Sexuality and Intelligence: A Defense of Melania Trump

In the wake of the election, well to be honest even before, I saw a troublesome trend in the treatment of Melania Trump. As a former model, she was had taken some provocative photos as part of her job. This led to the slut-shaming of this woman in comparison to women like Michelle Obama, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, and other First Ladies. She was immediately written off as unintelligent and being less than in terms of class because she was expressed her sexuality in this way. I think that this sets a dangerous precedent for young girls.

So why do we continue to do this? Why do we find it necessary to tear women down for being sexual entities? There are probably a couple of reasons for this impulse.

One of the first things to examine is the idea that sexuality and intelligence are mutually exclusive traits. This idea affects both men and women, but it is particularly dangerous for women in multiple ways. First, we tend to look at sexuality and its expression as an instinctual impulse. It’s why we tend to excuse men talking about women in sexual ways as “boys will be boys.” We treat male sexuality as something that men cannot control, like they are animals. In contrast, we expect more of women when it comes to the expression of their sexuality. They are expected to control their urges and instincts. Therefore, a woman who expresses her sexuality is viewed as less intelligent. Because in this perspective she is less intelligent, it is easier to look at her as a sexual object rather than a thoughtful human being. It makes it easier to make the leap to the pervasive sentiments in rape culture that somehow a woman dressing in a provocative way was “asking for it;” it’s one of the main concepts that makes victim-blaming so prevalent.

The next area of consideration is the emphasis on purity. From a young age, girls are often conditioned to believe that their self-worth is tied to their sexual purity. This emphasis on purity tends to lead to body image issues because girls feel that their bodies are something of which to be ashamed. Dressing in a “modest” way the means by which a girl maintains her purity. It also encourages the discriminatory practices in school dress codes in order to avoid “distracting the boys.” Additionally, it can be difficult for girls to understand how to properly express their sexuality when they begin to have those impulses. Feelings of a sexual nature are encouraged to be repressed. This can become incredibly problematic should those girls experience sexual assault. It is more difficult to not only admit that this happened, but it can lead to additional trauma. Elizabeth Smart spoke about the dangers of this emphasis on purity when talking about her own experiences and subsequent issues in dealing with the after effects of such trauma.

The final area that I want to consider is the way that women are conditioned to be in competition with one another. I believe that this really begins to rear its ugly head when we start to tear down Melania Trump for her past pictures as a model. From a young age, we seem to taught that we are constantly in competition with other women for attention, whether it be in the classroom, the workplace, or in relationships. We then begin to insult women for a variety of reasons, sometimes doing so in the name of preserving female dignity or feminism. The truth is that these insults are counterproductive to the cause of feminism. The tearing down of other women for being sexual beings is a tactic that keeps women from supporting one another. It is a divide and conquer strategy. Melania Trump was an adult who chose to take those photos that some may view as provocative because of the overt sexuality on display. We may jump to the conclusion that she was being used and objectified for the sexual gratification of men. While this may be the truth of the situation, it is not for us to condemn her for it. We must instead affirm that she is entitled to do with her body as she pleases as long as it is a consensual act. She has the autonomy to decide how much or how little of her body that she wishes to show. Finally, she is her own person; to compare her to the First Ladies that came before is unfair.

We need to stop propagating the notion that women cannot be intelligent and sexual and that female body is something that we need to be ashamed of and hide. We owe it to the next generation to keep moving the rights of women forward. This means believing that they have autonomy over their body to show as much or as little as they like. So let’s stop slut-shaming public figures for provocative dress, no matter who they are.

Baby, It's Cold Outside: Shifting Attitudes and Its Effect on Meaning

Cultural norms and social codes of behavior are constantly evolving. Behaviors that were once acceptable are no longer ok. When we begin to look at works of art, how do we adapt our understanding of them? Should we keep them within in their historical context or look at them through our current cultural norms? When does a work cease to be good in the context of the values that we attribute to it?

