Shoulder-baring brides with jaunty hats are clearly strumpets.
Calling young women who are getting married "MySpace generation brides," Newsweek complains that brides today are "like a virgin no more." (I'd be outraged, but this is just too fun for me to post about to be all that angry.)
Two decades ago, when young girls wondered how brides were supposed to look and behave, they'd most likely conclude--with some prompting from Cinderella--that on their big day they'd be a princess. They'd be blushing, virginal and wrapped from head to toe in tulle and lace.So why is it that these days, some brides seem to be taking their cues more from Jessica Rabbit than Cinderella? More vamp than virgin, they're having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés' sendoffs. They're selecting cleavage- or lower-back-baring bridal gowns that might get a gasp from conservative relatives.
Are we seriously supposed to be scandalized by back-bearing dresses and cheesy bachelorette parties with penis straws? Come on now. But apparently this article is less about how immodest brides are, and more about moral panic over women in general.
This is, after all, is a generation that is comfortable with "sexting" and posting provocative pictures of themselves on Facebook and MySpace.
Wow, MySpace and sexting in one sentence - impressive! The article goes on to point out (smugly) that women are getting married later, having raunchier bachelorette parties, having their ceremonies in locations other than churches, and living with their significant others before getting married. And we're supposed to think, I guess, that these are all bad things.
What's really interesting to me is how the media is able to frame anything as women being slutty. Fun.
(Naturally, you can find out more what I think about sex and sexism in The Purity Myth.)
TaraK on the Community blog has more.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Newsweek bemoans "slutty" brides.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14520
I do always take my fashion and lifestyle cues from cartoon characters. Although I'm more of an Elmer Fudd and less of a Jessica Rabbit kind of gal. ;)
Ok, I read this article as well. It's ridiculous and just the same old tripe. I do enjoy how it's ok for MEN to have raunchy send offs but if WOMEN do it then we HAVE to be afraid.
And, I'd like Newsweek to know that male and female people send nude pictures via technology (myspace, text, etc). Someone should give them that memo.
Does the article say that we should be afraid of Bachelorette parties?
If you can read then I'm not sure how you don't understand the context of
"Two decades ago, when young girls wondered how brides were supposed to look and behave, they'd most likely conclude--with some prompting from Cinderella--that on their big day they'd be a princess. They'd be blushing, virginal and wrapped from head to toe in tulle and lace.
So why is it that these days, some brides seem to be taking their cues more from Jessica Rabbit than Cinderella? More vamp than virgin, they're having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés' sendoffs. They're selecting cleavage- or lower-back-baring bridal gowns that might get a gasp from conservative relatives."
HEAVENS! We might make the conservative relatives gasp! Oh dear, having a raunchy time just like your counterpart? Whatever shall be done?
And please note the use of the term virgin. Frequently. Plus how the article's author seems to think that since women no longer live out their girlhood fantasies of being princesses that there must be something that needs to be addressed. Lord knows women shouldn't be able to act like adults.
This article, as part of the tapestry that makes up the culture in the US, does insinuate that women being 'more vamp than virgin' is a problem.
Vamp in this context is simply a nice word for slut, slag, tramp, whatever.
Or you could read it differently. That's your prerogative.
You didn't actually answer, so I'll ask again. Does the article say that the trend towards raunchier bachelorette parties is something to "be afraid of"? It reports that they've gotten as raunchy as men's have traditionally been*, a statement of equilibrium that hardly sounds like fear mongering. It paints the people who might be offended as "conservative", rather than implying that people in general are taking offense. It's Newsweek's job to report on things that are new. I'm actually reasonably literate, thanks for asking, yet I don't see and no one seems to be able to point out within the actual article this extreme sense of oppressive judgment and condemnation you're complaining about.
*I think we're doing paintball at mine, unless I can convince enough of my friends to take a week off for the BWCA. My lady's probably going to have something wilder, and I hope she spares me the details.
