While tackling Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan’s of otherwise inexplicable condemnation of Senator Clinton for a “Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory,” Sassywho of I never leave the house without incident mentioned my theory of the dominant paradigm that paints women as the “no-sex” class. Sassywho says

I think that [the “no-sex” class theory] intersects with Hillary because it is so often assumed that women are not wired for sex the same as men in our culture. So society has created a whole code/decoder system that functions on the interpretation of others rather than the individual. Sexy and being a sexual person are assumed to be one in the same for women, wear the wrong outfit one day and you are denied the right to be who you are.
Look how easily the Washington Post does it:

When she appeared on the cover of the December 1998 issue of Vogue, just after the Monica Lewinsky scandal had peaked, she wore another de la Renta gown, this one with a boat neck and long sleeves. She looked glamorous, regal and defiant. But one was not even tempted to mention the s-word.

Clearly there was no way that she could have been sexy then, can you blame her man for stepping out? Now that Hillary struts around in anything less than formal wear she is a stumbling block for those who appreciate modesty:

With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private. You were intruding — being a voyeur. Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality.

Sassywho said it here.

“There wasn’t an unseemly amount of
cleavage showing, but there it was.
Undeniable.” — Robin Givhan

I agree the adolescent Clinton titterfest nicely illuminates two major arms of the dominant “no-sex” class paradigm. First there’s the total denial that women are sexual at all, which manifests here as bafflement that a woman who “doesn’t have to” should even hint that she might have a sexual side. For instance check out Givhan’s gushing expressions of admiration for Clinton’s erstwhile sexless appearance in her boat-necked gown and contrast it with dismay that her current appearance hints at a bosom

Next there’s the enforcement arm, the retribution that’s brought down on women at any hint of self-instigated sexuality — the squalling condemnation that a woman with Clinton’s status might have done so. Inside the paradigm women simply never manifest sexuality without ulterior motives generally related to trying to get something or other in exchange. Clinton, a woman but extremely highly placed and married to a highly-placed man, “should” have no reason to use sex to get anything… and (since, sez the paradigm, there’s no other conceivable reason) it’s somewhere between inconceivable and inexcusable.

Absent the “no-sex” paradigm there’s no foundation for the article at all. So why has it come up? Because it provided an opportunity both to preserve and enforce the dominant male paradigm that women are the “no-sex” class.

Reminder: While my theory might seem superficially contrary to the classic radical feminist theory that women are the “sex class,” nothing about the “no-sex” class theory directly contradicts feminist theory. The difference for me is it provides a more rational explanation for men’s behavior towards women. Where “rational” in this case means “presents more opportunities for transforming or overturning” and not “gee, fellas, it makes perfect sense to imagine women don’t have sex drives like people do.”