One of the upsides of reading IWF's blog (the downside being the constant retching) is that it points you in the direction of gems like this one. Robert P. George and John B. Londregan, professors in Princeton's Department of Politics, say that sex on college campuses is a "tragedy." They also really, really like scare quotes.
...Princeton, where we teach, is a wonderful university; but like other colleges and universities there is a dark side to its social life. Our students are bright, enthusiastic, and eager to learn. Most did not come to college bent on boozing and hooking up. Many feel deeply ambivalent about these aspects of campus life. Yet, they find little support on campus for the "alternative lifestyle" of living by traditional moral virtues....Whether it is a private institution such as Yale or a public one such as the University of Delaware, the truth is that things begin going badly for them right off the bat. Princeton is all-too-typical. As part of the freshman orientation program, students are required to attend an event entitled "Sex on a Saturday Night." It consists of a series of skits ostensibly designed to discourage "date rape." For years, critics have contended that the play, which features vulgarity and suggestive conduct, does nothing to serve this laudable goal; rather, it reinforces the campus culture of sexual permissiveness, primarily by shaping students' expectations to include sexual license as normal.
Let's not even get into the fact that date rape is in scare quotes - though I think that reveals volumes about where these two are coming from. What's interesting is that right off the bat, George and Londregan assume that young people don't like hooking up and sex - it's the dark side after all - and that all that's stopping them from living a life of morality is the lack of a college-funded chastity center. (They recommend calling them "Love and Fidelity Centers.")
Most universities have established non-academic centers of various kinds that provide educational, social, and counseling support. Princeton is again typical. We have the Women's Center, the International Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Center, and the Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding. Whether or not one agrees with the ideological bent of some of these centers, at least they represent the University's effort to meet what are perceived as the needs of certain segments of our student body.
Hmm, the last time I checked being a woman or being gay isn't ideological - it's who you are.
Conspicuously absent, however, are centers or programs offering meaningful support for students who desire to live chastely. "Sexual health" offices do not supply the need because staff members see their roles, not as promoting self-discipline and high moral standards, but as providing "non-judgmental" advice about how to have sex while avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections.
Perhaps - and this is just a guess - these folks providing scary non-judgmental advice simply don't think it's their place to preach "morals" (I think they're rubbing off on me with the scare quotes!) to adults capable of making their own sexual decisions. But George and Londregan are having none of it. They not only think that there needs to be virginity centers on campus - they believe they need to be led by university officials, not students who presumably can't be trusted not to fuck their way through school.
Students are strapped for time and don't have the experience or professional skills to provide the level of guidance and support that their peers need when it comes to important questions of sexuality and morality. Universities know this--that's why at Princeton, for example, in addition to the student gay Pride Alliance, the Queer Graduate Caucus, LGBT Task Force, and the LGBT Staff and Faculty Group, there is the University's LGBT Center, with a full-time paid University staff member committed to LGBT support and activities. For the same reasons, there needs to be university support for students who want to live and conduct their relationships honorably in the face of the hook-up culture.
What really gets me - outside of the frightening idea of dudes like George and Londregan heading up a center telling young women anything about sex - is that these professors that claim to have students' best interest at heart use incredibly shaming language throughout this article. After all, if students who don't have sex are acting "honorably," what does that make those who do have sex?
So just a quick message to George, Londregan and all the virginity movement shamers out there: There's nothing wrong with having sex. There's nothing immoral, abnormal, or dishonorable about it. (Also, mind your own business and stop thinking about your students' sex lives. It's creepy.)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The "tragedy" of hook up culture. And scare quotes..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12742
"Ditto" ;) throughout. They also seem to have an apparent obsession with "queers" (tho they did make sure to spell out and properly acronym the LGBT of these campus groups they can't seem to stop thinking about. One wonders about the connections between their sex negative attitude and constant and consistent queer haterations. Or one doesn't. Eh. "'nuff said" ;)
I'm looking at the image here, and the caption, and I'm thinking to myself: Why is it always pictures of women or girls? Why is the female always symbolic of what's wrong in society, and when is the pressure, or emphasis ever going to put on (or even include) males?
I'm so tired of the voices that be preaching to females to keep their legs closed, be pure, or even the opposite (being expected to put out). It's like a whole other side of the issue is virtually ignored. I guess the males can do whatever they want, because it's just so normal for them to spread their seed, so why question it, right? It's little red riding hood's responsibility to do whatever she can to avoid the big bad wolf.