Jessica Rabbit, of course, was a cartoon character in a late 80s movie...precisely the time when little girls were supposedly assuming they'd be Princess Virgins on their wedding day.
So...late 80s girls were unaware of this hugely popular Slut Icon, but somehow, brides these days magically recall her while texting in backless dresses?
Yeah.
I thought that sexting was 18th century texting, with a sextant.
And while we don't need a purity police, we need a computer designed with the artificial intelligence of the recently deceased Mr. Blackwell, so it/he can browbeat potential brides out of wearing a fucking tiara, for shit's sake.
The sextant idea had me in giggles for a few minutes. I love it!
I did a community post on this last week or so. I felt like the point at the end of the article about supposedly dangerous exhibitionsim was the most ridiculous and unfounded. After spending an article talking about women's independence, it was then deemed that they were all out of control.
Adding your link now, Tara!
Far from "bemoaning" and "complaining," the actual article is about the sociological factors that have made weddings less a tulle-and-frosting affair. Despite your use of quotes, the term "slutty" does not appear in the article at all. The use of quotes in the title line is misleading and poor journalism. If a writer needs to make up quotes to support her opinion of an article, I think that opinion needs to be questioned.
If anyone can read so much into what is truly a rather dispassionate article about a societal trend, I think it says a bit about their insecurities.
Have you heard of scare quotes?
I thought we were against scare quotes? Seriously, I usually see them used in the articles that blogs like Feministing are complaining about.
It really does bug me when people use quotes in this type of context without being clear that they aren't quoting the original article. The title of this post is Newsweek bemoans "slutty" brides which REALLY makes it sound like Newsweek used the word "slutty." There are other ways to phrase it if you want to use the word slutty in quotes without making it sound like you are quoting Newsweek. It might require slightly more thought, but its worth it not to seem like you are blatantly misquoting someone.
I've got to disagree. That article ties sluttier brides to the sexualization of young girls (think of the children!), talks about the previously held assumption of the virginal blushing bride, and worries that if a woman wears a more revealing wedding gown than it will overshadow her future married life. The whole tone of the article is 'kids these days; look what they're wearing!'
At the same time I find it weird that they're in a moral panic about the sexualization of young girls while also talking about how women are getting married later. i.e. into their 30s. I mean I thought the MySpace/sexting stuff was all the rage for 16 year olds. How does that tie in with a 25+ year old woman who chooses how to dress at their wedding. I hate how they're conflating the two.
"That article ties sluttier brides to the sexualization of young girls (think of the children!)..."
The only way the sexualization of brides would have anything to do with the sexualization of children would be if the brides were children thesmelves. Does the author have a problem with brides who became adults before getting engaged and getting married?
"Dispassionate"? Did you not read the last paragraph of the article or are you just stupid?
The article does have some relevance regarding how marriage is viewed today in general. With shows like Bridezillas and these VH1 dating shows, everything now is a spectable and not as "pure" or "honored" as it should be. The sacredness may be gone. Brides today are different, but the core value is still the same. Now, if we could talk about how the feminist movement has hurt single women, then we have something!
Slutty is in quotes to demonstrate that I don't think women are slutty for having bachelorette parties and living with their future mates.
And if you think I'm making shit up or peddling in poor journalism, feel free to go to another blog or get your own.
For the record, I thought 'slutty' was a quote from the article when I read the title as well.
In any case, I did not feel that the article was all that judgmental on the trend. The authors they quoted are very well-respected experts in marriage history and industry. The only thing that bothered me was the suggestion that older women are only trying to imitate a TV character and that the author equated a grown woman taking sexy photos with thirteen year olds having oral. And the "more vamp than virgin."
Does Newsweek "think women are slutty for having bachelorette parties and living with their future mates"?
The title does make it sound like Newsweek used the word "slutty." There are better ways to phrase it if you just want to convey that you don't think they're slutty. Or, you could use a word that the article actually does use, like "vamps".
Try:
Newsweek bemoans "vamp" brides.
