A little bit of cleavage

Today’s Exponent post got me thinking about my own relationship to my breasts, which is complex.  When I was a teen and realized that my breasts got me a lot of attention from guys, I realized that I could use them to my advantage.  I knew that guys wanted them and as soon as I let them under my shirt, they were pretty helpless (why is that??).  It seemed to whet their appetites and leave them wanting more.  This undeniable attraction that guys had with my chest was mystifying even as I marveled that it held such sway and used that to my advantage.

As I’ve gotten older, I’m still often amazed at how a small bit of cleavage can catch the attention of almost any man (and some women, too, but I’m just now starting to notice that). Even in my most professional of relationships, I can catch a guy’s eyes darting down to my chest. And I wonder, what is going through his mind when he does that? What is he hoping to see? Does it arouse him? Does it send mixed messages about my intentions? Or is it just plain curiosity?

I still seem to enjoy the power that my breasts wield–even though mine are far from being as perky and as attractive as they were 20 years ago. They create a kind of marker between me and the men around me that signals our differences and the potential for danger and/or illicit behavior. I can’t think of another body part that so readily achieves this type of nuanced communication–that suggests “I am woman and you are man” and hints at an ensuing tension between us.

The fruits of abstinence

Can you stand any more Twilight discussion?

We’ve already talked about how substituting “bloodlust” for actual lust is perhaps a bit creepy. But there’s another dimension to Twilight’s “squeaky-clean” take on sex (explained in this article ): fetishizing abstinence is itself problematic.

Firstly, where does this steamy chastity lead a teenager?

Perhaps some of this bitter disappointment stems from book four’s departure into adult territory, where Bella becomes a traditional—and boring—teenaged mom. The removal of the couple’s sexual tension reveals two tepid, unenlightened people. Neither character has much to offer outside the initial high school romance storyline: Bella doesn’t have any interesting hobbies, nor is she particularly engaged in the world around her. Her only activity outside her relationship with Edward seems to be cooking dinner for her father. Edward hangs out with his family, but the bulk of his 24 hours a day of wakefulness seems to go to either saving Bella from danger or watching her when she sleeps—you know, that age-old savior/stalker duality. Romantic!

Secondly, there’s this:

The Twilight books conflate Bella losing her virginity with the loss of other things, including her sense of self and her very life.

In other words: girls, you are your “virtue” — nothing more nothing less.

Well, as messages for teen girls go, it’s traditional at least…

Mormon “technical virgins”

Even when I was a virginal Mormon teenager, I found the idea of doing “everything else but” — just so that you could remain officially a virgin — was a little weird and irrational.  I thought about this again while re-reading Greta Christina’s influential article Are We Having Sex Now or What? Greta talks about how she didn’t perceive any sexual play besides penis/vagina intercourse as “sex” until she started having sex with women (as an adult ).

My own experience was quite different. Yes, like Greta, for a time I kept a mental list that included only those people I had all of sex with (by the standard heterosexual definition ). However, for my first experience, I never really saw “technical virginity” as the significant dividing line. With my first real boyfriend I didn’t quite go “all the way” (would have, but we broke up too quickly ), and it was with him that (in my own perception ) I crossed the line from “inexperienced” to “experienced.” Crossing the official line with another boyfriend a year later was merely a technicality so that others would agree that I was not longer a virgin.

So I’m wondering: Is it just me, or is it a Mormon thing to downplay “technical virginity”?

I think one could make a case for either side. On the one hand, Mormon chastity lessons for youth always emphasize that masturbation, necking, and petting are sins that are right up there with fornication — practically just different points on the immorality spectrum. And you can repent of any of them and be again chaste. On the other hand, it’s my impression that a couple can have a temple wedding as long as they’re “only” doing “everything else but.”

What do you say? Do you laugh at the idea behind the following Landover Baptist image? Or do/did you believe it?