Headless torsos are sexxxay!
In some corners of the abstinence-before-marriage movement, postponing sex doesn’t mean you can’t be “sexxxay!” – whatever that means. In fact, The Candie’s Foundation wants you (and by “you” I mean young women) to know that whilst it’s bad to have sex, it’s still cool to be a hot little cock-tease. “I’m sexy enough to keep you waiting…” is the foundation’s “new sexy slogan.” “Sexy” is young, usually white, slim, able-bodied, conventionally pretty and feminine.
What a confusing minefield our young women face. The messages on the t-shirts are aimed at the girls’ potential sex partners: boys (as the campaign aims to reduce teen pregnancy). The girls are the sexual gatekeepers. How edgy! But whilst they are expected to remain abstinent, girls are encouraged to look sexual, according to the Male Gaze.
What’s understood – but unspoken – is that sex is for boys. The pressure is off to have sex (for boys), but the pressure to be sexy (for boys) is still on. That girls and young women have their own sexual urges and desires is overlooked. A “sexy” woman is safe; an independently sexual woman is still seen, by many, as threatening. This patriarchal message is par for the course in the religious abstinence movement. But it’s startling to see a secular organization adopt the same sexist, objectifying angle in its marketing.
And what about girls who, for whatever reason, aren’t considered “sexy?” Guess nobody wants to fuck them anyway.
More from Sociological Images.
The funniest part about this, to me, is that it sets up this weird tension in which “waiting” to have sex (i.e. delaying sexual gratification) is more stimulating than actually experiencing sexual pleasure. And that, children, is how people end up with orgasm denial fetishes.
But Sarah if you don’t tease them with the promise of sex how will you ever get that ring?
Sarah, I think you need to add the “You Have Got To Be Fucking Kidding Me” tag to this, because that’s exactly what I said when I read it.
You are 100% right that this is just another example of how girls are taught that sex is transactional, with girls getting something in exchange for giving something. But the whole “I’m sexy anyway” twist really gives me the fucking creeps.
Great post Sarah, please elaborate!
Before the election someone on Slate wrote about the “sexy puritan” archetype.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200814/
Sarah Palin and many Christian groups exploit this idea
To “be sexy” is to conform, which you pointed out. It is passive, reactive, other-directed. To “do sex” is active, self-driven. “Sexy” (in the way it’s being spoken about here) is the empty performance of sexuality. Fuck sexy right in its sexy, curvaceous, trussed-up ear. All this ish ties in with the old stupid hetero idea that men’s desire is for women, but women’s desire is for the desire of men.
The other thought that comes to mind is exploitation. So many businesses are so good at it. Selling clothes is pure mind games.
The girls who wear Candie’s are my daughter’s age, roughly 17. They may or may not want sex, but they do want to be sexy.
A girl raised in a Christian household may feel the need to dress in a suggestive way but throw in a caveat about sexy/not sexual.
That’s exactly the right button for on Candie’s to press.
Isn’t it a little hard (heh heh) to be sexxay but not have sex? Isn’t that asking a lot of our younger sisters? All the pressure is on them!!! You’re right, no where do you see campaigns telling men to “Keep it in your pants!” When are men ever told to be sexy? Never.
This is another example of treating women as the sex class and exploiting their would-be sexuality but punishing them for experiencing it.
WE CAN’T WIN
Considering this is all about abstinance-only the trailing part of “abstinent, girls are encouraged to look sexual”
but don’t dress like a slut,
because abstinance-only people are against that too right? Isn’t there a contradiction there?
Sort of related – a few weeks ago I was driving next to a car with various “Just Married” messages painted on its windows. On one of the side windows it said, “She got hers today. He’ll get his tonight!”
Unpack that.
@B but don’t dress like a slut,because abstinance-only people are against that too right? Isn’t there a contradiction Yes. But Candie’s benefits from that. It’s gross. I feel sorta slimed.
@SaraMc “She got hers today. He’ll get his tonight!” Unpack that. So many angles here…I can only sputter
@SarahMC: Oh for the fuck of shit.
SarahMC – That’s almost as bad as the joke some of my family likes to tell: Why is the bride smiling?
Because she knows she’s given her last blow job.
Why can’t their slogan just be “My body is my own”? Guess that isn’t sexy enough.
@Blondegrlz: “Why can’t their slogan just be “my body is my own.’” Why indeed. Or why not just “I don’t want to?”
Of course, to answer our question, because the patriarchy says our sexxayness is not our own! It belongs to Jesus and our fathers and husbands…
@SarahMC: Dear God. I can imagine some curmudgeonly uncle making a tasteless joke like that AT a wedding, but the bride was DRIVING IN A CAR WITH IT PLASTERED ON THE SIDE?
I would also add that “sexy” = being sexy in the name of heterosexual norms, and that LGBTQ girls need not apply.
yeah, isn’t this what the Twilight series is ALL ABOUT???
Oh, this is dreadful. It’s like they got together and came up with an approach to sexuality that would mess up all parties involved to the maximum extent. Girls, your body gives you power but it’s a bad sort of power that can cause evil things to happen if you misuse it. Boys, if you want it, play the game. But remember, girls’ sexuality is only skin-deep. Parents, sell those girls! As long as they promise not to have sex before they’re married, they can do whatever it takes to move the goods.
This is a horrible thing to do to young girls who are unsure and intimidated by their sexuality. And just wait until 11 year olds start wearing those shirts.
Candies, go straight to hell.
I’ve just been informed by my daughter that there is such a thing as a “born-again virgin” t shirt. I immediately suggested that we each get one (since she has left the path of sexual holiness some time since-but don’t worry, she’s 21) and wear them together out in public. Mother-daughter bonding ftw!
But, but, but… What about the poor wittle forced loneliness men? Isn’t being sexy but not putting out being a tease, a horrible cock-baiting, ego-crushing she-devil? And isn’t all that teasing-then-rejecting such a source of frustration and anger for the “nice guys” that it’s practically understandable when they snap and hurt women?
As someone already said, women can’t win. You’re a slut. You’re a tease. You’re a prude. As a woman, you’re a multitude of negatives whenever you’re not satisfying some man’s idea of who you should be, and what you should be doing with your body.
Paging Ariel Levy!
It’s so weird how the virginity fetishists are the opposite of modest. They literally wear indicators of their sex lives on their t-shirts and ring fingers. Just the idea of being a public virgin until marriage–and then at your wedding EVERYONE what’s about to happen–sends me into a fit of mortification.
@madaha: No. Not at all.
Man, Candie’s is missing out on a large market by only targeting girls. I mean, think of all the slogans for teenage boys.
“It IS just a pen in my pocket.”
“If there’s no ring on your finger, you’re not touching my dinger.”
“Blue balls means I love you.”
“I waited to have sex until I was married and I jizzed… in… my… pants…”
vegkitty FTW!!!
Aww Sarah… every time you comment on my posts (either here, at Feministing, or on SocImages), I get all excited. It’s like a celebrity acknowledged my existence.
/gushing
“If there’s no ring on your finger, you’re not touching my dinger.”
Brilliant. Snort-worthy.
I think the backwards apostrophe on that top indicates what kind of intellect we’re dealing with. Sadly.