And it always seems like when it comes to spreading diseases, that it's the female's fault as well. Like men don't, or are incapable, of spreading diseases.
Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing. It's very infuriating that the finger is always pointed at the female.
... It makes me wonder if it's because these organizations are run by men, so they can point the finger away from themselves... Or if it's because women have always traditionally been blamed... Or if it's because they know they'll be laughed at/ignored if they blame men?
Thoughts?
Yes, the abstinence movement is focused almost exclusively on girls. When I was a kid in the 70s, we were taught that it was up to the girl to rebuff boys' sexual advances (or else become a slut). Things have not changed much, I see.
Part of this is also that women's bodies are the cultural symbol for sex. Look at any news report having to do with sex or sexual health, and you will see a stock photo of a headless, topless woman modestly shielding her boob with her hand holding a rose or whatever.
Guys suffer from the "sexual purity" movement too, actually. Because that movement is so anti-porn and often anti-masturbation, many guys (and some girls) end up thinking they're sex-addicted perverts just because their sex drives don't allow them to completely abstain even from masturbation and they like porn. The sexual shaming in the abstinence movement affects people of all genders.
I'm in college. I also don't feel like having sex, but not for any of the reasons they're going on about. I'm just not interested. I also don't feel like I need some kind of support group or campus services for this - and if I did, isn't that what the sexual health people are there for? If my non-desire to have sex was a problem for me, couldn't I go to the pre-existing sex ed groups on campus and talk them them? Or something.
I also feel that creating "support groups" encourages the notion that there is something inherently wrong with you almost if you're not having sex... what I mean is if you're not having sex, you're obviously in need of some support system. I feel that it almost reduces non-sexually active college students to the status of "victim" of society.
Maybe the truth is they don't want to have sex, end of story. And let them be FINE with that, no need for support or counseling.
Oh, I don't know, I think you're making more out of this than it is. So a couple of professors think students should be more chaste, so what? So they decry sexualization, outside of Hollywood who doesn't? So they grouse just a little about Women Centers & GLBT Centers having ideological goals in addition to their laudable core goals, have you seen an academic office that DIDN'T have an ideological bent? So the professors are thinking about their students' sex lives, don't the directors of Women's Centers, GLBT Centers, and Rape Counseling Centers? So they put date rape in "", what feminist doesn't think the term is loaded? Having 18yo kids think more seriously about sex hardly seems the worst crime on college campuses. Heck in college I actually had an entire class devoted to sex.
Maybe you'd be more persuasive adding more snark.
I honestly think they're fighting an uphill battle but, hey, if they get someone to avoid doing something they'll regret the next morning, more power to them.
The problem is, study after study has shown that teens who take virginity pledges do not keep them. And not only do they not keep them, but they are far more likely to engage in risky behavior because the shame they feel about sex causes them to take fewer precautions such as using condoms or birth control.
I'm not supporting virginity pledges by HS students--I agree that they cause many problems. I'm supporting full conversations about sex with college students, and a little support for anyone who isn't the typical horny, drunk, experimental 19yo college kid. Its college, we should expose students to a full range of options & let them choose for themselves. The least we can do is support this "minority" group.
I'd be all for groups that supported abstinence if part of their message wasn't that those who choose to have sex are somehow morally and physically sullied. A college funding a group that shames and lies about sex would be fucked up - and that's what this article is advocating.
Again, they aren't trying to shame anyone, the center being advocated is not about that. It is, honestly, (and I know this may be hard to believe, but give it a shot) about giving support to those who feel that their choice of a chaste lifestyle leads to social ostracism. You don't think people do that? Well, we have proof right here on these comments that people who are chaste and believe in chastity (I mean, you can't honestly believe that every single person who is chaste and religious wants to shame those around them that aren't? Or do you? I just don't know anymore). While, again, it's nothing compared to the ostracism homosexuals and minorities in general face and have faced, it is definitely still enough to make you feel like you aren't "normal".
"...those who feel that their choice of a chaste lifestyle leads to social ostracism. You don't think people do that? Well, we have proof right here on these comments..."
The closest thing to proof of your assertion in the comments section here is the suggestion that the "chastity center" business be covered by religious organizations. Even though, as SaraLaffs mentioned: "[Our religious office is] successful because they are ecumenical, even in many cases non-religion-based, so students who have different religious traditions or none at all feel welcome." (Emphasis mine)
And based on this rather slim piece of evidence, you claimed that people here have said stuff like, "chastity is for those fundamentalist Catholic crazies".
