Letters

While many women engage in public sexuality because they are empowered, far more do it because of low self-esteem. Making out with another girl "to turn boys on" is not the action of an empowered woman. It's done by somebody with low self-esteem seeking approval from others and hoping to avoid being labeled an "uptight feminist." The co-opting of pro-sex feminist philosophy is simply a rationale to allow women to view themselves as empowered so not to admit to themselves they are anything but. As a man, I admit to taking advantage of this trend in public sexuality among young women today for my own entertainment, but I have no illusions that it is due to a rise in female empowerment.

-- Ken Goldstein

All this hand wringing!

The women's movement is just that -- a movement. It should be allowed the freedom to grow and change. It was not pornography that reduced feminism to "ashes"; rather it was unrealistic expectations and the refusal to allow for the unavoidable growing pains that caused the cannibalism of feminism's intellectual flesh. If even the women's movement can't avoid the self-destructive desire for perfection, it should be no surprise why young girls routinely launch themselves with such dead-eyed fervor into anorexia.

Feminism's anorexic tendencies toward perfectionism helped create the two opposing camps of pro and anti-"raunch." And these days, getting your feminist passport stamped in one camp is apparently enough to exclude you from admittance to the other.

So what are young women doing? They are opting out of both camps. This has meant that they have been left largely to their own devices to find a place where their experiences, both good and bad, can be valued for what they are -- steps along the way to a true definition of self.

Ms. Levy's book seems almost paternalistic in its low expectations for, and desire to protect, these women who have been left to their own devices. Women deserve better than this. They deserve better than the choice to either be a woman who identifies with statements such as "bleeding once a month is a handicap" or who has resigned herself to a lifetime of implants and Brazilian bikini waxes.

To reduce women to such one-dimensional characters is sad. I'd rather listen to Howard Stern any day.

-- Andrea G. Fischer

"Female Chauvinist Pigs" is poorly researched and simplistic to the point of being anti-intellectual, and Christine Smallwood bought it hook, line and sinker.

For example, she credulously parrots Ariel Levy's assertion that the Olympians in Playboy "posed as soft, sedate pin-ups, not in action on the court." In fact, the majority of the athletes were depicted "in action" -- running, stretching, pole-vaulting and diving.

Ms. Levy often blithely asserts her own biased assumptions as facts (like the recently debunked notion that teenage girls give, but rarely receive, oral sex). She lets her agenda -- demonstrating that anything she thinks is naughty must be disempowering for women -- run roughshod over her reporting.

None of this is surprising. Prurient finger wagging sells books. But Ms. Smallwood should not have allowed herself to be carried along for the ride.

-- Carrie Nielsen

On the one hand it is noteworthy and necessary to investigate this new phenomenon and to ask how and why it has developed. On the other hand, Smallwood is correct in asking for something a bit more potent than just a diagnosis. From my more advanced age (56) it is clearer to see both the horrible toll it is taking on the younger women in terms of the daily wear and tear, the increased use of drugs and alcohol, as well as the ways in which it corrupts most relationships. It is an unfortunate outcome to wanting everything without knowing the true cost of anything.

The most significant contribution we might make is to hold up a mirror to those who pursue this type of nihilistic hedonism and ask them to comment on what they see. It might help inform those of us who would like to help them form some kind of useful response. Without truly knowing them, it is difficult to feel for them. As things stand now, they just look awfully pathetic. More like the stereotype of the hooker than the real thing.

-- Deborah Emin

When I was learning to belly dance back in 1972 at the age of 18, I struggled with the knowledge that at that time belly dancing was viewed only as a dance by women for the explicit pleasure of men. Yet I still loved belly dancing for my own sensual pleasure and the pure pleasure of dancing itself. It is to me still a fine line. When does sensual movement and demonstration cross the line into subjugation and exploitation? Sensual movement is delightful for both the dancer and the viewer. For me the fine line is intent and purpose, coupled with self-esteem and our view of who and what we are. It always confused me when men took my belly dancing as only a sexy come-on for them and never thought of what I might be gaining from the dance. There is more to this than just the style of movement and what it depicts for one gender. We have a long way to go as a culture to recognize women's sexuality without the exploitation and commercialization of it for the explicit benefit of only one-half the population.

-- Lilith De' Anu

Next Page: "The human sex drive is the most powerful marketing tool ever known"

• View blog reactions