Sadly, not actually a sign of respect.
Tracy Moore at Jezebel wrote a post titled "What Former Sluts Tell Their Daughters About Sex" and boy, did the entire thing put my teeth on edge. It's about a Reddit post of mothers who self-identify as formerly "promiscuous" and a Mommyish post titled "I Want To Teach My Daughter Not To Be Promiscuous Like I Was" by Meredith Bland. Despite the obnoxious title of Bland's post, Moore assures us "Bland doesn't in any way say women who've had a lot of partners are bad news, she just says for her it wasn't a healthy thing to do because it was about seeking validation." I beg, I'm afraid to differ, because if she is already of the mind that having a lot of partners will be a bad thing for her daughter, then she is, in fact, making that judgment call for other women.
She also assumes, right off the bat, that what a woman's "heart" wants must not be casual sex: "What I want is for her to value her values and believe that what her heart says is more important than all of the pretty things that guy in the bar is telling her." The possibility that one could value the chance to screw around without having to make a commitment is assumed implausible or a male-only desire. But it was this paragraph where I really started to realize exactly what was bugging me about all this:
Some people have a lot of partners because they are adventurous and love sex and are sex-positive and all that good stuff. But in order to feel that way, you have to have a real clear hold of who you are and what your worth is. There has to be a level of equality in those relationships.
Sure, having a level of equality in a casual sex relationship is good, but as someone who has done both the monogamous thing and has been single-living-it-up, I can safely say that it's exponentially more important when it comes to an actual partner whose opinion of you matters on a day-to-day and hour-to-hour basis, something Bland's piece ignores. While trying to be all progressive, Bland and Moore still fall into that conservative trap of casually assuming monogamy is less perilous than "promiscuity". It reminds me of how you'll often read conservatives denounce the "hook-up culture" on the grounds that you could fall in love and get your heart broken, without pausing to consider, for even a moment, that the steady drip-drip of people into divorce courts in our country suggests that getting married is hardly a respite from that particular danger. And, if anything, women in our society are in more danger of believing that they need a committed partnership to be worth something. There's a lot more jokes about "sad" women who don't have husbands or boyfriends than jokes suggesting there's something wrong with you if you don't have a new man in your bed every night.
With that in mind, I thought to rewrite some passages of Bland's piece to show how much the unexamined assumption that monogamy is inherently superior is in play here. Let's start with the one above, now rewritten:
Some people have one partner because they are quick to nest and easygoing and fall in love easily and all that good stuff. But in order to feel that way, you have to have a real clear hold of who you are and what your worth is. There has to be a level of equality in those relationships.
No less true, right? Here's another passage:
On Reddit yesterday, someone posted to ask, “Mothers who were promiscuous in your younger days, did your values change once you had a daughter?” I wouldn’t say that my values have changed at all, and that was part of the problem. I knew in my gut that sleeping around wasn’t good for me (physically or emotionally), but it took years for me to understand that no matter how many people I slept with, it was ever going to make me love myself. When it comes to my daughter, I know that I am already raising her to value herself. What I want is for her to value her values and believe that what her heart says is more important than all of the pretty things that guy in the bar is telling her.
My rewrite:
On Reddit yesterday, someone posted to ask, “Mothers who were eager to get married in your younger days, did your values change once you had a daughter?” I wouldn’t say that my values have changed at all, and that was part of the problem. I knew in my gut that trying to get a husband as quickly as possible wasn’t good for me (physically or emotionally), but it took years for me to understand that even if a man gave me a wedding ring, it was never going to make me love myself. When it comes to my daughter, I know that I am already raising her to value herself. What I want is for her to value her values and believe that what her heart says is more important than all of the pretty things that guy brandishing an engagement ring is telling her.
Another passage:
I want my daughter to love and enjoy her body, but that doesn’t have to mean having a lot of partners. I think it’s rare – not impossible, but rare — for a young women to be settled enough in her skin to be able to have a lot of partners without regrets. Sure, sex can be part of figuring out who you are and is a large part of one’s identity, but mistakes come at a high cost. Choosing the wrong partner, or choosing to have more partners than you are truly comfortable with, can do a number on your self-esteem. Ask me how I know that.
