the center for humane sexual culture

Last summer Hillary Clinton’s surprising (to some) display of cleavage on the Senate floor was big news. With primary season in full swing, now seems like an appropriate time to revisit this issue with an eye toward sexual shame.

The initial reaction was one of shock at what was viewed as an excessive display of sexuality in a setting that was not appropriate. Later critics, in response, rightfully pointed out that the reaction was not only too extreme, but also probably unfounded. If you saw a woman in an office setting wearing the outfit Ms. Clinton had on that day on the Senate floor, you’d most likely think nothing of it, unless you worked in the office of a nunnery.

Clinton has a long and documented history of unusually conservative attire, dating back at least until her time as first lady. She’s even been accused of trying to suppress her sexuality entirely, which is the what many suspect was her reason for wearing this particular plunging neckline.

It’s quite likely that Clinton’s strategy of pushing her sexuality to an almost imperceptible place did benefit her in her road to at least a 50/50 chance at the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. But it’s wrong to assume that the reason for her strong presidential bid is because people forgot, or aren’t conscious, of the fact that she is a woman. What did happen is that people stopped thinking of her as a sexual being.

Society’s fear or distrust of a sexual woman is what made her rejection of that aspect of herself a potential asset in her political quest.

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to feel emboldened by Hillary’s actions. With this brief gesture, she appeared to be saying “no, I am not hiding my sexuality,” rather than “yes, I am a sexual being.” She answering rather than exclaiming.

A politician’s job is to reflect what society wants. Ms. Clinton reflects our own fear of sexuality.