Newsweek bemoans "vamp" brides; clearly implying that women who don't want to look like Cinderella are slutty and dangerous.
Newsweek complains that modern brides are "vamps," clearly meaning that they are "slutty"
Newsweek complains that modern brides are "vamps," avoids saying that they are "slutty"
Honestly, the whole scare quotes thing is annoying. If you want to use scare quotes in general when not quoting another specific source, then at least its clear what you mean, but if you use them in a sentence where you're examining some other piece of writing, you should go out of your way to make it clear that you aren't quoting that other piece. Otherwise it is bad journalism. I get how you might not have thought of that at first when you wrote the title, but I'm not sure why you're so defensive about it as to tell people to leave your site rather than inform you that your title is unclear.
I agree with your points in the original post, but how would you like it if some other site linked to this article with the title Jessica at Feministing complains about "asshole" journalists ?
Hahahhahahaa. Hilarious. My goodness a woman's "virtue" is more precious than gold, diamonds, or fresh air to some people.
Get off our vaginas, seriously.
Does the article really suggest that "these are all bad things" or that we're supposed to be scandalized at all? I don't see where you get "bemoans" and "complains" from the actual text.
Wait, women can have sex now? Like men? With who? And who were men having sex with before? Especially since they just invented homosexuality?
"...Personally, I don't see the attraction of strip clubs, but for those that do, more power to you, as long as your partner is ok with you going.
"My brother, bless him, was not happy with the strip club plan that his buddies cooked up for him and he told me that he didn't want to look at a woman who wasn't his wife. I told him that if all he wanted was to have his friends over, drink beer, order pizza, and play Xbox, than that was a perfectly legitimate bachelor party. It was sad that he didn't think that was an option..."
Great points. It's a shame so many people out there seem to think bachelor parties should be the groom's "last chance" for sex with someone other the bride, as if that's not cheating on his fiancée.
"Wait, women can have sex now? Like men? With who? And who were men having sex with before? Especially since they just invented homosexuality?"
They were having sex with women and girls who supposedly didn't count. The people who went on and on about how "women need to stay pure" usually meant "their" women, not women and girls who had lower socioeconomic status and/or different ethnicities, religions, etc. and/or were in other families than their own.
This phrase takes the cake:
"they're having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés' sendoffs." No way! That's unbelievable!
I mean, really? Sometimes I lament to myself about how sexism has become so subversive and insidious - more difficult to point out.
But hey! Look! Over there! That's sexism! Plain as day.
It's so blatant and it amazes me that someone who presumably calls herself a journalist would write something that is so obviously sexist. I guess I'm getting used to the media "playing it safe" and burying their sexism under guises of "female empowerment" and such.
If I ever have a wedding I'm just going to be naked and so will my partner. Suck on that, Newsweek.
And if you start a trend Newsweek will happily sell magazines reporting on it.
You're probably right. I think I'll stick with having no wedding.
how would you have phrased it?
How would I have phrased it?
Instead of, "...they're having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés' sendoffs."
I would have said, "they're having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés' sendoffs! Which is their prerogative and only fair so there is nothing wrong with it!"
But I'm no journalist.
Seriously though. If you say that the author's line is sexist, then there must be a better way to convey the same idea. Your phrase would not make it into a newspaper.
Excellent question. How does one re-word a statement that is sexist to its very core into a statement that means exactly the same thing but is not sexist?
I believe the answer is the sound of one hand clapping.
this.
When something is sexist, you often can't just re-word it to make it not sexist.
it's not the sentence that is sexist, it's the idea behind it. simply changing sentence structure won't change the meaning.
Not to flog a dead horse, but I still don't believe the statement itself is, at face value, sexist. To me, it's merely pointing out that bachelorette parties are becoming more like stereotypical bachelor parties, without passing judgment on either phenomena. If you read more into it some sexist ideas, then it those ideas must come from the wording. Hence my question.
The sentence: "More vamp than virgin, they're having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés' sendoffs." I say, wouldn't be sexist if not for the context of the article in which it was found, and for the "more vamp than virgin" part.