My rewrite:
I want my daughter to love and enjoy her body, but that doesn’t have to mean marrying the first guy who comes along. I think it’s rare – not impossible, but rare — for a young women to be settled enough in her skin to be able to settle down quickly without regrets. Sure, serial monogamy or even young marriage can be part of figuring out who you are and is a large part of one’s identity, but mistakes come at a high cost. Choosing the wrong partner and spending so much time with him can do a number on your self-esteem. Ask me how I know that.
Another passage:
So now I have this little girl, and I am tasked with trying to turn her into a young woman who is comfortable with her body and her sexuality and feels free to share that with whoever she wishes, but who also values herself enough not to share it too freely. I will continue to tell her how awesome, smart, and funny she is, and compliment how strong and wonderful her body is, so that she can use that as a foundation for her teen years. I want her to know that sex is great and can be a lot of fun, but it is also important. It means something.
My rewrite:
So now I have this little girl, and I am tasked with trying to turn her into a young woman who is comfortable with her body and her heart and feels free to share her life with whoever she wishes, but who also values herself enough not to commit too freely. I will continue to tell her how awesome, smart, and funny she is, and compliment how strong and wonderful her body is, so that she can use that as a foundation for her teen years. I want her to know that marriage is great and can be a lot of fun, but it is also important. It means something.
See what I mean? Moore puts a little more thought into her response at Jezebel, but it's still riddled with the assumption that the topic of screwing around is more fraught than the topic of committing to a steady relationship, much less a marriage. From Moore's piece:
To be clear, Bland doesn't in any way say women who've had a lot of partners are bad news, she just says for her it wasn't a healthy thing to do because it was about seeking validation. I suspect a lot of women feel this way about their own sexual growth — we are bombarded with mixed messages about how to perform sexuality. We are often well versed in performing sexiness long before we even know how to get ourselves off. We go into experiences with a lot of curiosity and no guidance, and it can be trial by fire figuring out our own boundaries that way.
My rewrite:
To be clear, Bland doesn't in any way say women who are quick to settle down are bad news, she just says for her it wasn't a healthy thing to do because it was about seeking validation. I suspect a lot of women feel this way about their own desire for a partner — we are bombarded with messages saying we need a husband or boyfriend to be complete. We are often well versed in trying to "catch" a boyfriend long before we even know what we want out of relationships. We go into relationships eager to prove we're worthy, and it can be trial by fire figuring out our own boundaries that way.
Or this:
This takes care of so much in life, but believing you have a basic worth will guide you toward healthy sex choices. The goal here is to have sex for pleasure and connection, and not out of some weird unresolved sadness. Irresponsible sex has far-reaching consequences. Always remember: If you're feeling shitty about yourself there are better ways to feel better than fucking sometimes. There is also cake.
My rewrite:
This takes care of so much in life, but believing you have a basic worth will prevent you from rushing into a commitment. The goal here is to have a relationship for pleasure and connection, and not out of some weird unresolved sadness. Rushing too fast into a relationship has far-reaching consequences. Always remember: If you're feeling shitty about yourself there are better ways to feel better than trying to get someone to be your boyfriend. There is also cake.
See what I mean? I'm not trying to be too hard on anyone here, but the problem here is that discussion of "promiscuity" is a distraction from the real issues. Men mistreat and degrade women not because of "promiscuity", but because of sexism. By focusing on this abstract concept of "promiscuity", we can misleadingly suggest that just because a man dates you or even marries you, that means he has demonstrated respect for you. A casual sex partner who doesn't call the next day when you wanted him is surely a bummer. But a husband who ignores you and talks down to you will wear down your very soul.
None of which is to say that you should be having sex with strangers or casually if you don't want to. You do you! (Though I will point out that this dichotomous thinking obscures the fact that a lot of relationships fall into more ambiguous territory. Once you're in a commitment, it's easy to pretend it's all one way or another, but a lot of smug marrieds screwed without knowing if they were all in or not yet. Having sex was part of the decision process.) But this discussion obscures the glaring fact that it's not actually a reliable sign of "self-respect" to hold out for a commitment, and, in fact, hunger for that wedding ring and the validation it represents causes its own host of problems. Plenty of women clip their own wings, stifle their own opinions, and suffer mightily in hopes of getting a wedding ring, all while making noises about how "sluts" don't respect themselves.
So I recommend option #3: Teaching girls that what you do with your junk has nothing to do with your value as a human being, whether you're sharing it with everyone or a little more reserved, and that anyone who says otherwise can fuck the fuck off. That should cover all the bases. No hand-wringing about "promiscuity" necessary.
