The walk of shame is deemed to be part of the college experience —you are either participating in this walk or watching it. It is apparent that this walk of shame is only applied to women even though men can still exhibit this behavior. It goes against the way sex should be kept hidden and taboo, it rebels against these norms and acknowledges the fact that women have sexual experiences just the same that men can.
Brett Luceford, author of Naked Politics: Nudity, Political Action, and the Rhetoric of the Body, takes a look at the walk of shame and makes a great insight into how it “functions to discipline female sexual practice by reinforcing gender stereotypes and punishing women who transgress socially constructed norm.” Prior to reading this paper, I never had a second thought about how truly misogynistic the walk of shame is — my male housemates would laugh and leer at the girls coming back in last night’s clothes; yet boast about their sexual conquests from the same night. These double standards were literally right in front of my eyes, in the same room as me, but I simply never realised.
The walk of shame has further been commodified and commercialized, becoming part of popular culture. Luceford questions Urban Aid creating a “Shame on You Kit” which includes: toothbrush, toothpaste, a thong, three condoms, pain relief, and a “‘leave-behind note.”’ Yet the fact these kits are clearly aimed at only women is incredibly telling of our current views on sex and hookup culture. Urban Aid does not provide a male version of the Shame on You Kit, which is consistent with their motto “just what a girl might need” and hence “making the walk of shame a female problem that only reinforces masculine values.” Whilst I could not find the original page promoting the product, others that mention it repeats the phrase “if you have to do the walk of shame… at least you’ll be clean.” This idea of sex and needing to be clean only promotes sexist ideas that a woman having sex is a dirty act, especially if it is under the circumstances of a hookup rather than within a relationship. Even if we were to ignore this idea, the kit provided doesn’t actually provide products to help someone feel clean and refreshed after sex — give me some wipes, not a thong.
(The following paragraph mentions sexual assault)
To further expand on shame and hookup culture, Luceford states “This shame in the walk of shame not only comes from the notion of female sexuality but from the woman’s indulgence in random and anonymous sex. Women are taught that they should want relationships rather than anonymous sex, but hookups and the walk of shame goes against this.” There is NOTHING wrong with anonymous sex, as long as all parties can and do consent. However, the walk of shame is associated with a drunken hookup after a night out, whereby the woman is ‘stumbling home’ the next day, unable to remember what has happened. If she was drunk she could not have given consent, and this lack of consent means she was sexually assaulted —but where is the discussion around this? We are so focused on the idea she had sex based on her walk of shame that we ignore the crucial element of safety and consent. Luceford’s paper only mentions consent in one fleeting sentence but makes no effort to elaborate on the point —showing that there needs to be greater discussion and information about sex, consent, and being under the influence. The shame is once again placed on the women, rather than the perpetrator.
The walk of shame additionally promotes and questions the virgin/whore paradox according to Luceford. He states that men need not to worry about this but instead “must content with a norm of hypersexuality. with a norm of hypersexuality. When promiscuity and a constantly ready and willing erection are the tokens of masculinity, not acting on sexual impulses would be shameful.” However, Luceford does not expand on the harsh consequences of male hypersexuality —something I feel could have added a much-needed conversation to the paper. That being said, Luceford makes an intense and interesting statement on the way women are made to negotiate the virgin/whore paradox. Women are “expected to be sexy and sensual, yet when they act on these societal imperatives, they are ridiculed. This reinforces the idea that women are meant to be objects of desire, yet they are not able to act on their own desires.”There is no way for women to win. If we try being feminine, innocent, and not having sex, — we are shamed. If we have sex, — we are shamed. It seems that women are supposed to simply let sex happen to them, rather than have sex.
We desperately need to change the discourse and language around sex, and for Luceford that starts with us. “”Before we can act,”” he states, “” we must first begin with how we think about these norms - in short, we must begin with the very words we use to define ourselves, our actions.””We must learn as individuals that sex is not shameful in any way, and it is only once we have learned this that we can join forces to tear down the double standard.
By Stephanie McCartney