Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 20:10:24 -0500
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <Furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu>
Subject: M-TH: LM Promotes Sexual "Prudence" and Prudery (was LM Blaims a Woman


Critiquing LM writer Ann Bradley' traditional bourgeios sexual morality, I
wrote:
>LM's paternalistic attempt to save women from being cast as "victims" by
>wrong-headed feminists/experts slides into an argument that ends up
>equating a woman's body with "a =A320 note." See the following excerpt from
>an article by Ann Bradley. Could it be that Ann is a "sexual commodity
>fetishist"?

James replied:
>Could it be that you are being a bit pedantic?

The manner of James' response suggests that he didn't know how to defend
the notions advanced by Ann Bradley. Let's see if he will rise up to the
occasion this time.

Ann Bradley defends the man who attempted to rape a woman because he was
"only acting in a manner that traditional standards would have called
normal." Well, times have changed, Ann! Apparently, however, Ann prefers
the traditional sexual double standard: "Boys will be boys, so we can't
blaim the man for attempting to rape a woman if she invites him to sleep on
her couch. She should know better, she should be 'prudent'." That is the
nature of "liberty" that Ann Bradley and LM champion. I say that is a
twisted notion. The kind of sexual "prudence" that Ann advocates encourages
prudery in women. Ann's and LM's notion of "prudence" teaches women *not*
to wear sexy clothes, *not* to make sexually provocative comments, *not* to
invite a dancing partner to sleep on a couch, *not* to walk the streets at
night, etc. *unless* women expect to have sex or are aware of a risk of
being raped, because, you know, according to Ann, women's bodies under
capitalism are comparable to "a =A320 note" [cheap!], *sexual commodities*
that we must expect to have "ripped off" from us if we are not "prudent"
and do not prudishly guard them.

See an excerpt from Ann's article below to understand how LM attempts to
limit women's freedom from prudishness.

Yoshie

>>Ann Bradley
>>
>>Knee Angus Diggle
>
>>It is because rape is such a disturbing crime that I'm so furious that Angus
>>Diggle has been given three years for attempting to 'rape' the woman who
>>accompanied him to a St Andrew's Day dance. A longer sentence, perhaps?
>>Come off it! To convict the 'Nerd of the Year' for attempted rape makes a
>>mockery of what rape is and what it represents.
>>
>>Angus Diggle, you'll remember, is that painful social inadequate of a
>>solicitor who, after bedding down on the couch of his dancing partner's
>>bedroom (by mutual consent) leapt on her wearing only the lace cuffs of
>>his Highland dress and a green condom. The woman fought him off and fled
>>into a friend's bedroom. A rather embarrassing end to the evening, perhaps
>>- but attempted rape? Three years in jail? Even the woman, who
>>presumably agreed to press charges, was shocked at the length of the
>>sentence.
>>
>>>From the court reports it seems pretty clear that Diggle isn't a rapist.
>>>He's
>>just a prat who's some years behind the times.
>>
>>Diggle claimed that the woman had invited him to have sex with her. He
>>drew this conclusion from the fact that she invited him to sleep on a sofa in
>>her bedroom, and that once in the bedroom she had stripped down to her
>>knickers in front of him. Now you might not take that as being an
>>invitation, I might not issue it as an invitation. But can you - hand on
>>heart
>>- say that it's prudent behaviour in the company of a sexually
>>inexperienced, 37-year old frequenter of Highland flings who lives with
>>his mother?
>>
>>Of course, we all know that 'No means no' and a woman should have the
>>right to take her clothes off at any time and in any place without fear of
>>being molested. But we also know that we live in a pretty screwed up
>>society where what 'should' be the case and what 'is' the case are not
>>necessarily the same thing. I should be able to sellotape a =A320 note onto the
>>front door to pay the milkman without someone ripping it off, but we both
>>know the world we live in, common sense prevails, and I don't do it.
>>
>>Most socially adequate 25-year old women know that the same care is
>>called for when it comes to selecting whom you allow to sleep in your
>>bedroom and in front of whom you strip off.
>>
>>When Diggle leapt into action he was only acting in a manner that
>>traditional standards would have called normal. Diggle may have offended
>>the arresting officer when he argued in mitigation that, having been out
>>with her and having spent =A3200 on her, he should be able to do what he
>>liked, but wasn't he only following the examples set by the pillars of his
>>chosen profession?
>
>>Reproduced from Living Marxism issue 61, November 1993
>>
>>http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM61/LM61_Ann.html
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---