Cleavage.

Right, here it is: an article titled Cleavage. So titled, in this case, because of the very wide valley between truth and socially vetted opinion.

In an effort to find an Australian news publication NOT ruled by Rupert Murdoch and his kingdom, I came across Melbourne rag The Age. It's a little left-leaning, apparently.

So I'm browsing through The Age online and I come across a blog written by a woman named Sam. The idea is that she talks about sex and love and relationships. She's written a few books and been on TV so she's totally qualified to opine publicly. Or something.

Anyway, I start reading a posting of hers. It's about promiscuity among women and the perceived double standard that exists for men and women. Yawn. This particular theme invariably ends up with people siding with whatever their own experience tells them, thus suffocating any chance of objective and intelligent debate. Nevertheless, I give Sam and her blog the benefit of the doubt and read till the end. Sam's pearls of wisdom include this:

"I understand there are women who equate sex with love. But surely these days women have wised up? Surely they understand that men will do, say, buy anything to get some action between the sheets? "

and

"Of course, any woman who has casual sex with a man she's not in a relationship with will know all too well that, on the night, while she might feel closer to the dude she's bonking (physically, emotionally, even spiritually!), the next morning when the booze has worn off, the pheromones have died down and she's no longer looking as hot as she did the night before, he's (most of the time) no longer that into her."

This is just so damaging.

Firstly, what's with the hating on men? A lot of men like sex, yes. A lot of men find a lot of ways to have sex, yes. But the idea that they'll do "anything"?? This posits all men as sex-obsessed. Thing is, all men are NOT sex-obsessed. Men, in general, do not walk the streets with their dicks greased, straining to forcibly penetrate any oncoming orifice. This tired idea does a disservice to all of us, men and women alike. It is deeply troubling for the many men who feel great pressure to fulfill this 'sex fiend' role set out for them, who feel obliged to be overtly sexual. Men have to be accepted as so much more than their genitals. A whole lot of people, mostly women, have been going on about the need for women to be understood as not a hole but a whole person. Let's give the blokes the same respect, right?

The men-must-fuck-constantly myth means women are socialised to use sex to control and manipulate men. We are told that this is sexual 'power'. Really, it's playing in to the idea that women are only able to get what they want through their bodies and their sex. Not so liberating, is it?

Secondly, there's just so much wrong with Sam's paragraph here regarding casual sex. It's asking the reader to agree that a woman will most often be disappointed by casual sex because, basically, the man probably won't like her in the morning. I mean, a lot of the time, it ain't about whether HE is into her. It's about HER. The sex is about HER, HER enjoyment, HER sexual agency. Sam is only reinforcing patriarchal notions of woman's sexuality. Way to go girlfriend.

I'll finish up with saying how dangerous women thinkers such as Sam can be. She's basically blogging her opinion, under the guise of journalism. She's not liberal in her thinking. Rather, she's a conservative puritan disguised as an objectively-thinking liberal. I only hope we educate our children well enough to see the difference.