Vamp insinuates that the woman is a whore, and the connotation of any vamp v. virgin paring (in our society) is that virgin is positive and that vamp is negative. While I find both words to be proof of a lexical gap that we have in our language, that being that we have no word for a woman who has not had sex that doesn't insinuate "purity" and we do not have a word for a woman who has had sex that doesn't insinuate impurity or promiscuity.
Therefore the sentence is saying, within the context of the article and our society, that it is a negative thing that their bachelorette parties are as raunchy as their fiance's sendoffs, and that this in fact, is whore-like behavior. As it is, there is no way to change it to make it not sexist, as any sentence that reduces a woman to her sexual experience or lack there of is a sexist sentence.
I realize I said two different things here - what I meant to say at the end was that I realized after writing this out, that there IS no way to convey the same idea and have it not be sexist since it reduces the woman to her sexual status. Leave out the 'virgin or vamp' part and simply state that women's parties have become as raunchy as their male counterparts as an objective observation that does not condemn this as positive or negative in and of itself, only that it shows equality to men, and you would have yourself a non-sexist statement.
Seriously though. If you say that the author's line is sexist, then there must be a better way to convey the same idea. Your phrase would not make it into a newspaper.
The focus on women having rowdier bachelorette parties to compete with the men made me think about my brother's wedding a few years ago. There is a societal pressure now (for moth men and women) to have a wild, crazy night out before the wedding. Personally, I don't see the attraction of strip clubs, but for those that do, more power to you, as long as your partner is ok with you going.
My brother, bless him, was not happy with the strip club plan that his buddies cooked up for him and he told me that he didn't want to look at a woman who wasn't his wife. I told him that if all he wanted was to have his friends over, drink beer, order pizza, and play Xbox, than that was a perfectly legitimate bachelor party. It was sad that he didn't think that was an option.
Have a crazy party. Or don't. It's up to you and what you want to do. I do think that there is more and more pressure to be 'sluttier'. And then people sit back and start the tsk, tsking about these supposed girls gone wild. It's one more double standard to have to deal with. For example, there are not a whole lot of options for bridal gowns with sleeves, so baring your shoulders is almost a necessity if you buy an off the rack gown. And yet a strapless gown is somehow not quite proper. There is no way to win.
That first paragraph was supposed to read "both men and women", not "moth man and woman". But now I have a really cool image of Mothman in a tux standing at the altar next to his bride wearing a slinky Jessica Rabbit-esque cut gown. 'I now pronounce you Mothman and wife'.
I agree that there is pressure to be a bit more raunchier in today's society...at least from my standpoint.
I'm planning on getting married next year, and I have friends practically BEGGING me to have a bachelorette party where we get trashed and get a few strippers. I was horrified, not just because I'm not into those things, but because they KNOW that I'm not into those things! Why should I hang up my modesty for one night, the night before my wedding! That's not who I am! If you want to do those things, great for you- i've got some friends that are desparate to plan your party. It's not my thing, and I'd expect my friends, above anyone else, to understand that.
I feel like it's becoming the EXPECTED thing to do for bachelorette parties. You either are a boring person who has tea parties or you're a crazy awesome woman who does all of the typical stuff, sex toys/lingerie parties, lots of drinking, etc. etc.
(I think that I'm taking everyone laser tagging or having a night party on the beach. Booooring I guess? ;))
laser tag or beach fun sounds great. My friend had hers at Six Flags Magic Mountain (I actually did have a tea party, well, actually we just served formal tea but we do that allot normally cause I like tea and cucumber sandwiches )
An amusement park! I am addicted to roller coasters seeing that my mother scared me away from them until I rode my first coaster at age 18. Sounds perfect.
And I am not dissing tea parties, just gotta say that! LOVE tea parties. Some people think that I am horribly boring for that.
Comedy clubs are great places for bachelor/bachelorette parties. I was just in a wedding where both the bride and the groom went to one for their parties. People who want to drink can, and no matter how much you drink (or don't drink), everyone is laughing and having a great time.
