OPINION

ALEX is a 41-year-old man. He is divorced with one young daughter, attractive, and has a well-paid job in communications. He’s slept with a total of 25 women since his divorce three years ago. What do you think of that? Is that a lot? A little? How does it affect his work? His children?

Now take the same scenario, only this time Alex is a woman. She’s also a single parent, attractive, and well-paid. She too has had 25 sexual partners in the past three years.

What do you think about that?

Hopefully, you’ll shrug and say, “I have zero feelings about either Alex. People are free to sleep with whoever they like, and it has no bearing on any other area of their life.”

But the more likely scenario is that you’ll care little about the male Alex (other than, perhaps, to silently congratulate him for being such a stud), but have stronger feelings about the female Alex. Twenty-five partners? Really? Hmmm. You’ll do the calculations. More than eight a year? That’s a little slutty, isn’t it? And what about her daughter? How is she? Who’s looking after her when Mummy is off shagging random men in bars?

It’s the pervasive double standard attached to human beings and sex that persists, even through the feminist movement and through #MeToo. Women are judged on their sexual activity, men are not. Anne Summers first wrote about the dichotomy of “damned whores and god’s police” back in 1975, and we are still seeing it played out today. It is slut-shaming — the highlighting of a woman’s sexual activity to embarrass or demean her, and undermine her power.

Australian politics has been in an uproar these past few days, after Lib Dems Senator David Leyonhjelm commented on the sexual life of Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

“Stop shagging men”, he said publicly, implying that a) Ms Hanson-Young is promiscuous, b) this is Mr Leyonhjelm’s business, and c) her sexual activity is somehow relevant to her work as a senator.

When publicly urged to apologise for his comments, Mr Leyonhjelm responded: “I am prepared to rephrase my comments. I strongly urge Senator Hanson-Young to continue shagging men as she pleases.”

It seems astonishing that a person in the workplace can feel it appropriate to comment on the private, sexual activity of a colleague. But it happened, before our eyes. And it happened because Ms Hanson-Young is a woman. Had she been Sean Hanson-Young, it would never have occurred. Men simply do not get slut-shamed.

So why are women still slut-shamed? What does someone like David Leyonhjelm stand to gain by referencing a women’s sexual activity?

Well, slut-shaming is used to avoid rational debate. Slut-shaming is used when a man knows he can’t win with reason or logic. It’s the equivalent of a four-year-old kid shouting, ‘Well, you’re a poo poo head!’ when he loses an argument. It’s the response a man gives when he doesn’t have a decent response. It’s the response a man gives when he knows he is beaten.

Slut-shaming is sinister, and it’s demeaning, and it is utterly nonsensical. A woman’s sexual activity has as little relevance to her work or character as a man’s does to his.

But slut-shaming works because it diminishes a woman. It doesn’t matter how accomplished a woman is, it doesn’t matter how smart, or how educated. It doesn’t matter if she’s a member of the Australian Senate, for godsake! Slut-shaming reduces her to a sex object. And men employ slut-shaming when they are intimidated. They employ it when they can’t defeat a woman using wit or brains or ideas. They employ it because powerful women terrify them, and they will use any dirty tactics to keep women from standing in that power.

Mr Leyonhjelm slut-shamed Sarah Hanson-Young because he couldn’t yell, “Well, you’re a poo poo head” in the Senate. The only one who needs to feel ashamed here is him.