I was ecstatic to see a recent article on Daily Mail which describes how Erica Jong, a feminist who wrote in defense of free love during the 1960s, has acknowledged that the younger generation prefers monogamy to her ideal of promiscuity.
The article acknowledges also that women in their early 30s and 20s (my generation) do indeed seem nostalgic for monogamy.
I surmise that we are only hearing of the younger generation’s desire for monogamy now because we (the younger generation) are matured adults now and finally have a voice. For years, I think we just silently suffered under the thumb of pro-promiscuity feminists.
You see, I am one of those in the younger generation that grew up under pressure to be promiscuous.
Imagine you are an 18 year old girl. You are a good girl with good grades. Your own mother glamorizes promiscuity and so does pop culture. As a good girl, you probably aren’t that good at living up to this ideal. You do anyway though, because good is bad and bad is good now.
It is a miserable situation to be in. You pursue men casually, all of whom have no idea how to handle it. They don’t exactly turn you away but after doing what you did (which usually is fooling around), they speed off in the morning. It is a miserable feeling. Ms. Jong’s own daughter seems to also have tried to live up to this “ideal” and saw firsthand its damage. The article describes how Molly, Erica’s daughter, writes on her “hippie upbringing,” addiction, recovery, and her desire to be “normal.” Dear feminists: You are NOT helping us.
I eventually saw it as what it was: a completely wrong situation that put me, as a woman, at a complete disadvantage. I wrote about it vociferously. I went on feminist forums and talked about what I saw as a very real cultural problem that very much affected women. Instead of any kind of acknowledgment of this problem, I got stern lectures: “You can’t tell other women what they can or cannot do!” Really! So I can’t drag a woman off to jail for hooking up with a guy? Got it! Thanks!
It was pretty clear to me: feminists are entrenched in their ideologies. They are advancing some political ideology, be it libertarian or communist or whatever, not helping women. They could care less about women. They send their own daughters into miserable situations. You may understand what drove me to write this in 2003: “Old feminist hags will soon hit their graves, and it will be an opportunity for young women, my generation, to define what we want, not what they handed to us.”
What came as a total breath of fresh air was when the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative women’s group, published the study, “Hooking Up, Hanging Out, and Hoping for Mr. Right: College Women on Mating and Dating Today.” The study described exactly what dating in college was like: it was mostly a “hook up” scene not a dating scene. Most women had not been asked out on a date and most interactions happened while out, after getting drunk. It sent alarms to many organizations. Finally! Someone understood! I called them up and told them I’d be starting a branch club at Penn State. I had many women contact me and thank me for what I was doing.
You would think feminists might wise up as we, the younger generation, have rejected their ideals. Nope. To not totally cede ground to the younger generation, Ms. Jong makes sure to insult us by declaring we aren’t as “raunchy” as the older generation and are “obsessed” with monogamy and motherhood.
OK, Erica, bring it. I am pretty sure I can out-raunch you and I am pretty sure my sexual appetite would totally dwarf yours. But here is the thing: It is ALL for my husband, so you simply don’t see it. This is why he and I work: I am ALL his and he is ALL mine. I have promised to not even make him jealous, let alone cheat on him. This means this part of me is private.
Maybe it is time to say: We want what is best for women. I can hardly think of any mom on the face of the planet who wouldn’t want her daughter to be with a man who treats her right, loves her, and cherishes her for who she is. Really, to get this, it means exhibiting some sexual discretion. This does not make women non-sexual beings. It means our sexuality won’t be on total display with any man able to take advantage of it. But, just because it’s behind closed doors, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Realize this, feminists, and STOP calling us monogamous (and now likely conservative) women prudes.
I hope that, under the sensible leadership of this new generation, this scourge will be gone by the next!
July 17, 2011
Objectivist Sexuality: An Outline for Happily Ever After
Objectivist Sexuality discusses gender, dating, love, sex, and relationships from an Objectivist viewpoint. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. This book discusses sexuality from a philosophical perspective but it also has a practical purpose: to give men and women the principles and values necessary to define, seek, and ultimately find the love of their life. The topics covered include masculinity, femininity, love, dating, sex, relationships, feminism, sexual evolutionary theory, homosexuality, and many others.