This is a question that students of literature consistently ask themselves. We look at works of literature through various lenses of literary criticism. The key thing to keep in mind in this context is that one approach to analysis is not necessarily superior to another. However, when we begin to use cultural analysis, sometimes the waters can become muddied when we consider which culture to use. Are we to use contemporary codes of behaviors and norms or those of the author? My thought is that both approaches must be used in order to fully grasp the meaning of the work.

In recent years, the song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside,” has become a great example of the push and pull between these two impulses. Frank Loesser wrote the tune in 1944 as a duet with his wife originally performed only for friends at holiday parties. The song features a call and response between a man and woman regarding whether or not they should spend a romantic evening together rather than the woman returning home in cold and difficult winter weather. The female singer is providing reasons why she can’t or shouldn’t stay while the male singer responds to her reluctance with reasons she should stay.

When we look at the song in the context of contemporary society, it certainly has a date rape vibe, especially when considering the line of the woman “Say, what’s in this drink?” In a world where the threat of someone slipping a date rape drug such as Rohypnol into a drink in order to take advantage of her, this line becomes problematic with good reason. Yet, when we look at the acceptable codes of behavior for women at the time of the song’s composition, it is more likely that this line refers to alcohol. Women were not supposed to drink to any kind of excess, especially a single woman in the company of a man where no one else was present. Now, this doesn’t necessarily excuse the line as not being an indication of date rape as alcohol can also be a tool that someone can use to take advantage of someone else sexually. It does, however, make the situation seem less insidious within its historical context.

The other thing to consider is why the woman in the song is reluctant to stay in the first place. In our own cultural norms, a woman who stays the night at her lover’s house is not considered to be as much of a big deal. While slut-shaming is still an issue in today’s society, it is not the same as it would have been when the song was composed. In the song, it can be assumed that the woman is reluctant to stay for this reason. She consistently goes back to what her family might think of her if she does not return at home: “My mother will start to worry / and Father will be pacing the floor.” In this first verse, after thinking about the reactions of her mother and father, she concludes with “Maybe, just a half a drink more.” As I look at this, she does not seem to be in such a hurry to go. This back and forth continues in the second verse when she considers the reactions of other family members: “My sister will be suspicious / My brother will be there at the door / My maiden aunt’s mind is vicious,” but she concludes with “Maybe just a cigarette more.” Ultimately, her decision to go seems to be because she is worried about the talk from people the next day and the implications that will be made in regards to her reputation. The emphasis on sexual purity for women and girls, while still important in some sections of society, does not hold the same weight it once did. This might not even be a conversation that would happen in this context today. This doesn't mean that there is not something dark at play in the song because the female character is feeling unable to express her own sexuality and no longer feels as though she has agency over her own body. This is not, however, something that we can lay at the feet of the male character but rather an indictment of society at large.

The issue that most people have seems to be related to consent and coercion. It’s hard to fully understand the motives behind the two singers. If we look at the song in our more contemporary context, the actions of the male does seem predatory especially when we consider behaviors that women have experienced on numerous occasions when out for an evening. It’s easy to understand the level of discomfort with the situation when women think of similar situations in which they have found themselves. It certainly comes across as a man who is unwilling to take no for an answer, and there is some coercion taking place in the song. The question is whether it is unwelcome or not. Because the woman does appear to go back and forth in her responses, it can be a bit more ambiguous than what we are comfortable with in our contemporary sensibilities. When you look at the fact that this was a husband and wife songwriting team, you could easily look at this interaction as a game in which both parties are aware of the situation and consent has been given beforehand.

None of this analysis should diminish the reaction of the listener to the song. If someone listening to the song finds that it triggers memories of a past trauma, those emotions cannot be disregarded. The point really is that interpretations are never black and white and can change with the lens by which we choose to analyze the work. This discussion is necessary as we discuss the issues surrounding rape culture if we want to progress as a society. It is my belief that we need to understand where we once were as women in order to move forward. As such, dismissing a song as "rapey" by solely evaluating it through the lens of contemporary social issues is just as detrimental as looking at the song solely through the lens of the historical context in which it was composed. We need to dialogue about both aspects to truly understand the lyrical significance.