"...lower-back-baring bridal gowns..."
Won't someone please think of the children!
Maybe I'm a skank because I thought all three dresses shown were cute.
I did cringe at a couple of phrases in the article, but I don't think it was calling women slutty or bemoaning the lack of virgins or even complaining about more backs and cleavage at the events. For example when she says "they're having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés' sendoffs" I don't detect any horror or outrage in the tone like the commenter above seems to.
The article sums up a lot of statistics surrounding how weddings are different now, and I for one thought some insights were interesting. Like about how weddings used to be this huge transition from life with parents to life with hubby. Now it's just a party and life after may not be any different at all since most couples live together first. This may explain why women are trying to make weddings (and bachelorette parties and wedding gifts) SUCH a big deal - to put back some semblance of meaning in the whole thing.
The summary paragraph at the end rang particularly true to me:
"While most sociologists agree that women admitting to lust and wanting to be sexually empowered is a good thing, they see a problem with making exhibitionism the centerpiece of the wedding ceremony: it might crowd out other aspects of the marriage. "You're highlighting what should just be a piece of the relationship."
I don't think exhibitionism is a centerpiece of many weddings - even those with low cut dresses and rauchy B-parties - but I do think focusing on the sexual element of everything so much (even as we do here on this blog) can crowd out other, arguably more important facets of relationships.
When the hell did women ever take their cues from Cinderella???
Ummmmmm, ever see a wedding dress from the 1920s? Not very Cinderella-ish!
What's sad about this article is the serious lack of fashion analysis. They don't even talk about coats or gloves!
The only thing about wedding dress that's pure is the color white--everything else, sexy fun!
When the hell did women ever take their cues from Cinderella???
Ummmmmm, ever see a wedding dress from the 1920s? Not very Cinderella-ish!
What's sad about this article is the serious lack of fashion analysis. They don't even talk about coats or gloves!
The only thing about wedding dress that's pure is the color white--everything else, sexy fun!
Oh, but it's still ok for us boys to have strippers at our bachelor parties, right? I'd hate to think that my double standard was going away. Gosh, I might have to treat my wife like an equal then!
Newsweek sucks.
Oh, but it's still ok for us boys to have strippers at our bachelor parties, right? I'd hate to think that my double standard was going away. Gosh, I might have to treat my wife like an equal then!
Newsweek sucks.
That is such a ridiculous double standard. If men do it, then women should do it too.
I'm of the reverse side, I'm not going to do it, so there's no way in hell that my fiance is going to do it! (Don't worry, he agrees, he just needs his boyfriends and 10 cases of beer and I think he'll be okay) That's how I see it. Some segments of society want women to be 'pure'? Fine, I personally dig it. But you can bet that I'm going to hold my man to that same standard.
"While most sociologists agree that women admitting to lust and wanting to be sexually empowered is a good thing, they see a problem with making exhibitionism the centerpiece of the wedding ceremony: it might crowd out other aspects of the marriage."
Really? MOST sociologists? And this is provable how? Wearing a low-back dress crowds out the other aspect of the marriage? I thought people got married because they wanted to commit to their partner forever, not an excuse to dress like a slutty princess for a day.
Oh noes! Women having bachelorette parties the way they want to!
Anecdotal: I am a bridesmaid for a very traditional friend. Her wedding. Her views. I show up. But she's marrying my ex's brother so I have some cross-over friends, one of whom FaceBook chatted me her horror that they were planning to have a joint-B party. LET HIM HAVE HIS FUN, she said to me. She wanted me to encourage my bride friend to stop forcing him to do things like this. Huh. They couldn't possibly have mutually made this decision because it holds to their values? She couldn't possibly be regurgitating the nonsense spewed by the groom's side about his last night of "freedom"! And I'm supposed to teach my girl how to "lighten up." STFU, I said. The double standards and bizarre expectations have been grating my nerves these past months. Maybe I'll eloquently community post on this later. But for now, Newsweek can shove it.
