The Monday after America’s Catholic bishops dictated the terms of a House of Representatives passage of a health care bill, I’m not in the mood for a discussion in which ‘true feminists’ live by the ‘good girl’ book.

Reading Lisa Miller’s column in Newsweek: Sexual Revolution, Part II, I see that the definition of feminism is being turned inside out at Harvard University and elsewhere on campus.

At the heart of this growing conversation about female sexuality is the same question that’s dogged women for thousands of years: control over her own body.

At Harvard and elsewhere, women are defending their right to organize, navigate, and choose their own sexual partners — whether that be one, none, or 10 in a month.

The university’s True Love Revolution group argues that ‘true feminism’ implies chastity and premarital abstinence, what the group calls ‘sexual integrity’ that reserves sex for marriage, upholding the institution of marriage and the family.

True Love Revolution offers a single-serving plate of restricted life choices for women who thought that second wave feminism expanded their horizons of lifestyle options. Choice is not on the True Love Revolution
menu.

To marry or not; to choose motherhood or not; to have a marital affair or not are not options for a ‘true feminist’.

TLR’s argues that real feminists know this kind of freedom can’t be managed effectively. Chastity belts are liberating, if we just open our minds to the concept. This is the burqa argument in different packaging. Women are ‘liberated’ by shutting down the sexual garage door and going under cover.

Indeed, life does get messy at times with options of choice, but the rates of divorce, marital affairs, watching porn and engaging in other ‘forbidden’ acts is statistically greater among the preachers of the ‘we know what’s best for you’ movements.

The moralizers have the worst track records in living up to their own morality litmus test. Period. The evidence is overwhelming. Because moralizers can’t manage their lives effectively, the assumption is that the rest of us can’t either.

Personally, I’m not a defender of the hookup culture and never was. Many women and men pay an emotional, psychological, and physical price for disconnected sex, meaning random pleasure play in bed. I said ‘many’ and not all.

My vision of the liberated woman goes far beyond the ‘slut girl’ culture, which I find messy for women and men both.

Yet, second-wave feminists fought long and hard for women’s right to make these choices, to thrive in their options and learn from their mistakes.

This morning, I’m astonished to see fundamental concepts like ‘feminism’ being twisted into a prescriptive course of action for American women that advocates surrender of hard-won choices about women’s goals and ambition, including control over their own bodies.

A ‘true feminist’ does not engage in premarital sex. That’s the mantra, and I resent it.

Coming after the Catholic Bishops takeover of American healh care this weekend, I find the road ahead very clear and concernful.

For certain, marriage is on the downturn in Europe and beyond. Countries like Japan and Italy have negative birth rates, meaning that without immigration they will eventually cease to exist as nations. Many countries of the world have challenges before them that are exacerbated by women having freedoms unknown in earlier societies.

In Singapore, the government issues tax credits to couples getting married and having children.

Given the choice, many women choose not to take the life road recommended by patriarchal values. I, too, am concerned about the future of the species, and the balances of ideology fomenting around the world. My solution doesn’t involve taking away women’s freedoms.

Instead of dealing with the realities of women’s lives, the prescription at True Love Revolution and America’s Congress is to recast feminism in terms that close Pandora’s box, making us ‘good girl’, Madmen women all over again.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that goal of returning to a 1950s sexual lifestyle, as advocated by True Love Revolution, is good for women. None. Advocates must present the research.

Newsweek’s Lisa Miller has a point that thoughtful conversations on campus about sexuality generally are in order. Questioning the hookup culture and promoting the delights of dating, versus sex-only play dates is positive action.

I’m all for discussing sexual promiscuity as a form of social engagement and debate. But I’m not for laws or ideology that legislate women’s sexuality. I freely admit that my frustration is greater, when women are my opponent in this battle for women’s bodies.

Why ‘true feminists’ must give up sexual choices stupifies me. I’ve heard some weird intellectual arguments in my lifetime, but this one takes the cake.

At Anne of Carversville we survey morality squads at work, managing women’s bodies all over the world. The terrible price women pay for trusting religion, patriarchal governments, and husbands to manage their lives is staggering.

Hundreds of millions of men globally support women’s rights to control their own sex lives.

Living a virtuous life is a noble goal, but reality makes the word a stone around women’s necks. Unless women, not men and religious authorities, are activists in defining ‘virtue’ for women, it must be regarded as a concept that fundamentally harms women.

It’s a stunning argument made by members of True Love Revolution that ‘true feminists’ embrace such a narrow, patriarchal definition of good-life options. The word twist is an insult to women everywhere in the world.

Once again, women cannot be trusted to do the right thing, when the most provocative current thinking says that patriarchal values have failed globally, leaving us on the precipice of destruction. Feminine principles are our only hope in the future.

The argument against moral relativism will ALWAYS be a no-win for women, because the price of entry is women’s control over their own bodies. Men, religion and the state must manage our our sexuality for the good of families, society, governments, religion and the planet. Women are incapable.

We had best organize a fourth wave of feminism quickly. In my humble opinion, the comparative position of American women in the global landscape on gender equality cannot be defended or explained, except as a train wreck. If I was 21, I would be shaking in my knickers, let me assure you. Anne

More reading: True Love Revision The Harvard Crimson

A Fight Over Abstinence at Harvard Newsweek

Women as Muses: What Is Our Place in the Modern World? Or Are We Just ‘Slut girls’ Today?