So I’ve been thinking a lot about “slut pride,” and why society seems so much against the notion of “hypersexual” women. This issue, to me, is more than a woman saying she likes to have lots and lots of sex; it’s  empowerment, it’s a woman’s choosing to use her body in a way that pleases her and that she is not ashamed of. Now, I’m not too keen on the use of the word “slut” to stand for such a powerful message, but I support the message all the same – society, not so much.

One of the main arguments that people always seem to use against women who enjoy sex is the fact that it’s immoral for women to have sex often because only they can get pregnant. Now, yes, this is true, but it’s both chauvinistic and invalid.

Now, yes, if a woman gets pregnant, she has to carry the baby in her womb for nine-odd months and then push it out. But that’s just the physical reality of pregnancy, not the crux of the argument. What I usually hear are the words “responsibility” and “taking care of the kid” thrown around and finally it clicked.

Wait a goddamn minute; both parties are responsible for a child. True, he doesn’t give birth to it, but that doesn’t make it any less his child. I feel as if the logic that women can’t be too sexually active because they can have children perpetuates this idea that only women have children, but men do not. The dominant view is that women shouldn’t have sex all the time because they can have kids but men can because they do not physically have kids; they just participate in the process and move on to sow their wild oats. What the heck is that stuff? The truth is if sex results in a pregnancy both parties are responsible.

I am aware that younger girls are less financially capable of taking care of  children and that a baby puts a big wrench in any sort of educational plans, but if the father of the child is also helping out then the weight of responsibility is much easier to deal with. The fact is, if the father and his family help, it can help to ease the situation. Now, I know firsthand that this is not always the case, but again, I feel the logic of this whole argument against true sexual liberation for women helps perpetuate the notion that men don’t have to take care of their kids because it’s the woman who is giving birth.

This all may seem self-evident, but I’m writing this article because I used to follow similar logic and I’m going to assume that I’m not the only woman who thought like this.

I’m writing this to debunk the silent but poignant implication in the argument that women shouldn’t be too sexually active because they can have kids. Well, guess what? So can men. They’re not giving birth and won’t feel the pain, but at the end of the day that kid’s DNA is coming from two people.

Now, sometimes the man takes care of the child, sometimes he doesn’t, but to imply that a woman can’t engage in sexual intercourse if she pleases because the responsibility of the child rests solely on her is completely chauvinistic.

Stephanie Ambroise is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at [email protected]