Two decades ago, girls thought they'd be Princess Virgin when they got married?
This is news to me. Twenty years ago, it was 1989, I was 15, I had no plans to be a virgin on my wedding day, and there was no way in HELL I was going to wear white or have my ceremony in a church. I wanted to go to Vegas and get married in a t-shirt and jeans.
Back then, many of the other teenage girls I hung out with also knew they weren't going to wait until marriage to have sex. A lot of us had a vague, "I'll wait until I'm in college, maybe," idea - I know I did, because that was when I'd be moving out of my parents' house, making it markedly easier to have sex on my own terms.
We weren't all starry-eyed innocents in the FREAKING LATE EIGHTIES. I know that seems like a long time to some folks, but really, sexual mores, to the extent that they have changed, seem to have actually tilted in the direction of more purity bullshit than ever before. Our health teachers talked to us about condoms starting in the sixth grade! Openly! Without parental complaint! People actually cared about whether or not kids knew how to obtain and correctly use condoms!
What planet are the Newsweek editors on? I can't believe NO ONE in the newsroom caught this huge freaking error.
I thought the same thing... though I was born in 87, from everything I've seen it was when women first started to seize upon their new found liberated sexuality, and cast OFF the image of the blushing bride. What's even funnier to me is that the author quoted Madonna when saying we were "like a virgin no more." I thought, hello? Madonna = raunchy sex symbol = 80s = the time you were talking about? Maybe she she really is confused about what year it was 20 years ago.
It seems to me that we are having "a return to traditional values." Barf. I can't think of one traditional "value" women used to have that they no longer have that I wish they DID have. (Maybe they exist, I really just I can't think of one now.)
Sadly I think the mag knew exactly what it was saying and what it was doing. As the poster said, anything women do can be construed as "evil," "immoral" or "wrong" unless it's knitting sweaters for their third child and yelling right-to-life slogans. The media may be "liberal" as the Right (and my father) so often point out to me, but it is certainly NOT feminist. As Lumix stated, I too lament how subverted sexism is now, not because I want blatant sexism, but because the subliminal kind is far more dangerous. However in my studies of sexism in the media... I've found a whole stack of modern examples, where, newscasters primarily, flaunt their sexist views blatantly and unabashedly. What scares me about them is that they weren't even AWARE of how terrible the things they were saying were, most of them just thinking they were being funny.
Reading the article and the comments below, the funniest thing to me is that the pictures that they posted were NOT that raunchy (save the one girl in her wedding UNDERWEAR - NOT her dress.) Actually I thought most of the dresses shown were very elegant and very beautiful. The comments said that they were focusing on sex in their wedding because of their need to "have sex to keep their man", and that this was the opposite of empowering. A) Hmmm wonder who put that idea into their heads? B) Again... um, none of those dresses were "slutty"? C) The article says that we shouldn't be focusing on just the sexual part of our marriage -- helllooooooo? The dress, the veil, the white - it's ALL a symbol of sex, or their lack there of. If this trend is a rebellion against that? Kudos.
Ah, this reminds me of my sister's wedding last year. A virgin when she got married, she freaked out one day worrying if her dress was white enough because she didn't want anyone to think she was unpure. This was really shocking to me because I thought the white of the dress had lost all meaning decades ago (like at least the 80s) and was just a relic costume. I thought everyone would know she was "pure" by her obsession with religion and her behavior. And more than that, I thought wow, you're getting married and this is your concern?
Needless to say, should I ever get married, I'm definitely not wearing white. Because the last thing I want anyone to think of when they think of me is sexual purity. After all, my partner and I (the one I now live with) started as a one-night stand, you know the type you were told would never ever work. I'm proud that I'm a sexual being, I think it makes me a well-rounded woman. But to be my own devil's advocate, maybe I'm just as concerned as my sister, but in the opposite direction.
Wrote in to Newsweek, had to join to post... wow their comment section was frightening.