In The Purity Myth, Valenti deconstructs the purity and abstinence movement, including its proponents' hidden (if not so hidden) motives, the means with which they try to achieve their ends, and how all of this affects young women living in the United States. Her point is that the purity movement views women's sexuality in a simple, black and white way in which their sexual (and no other types of) decisions reflect their morality. It sets unattainable goals for women who--because women are judged by their sexuality and their sexuality alone--can only be pigeonholed as virgins or sluts. Valenti claims that regressive purity movement proponents believe that women's worth (read: their virginity) lies in their sexuality (or lack thereof) and that they must be protected from this big bad world at all costs--they treat women, Valenti claimes, as "moral children." She also writes that many women are left out of the simplistic worldview perpetuated by the purity myth, including women of color and lesbian women. Overall, she argues that the purity movement is gaining traction and working tirelessly to return the U.S. to a time past when women were passive and men are active in the realm of sexual choice.
I thoroughly enjoyed The Purity Myth and thought Valenti did an excellent job connecting abstinence movement ideals with their real world consequences. The damage endured by women is often tangible and heartbreaking: Valenti gives many examples, including the torture, rape, and murder of college student Imette St. Guillen. Valenti describes the resultant media frenzy as initially sympathetic, but one that quickly turned nasty when it was discovered that St. Guillen had been drinking at the time, as if she had "gotten herself raped." I also thought Valenti's analysis of current and proposed legislation--and how current American political culture reflects a deep mistrust of women and their decisions in all things sexual--was excellent.
I thought the author did a wonderful job parsing out a nuanced argument against a movement that considers sexuality as a very clear-cut topic. For example, Valenti critiques Ariel Levy, one feminist author who asserts women who participate in raunch culture (think Girls Gone Wild) believing they are feminists are wrong. Valenti argues,
"Levy's book is dead-on in many cases--when she discusses how raunch culture promotes inauthentic, performance-based female sexuality, for example--but she fails in that she seems to have little sympathy for the women she interviews, who she assumes are fooling themselves into thinking they're happy with what raunch culture has given them. And I'm sure in many cases, Levy is right. But I think we should give women a little more credit. As reporter Kara Jesella wrote in 2005, 'Participating in raunch culture may not always be a feminist act, but that doesn't make those engaging in it antifeminists--or deluded.'"It is this nuance and sympathy that makes Valenti in The Purity Myth a wonderful advocate for women forced to survive in a world dominated by the virgin/whore dichotomy. (Side note, the above quote reminded me so much of my previous post that it really made me feel validated! Yay!) Valenti is also incredibly witty: in one footnote she quips, "Notably, the article's author, Matthew Fitzgerald, also wrote a book called Sex-Ploytation: How Women Use Their Bodies to Extort Money from Men, available on Amazon.com for just $135. What a steal!"
My only criticism of The Purity Myth is that it is not an extremely accessible book. I suppose it was not Valenti's goal to sway purity fanatics to her side (since why would an abstinence proponent even pick up a book called "The Purity Myth"?). However, I think she could have made the same arguments while opening herself to a wider audience had she explained more thoroughly her fundamental criticisms of the purity movement. (For example, she talks about the false statistics that abstinence-only educators spew at their students, but doesn't give examples nor does she correct the misinformation. Without evidence, I can see how, to purity proponents, the book would seem like an unfounded attack against abstinence-only education.) Instead, she assumes that the reader already disagrees with many aspects of the purity movement (which, in the end, is probably a correct assumption).
Overall, though, I would recommend The Purity Myth to anyone grappling with these kinds of issues or looking for advice on how to argue your points to a purity proponent. Valenti lays out a well-organized argument that helped me, at least, organize my own thoughts on the issue. Definitely a good read!
No comments:
Post a Comment