the eye. Not only are the rods and cones of the eye, in fact the entire retina all the way to the cerebal cortex is different in men and women. Scientists have even found that the human retina is full of receptors for sex hormones.

Emotions, both positive and negative are processed differently in men and women. There is evidence showing that if a man has a positive emotion while observing something, he is going to keep looking. Men are more easily aroused by looking at a woman's body whereas a woman responds more through smell. Dr. Janet Smith has written extensively how a woman can smell a man's pheromones and be attracted to the smell of the man she is most biologically compatible with. A study was done in which men were asked to wear a t-shirt to bed. The following day a group of women were asked to smell the shirts and mark which shirts smelled "good" to them. What was discovered was that women could "smell" their biological match. Meaning, that women would pick a man who, on a biological level, would be most compatible with their biological make-up meaning that the men they chose would have been conducive to conceiving a child with them.

This has been documented and studied and also discovered that when she is contracepting, or using artificial birth control, her smell is altered and she is not able to pick the correct match to her specific biological make up. Men, while also demonstrating a keep ability to be attracted to smell and pheromones of a woman (Couple to Couple League had a great article on how when step-fathers are involved, the ovulating women in the house will no longer have periods at the same time, but will cycle alternately almost in competition for the male). So it seems men are very acutely aware when a woman is fertile and can respond biologically by being aroused just by smell. As Christians we know that sin only occurs when we act upon being aroused and not in the arousal itself so once more, I am not giving permission for me to ACT on their desires or impulses rather I am demonstrating that men CAN AND DO have reactions to women's bodies. These women who want to believe that the fault lies only in the perpetrator are denying biology and that means they DO need to be aware of how they dress so as not to arouse a man visually.

Another horrible thing about these "Slut Walks" is that they took something good, a walk for women to raise money and awareness about violence done to women, and turned it into a walk for the right to call themselves sluts, to dress as sexual objects making their cause about the right to dress without dignity. In calling themselves sluts, they further destroy their dignity by using a derogatory term used to impune a woman's character. Why would a woman choose to do this to herself and as a woman myself, who has experienced sexual violence, I find their actions deplorable. I am offended by their display of the womans body in fishnet stockings, black leather or other clothing that depict the womans body as a mere decoration for lust or a plaything. The message they accomplished in sending the world was that they had no respect for the beauty of a womans body as well as their belief that no one else should either.

As for their choice of terminology referring to themselves as "sluts" and wearing shirts with the word "Slut" on them, I wonder why these woman, who claim to be for womens rights, would voluntarily refer to themselves with a name that men use to justify their actions when they force themselves sexually onto a woman. All the progress they believe they were making by doing these walks are imediately nullified by their own actions of refering to themselves in this way as well as dressing the part.

I would never call someone, least of all myself, a name so foul and lacking in dignity. As women, why are we calling each other or ourselves such degrading things? Women are a gift from God. It is a privilege to be a woman. We are so precious that we have the finger of God touch us not just at the time our soul is infused into our bodies, but those of us who are biological mothers have the touch of God each time a child comes into being within our womb. The word slut is degrading.

On Fox News there was a discussion between two women in regard to the these Slut Walks and I was dismayed when one of them tried to argue that there is nothing a woman could wear or change about how she dressed that would protect herself from becoming a target of rape. What a horrific lie! While I agreed with her that a man who is capable of rape is the issue and a woman must know the signs and be aware of her surroundings, we cannot deny the fact that if a woman is walking alone down a sidewalk wearing a push up bra with cleavage hanging out, tight short skirt with a thong hanging out, her belly button showing with fishnet stockings, she may be more of a target than a woman wearing a skirt that went to the knee, covered her breasts and her stomach.

It is true that the man who rapes is at fault, the woman dressing provacatively would have become an "occasion of sin" which means she was not respecting her own dignity, much less acknowledging the dignity of a man being made a sensual creature that is visably stimulated. By pretending that a man is not a visual creature or that a woman has curves to her body that makes her different than men, she then has rejected natural law, she has rejected truth and therby become part of the equation that can set up a circumstance to become violent. If you dangle a piece of steak in front of a hungry dog, it may bite it right out of your hand. Does that mean the dog is a good dog and has done nothing wrong? Certainly not! But would the person who dangled the meat be free from any fault or wrong doing? Certainly not and that is my point.

We must embrace our biological differences, for they are part of the unique gift of person given to us by God. We must not only embrace the differences, but learn to understand them so that we can love others through our gender. When we do this, we are better able to draw others into loving us more fully, more freely, more faithfully and more fruitfully.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great, you are essentially blaming women for violent assaults. And please don't think I'm misunderstanding your article - I read it carefully. You are blaming women. Shame on you. I blame your vehement christianity - it colors your every word. You hard core christians are very much to blame for the state of our country today. Hey, the 18th century isn't coming back lady - get over it.

ChristinaKing.com said...

Anonymous:
How can you defend women walking half naked through the streets? You obviously did not read my article carefully because I specifically state that violence against women can NEVER be condoned.

You claim that it is Christianity that taints my view however my argument is scientific as well.

If you look at the scientific evidence at the way men have been created you will see that men have fewer rods and cones in their retinas as well as a different shape making them less likely to look at woman's face then her body.

Or what about the way information is utilized in the masculine brain, or how about men's reactions to female pheromones. You are not embracing the greatness in being male and female and for women to just expose the awesome feminine body out to the world like a side of beef, as if the woman's body is a thing to be lusted after, makes us an object and NOT a person.

I think you are mad about something and that is clouding your judgment because if you are a woman...you would not want to be seen as an object for use you would want to be seen as a person who has feelings and thoughts and dreams and ambitions.

This article is about raising the status and dignity of women. These slut walks are a disgrace because for the sake of "empowerment" women think that if they march naked down the street, they are some how taking back power.

The truth is, they are giving it away. They are becoming an object in the propaganda wheel of feminism which does not protect feminity. In fact it rejects femininity for the sake of "feminism" which is really women emasculating men while at the same time trying to become a man herself.

I for one, think that if a woman walks around in her underwear, a man, may have a normal biological response to it, which is to become aroused.

This is becoming an occasion for violence. Women should dress so that when someone looks at her, they see her, not her body parts. Period, end of discussion.