To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser salon.com > Letters July 28, 1999 URL: http://www.salon.com/letters/1999/07/28/modesty Letters to the Editor Wendy Shalit's new prudery does women no favors; both sexes are changing their attitudes on oral sex; Scientology critics seek protection for free speech. - - - - - - - - - - - - The modesty debate BY LORI LEIBOVICH (07/21/99) Wendy Shalit is careful to point out that she's not a prude. But using a word like "modesty" does nothing to update the belief that women, no matter how curious or mature they become, should only give into sexual desires when they meet the man who will take care of them -- and even then, they should never make an effort to enjoy the physical act. The sum of this philosophy is that a woman acting to fulfill her desires outside of marriage is "immodest" -- which is just a new way of saying slutty, dirty, bad. This does nothing to further our understanding of human desires, and presupposes that all women want the same thing: a man as a life partner. Yes, there is merit to the idea of restraint, but Shalit seems consumed by the idea that restraint is a concept only she is keeping alive, that everyone is tortured by an inability to control themselves, and that a new term for a very old set of behavioral guidelines will somehow increase civility, cleanliness and overall life satisfaction. -- Adam Brooks Wendy Shalit has repeatedly questioned why the rape rate is so much higher today than in Victorian times. Does she not realize that during Victorian times, women had a small fraction of the rights they have today, and that there was no "reporting" of rape? Like domestic violence, which was more acceptable and not even viewed as wife-beating during those times, hard-line statistics may seem to have increased, but there is actually just an increase in reporting. I would also like to point out that Shalit entered college the same year as I did. Presumably, she went on college tours and was an educated shopper; most people spending in excess of $100,000 over four years are. If that's the case, then she should have asked the same questions I asked when I went on college tours, one of which was whether there were co-ed bathrooms. I felt uncomfortable with them, and it is one of the reasons I chose not to matriculate at Brown or Vassar. More schools than not have single-sex bathrooms. I wonder why Shalit chose to attend a school that is known for its liberal student body and professors? -- S. Baxter Wendy Shalit is completely wrong about sex-ed being too "vulgar"; in fact, it is too formal. The language used is very grave. Try to crack a joke in that class, and they act like you're telling jokes in at a funeral. I can assure Shalit that girls don't need to be protected from all the yucky words out there, but to be trained in assertiveness and confidence. All of her language about "protecting" 15- and 16-year-old girls (who should be learning to function as adults and take care of themselves) is demeaning. Perhaps if young adults were allowed to be adults, we wouldn't need Wendy Shalit simpering to us about modesty, good manners and all the nasty, vulgar things out there. -- Lillie Wade Wendy Shalit dismisses Leora Tannenbaum's suggestion that sex education "from birth" would help reduce the rates of teen pregnancy by saying, "But if what you said is true, then 30 years ago we should have had more unwed mothers and more teenage pregnancy because that's when we were more uncomfortable talking about sex." Unfortunately for Shalit, this is exactly what did happen in the '50s and '60s. In her book "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap," Stephanie Coontz shows that the teenage pregnancy rates in the United States actually peaked in 1959. So what Tannenbaum says is true; Shalit needs to do her homework. -- Scott Shepherd Ottawa, Ontario Gen X's change of head BY SHARI THURER (07/21/99) Shari Thurer finds herself taken aback by her younger patients attitudes, which differ markedly from her (generation's) own. But she is unable to suppress disapproval. Oral sex, she argues, equals bad sex for women. Women who perform oral sex outside of safe, monogamous relationships are hurting themselves. We boomers wrote the book on sex, it was our damn revolution; you're just young and misguided. It's typical crap. Thurer's whole line of thinking is off the mark because she doesn't give any consideration to generational attitudes regarding cunnilingus. I'm guessing that many boomer men would view it as a chore/necessary evil to aid them in their attempt to "score" a hummer; and I wouldn't be surprised if many women of the same age are much more inhibited than their daughters when it comes to initiating and accepting such pleasure. But I know that most guys my age (30) enjoy performing oral sex on women and young women like (and often expect) it. Oral sex may be no big deal to the kids today, but it's a much more reciprocal relationship than Thurer would have us believe. -- Todd Bennington Minneapolis Shari Thurer's otherwise insightful piece on the desensitization of fellatio was marred by one unfortunate statement. Giving head does not by definition require a woman to "assume a subordinate position." Any two people with even a hint of an imagination can find ways around this if they so desire. This is a tired stereotype which contributes nothing to increasing the understanding of sexual dynamics. -- Lou Fuoco This article was obviously written by a member of the boomer generation who felt that fellatio was only performed by "bad girls" and was a more intimate act than intercourse. What the author fails to take into account, however, is the parallel change in men's attitudes concerning cunnilingus. When the boomers were in the height of their sexual lives and thereby shaped and defined the landscape of sex. cunnilingus just wasn't done. Now men are as proud of their ability to give head to their partners as the women are. The sexual landscape, in my eyes, is much more level field than it ever was in the boomers' generation, with both partners taking submissive and dominant roles interchangeably, giving and receiving. -- Kenneth W. Scott The characters in "Chasing Amy" do not boast about their skills at fellatio. In the scene to which the good doctor refers, Banky (Jason Lee) and Alyssa (Joey Lauren Adams) compare wounds they have received while performing cunnilingus, which is something quite different. The scene is a parody of the one in "Jaws," in which Robert Shaw and Richard Dreyfuss compare wounds received while dealing with sharks. -- John Harkness Copyright -- or wrong? BY JANELLE BROWN (07/22/99) Thanks for Janelle Brown's article about abuse of the DMCA. The courts have recognized the importance of anonymity in protecting free speech, especially against vindictive and powerful organizations. Critics of Scientology are understandably protective of their anonymity: Scientology representatives have picketed the homes of critics, contacted their employers to try to get them fired, and even harassed their parents. I began picketing Scientology under a pseudonym. It only took Scientology two and a half months to "out" me with my real name on alt.religion.scientology; two months after that they began picketing my home. The DMCA needs to be amended to provide greater protection to those who wish to speak out without fear of this kind of retribution. -- Kristi Wachter There are many of us out here who have been subjected to the harassment tactics of the Church of Scientology. In my case I lost my job when CAN (the Cult Awareness Network) was forced into bankruptcy following an extensive campaign of legal and other harassment. A number of Internet contributors have been forced into bankruptcy from Scientology's legal harassment. The real outrage is that the "Church" of Scientology is using tax-exempt money to intimidate, harass and bankrupt people all over this country and beyond. -- Jim Beebe Northbrook, Ill. salon.com | July 28, 1999