Now, for the "social ostracism" bit: citations please?
Ya, right, sorry, I didn't finish my sentence and I see it could have lead to that confusion. What I meant to say is that these forums perfectly illustrate how someone could feel ostracized for being chaste. I mean, I certainly don't feel particularly accepted for defending, or even just presenting, a chaste lifestyle belief. It's even worse with college kids. Granted, they aren't going to send me hate mail, they'll probably just think I'm an idiot, but you still don't feel like you are part of the group, so to say, or normal.
Whatever, again, I'm not trying to prove anything or defend any position. I'm only pointing out that you have misinterpreted what the purpose of this center would be. People keep commenting on how this center's purpose is so clearly to shame non-chaste people so I felt the need to clear up that misconception.
[8+] Author Profile Page Brady Bonk said:
"What a" "couple of" "puritanical" "dumbasses."
Case in point, btw.
LOL that graphic. Why don't they just start locking their daughters up in steel chastity belts and be done with it already? Obviously we slutty creatures can't be trusted to keep our legs closed on our own.
My campus had one of these morality centers right across the street -- It was called a church. There was full-time staff and lots of support for students who wanted to remain virgins. Problem solved.
Bingo. This is where it belongs, too: churches, religious groups, and so on.
Exactly! At the college where I work, our religious life office does a ton of programming for students who choose not to have sex (or not to drink, do drugs, etc.). They're successful because they are ecumenical, even in many cases non-religion-based, so students who have different religious traditions or none at all feel welcome. And moreover, they manage to send the message that, as a college student, you don't have to hook up and party -- but without being judgmental of the students who do.
What about atheists and agnostics? Or do they just never want to remain virgins?
Virginity and chastity are religious concepts that atheists and agnostics in general would have little use for. (I suspect exceptions would appear primarily among those with religious upbringings.)
I can imagine atheists and agnostics abstaining from sex for various reasons. I assume that most also are practiced in resisting peer pressure from experiences of proselytization. I figure these abstainers would have no difficulty in resisting peer pressure to be sexually active without participating in groups that cling to traditional (religion-derived) sexual morality.
(This atheist's periods of abstinence during college were involuntary.)
Way to throw out rational arguments before even looking at them. Religious concepts. Sure. So are honesty, love, no theft, no murder, and all that other good stuff. I'm sure atheists have no use for these concepts either...
You know, you don't do very much for the whole reaching truth thing. Stifling arguments and brushing them aside because they are derived from religion, though are backed with reason and arguments, doesn't give you much credibility.
Lying. Hate. Theft. Murder. Sex. *Hums* One of these things is not like the other...
I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm a college student. I'm a virgin, as much as I hate the term. The idea that sex is immoral is a concept that doesn't make much sense to me, outside of a religious context. With all of the other things you mention, there is a clear victim. When unattached, consenting adults decide to have sex, who's the victim? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems kind of straightforward to me. "Chaste" and "virgin" both have denotations of purity, which implies that people who aren't chaste and virginal are somehow impure. Why? I don't take my orders from up above, so I need a reason that doesn't boil down to "because skydaddy said so", and I've been unable to think of one. Yeah, there are lots of situations where sex can be wrong -- like you're in a monogamous relationship with someone else, or you don't feel ready, etc. But that doesn't mean sex in general is wrong. (If that's how logic worked, it would be immoral to eat, since it's wrong to punch someone in the face to steal their McNuggets.)
I've never been put down or ostracized b/c I don't have sex, but maybe that's because I don't go around telling other people that they're in the realm of murderers and bigots for making different choices about what to do in their own bodies. I'm just not ready to have sex yet, and I haven't found someone I feel comfortable doing it with. That doesn't have anything to do with my morality. I bet a large chunk of what you think is discrimination against virgins is actually people getting pissed off at all the loaded, offensive language you use to describe people who've had sex versus people who have not:
Virtue, n.
Definition: honor, integrity
Antonyms: dishonor, evil, immorality, vice
Chaste, adj.
Definition: pure, incorrupt
Antonyms: corrupt, defiled, dirty, lewd, unchaste, wanton
Virgin,
n. A pure, uncorrupted person: angel, innocent, lamb. See clean/dirty, right/wrong.
adj. Morally beyond reproach, especially in sexual conduct: chaste, decent, modest, nice, pure, virginal, virtuous. See good/bad, restraint/unrestraint, sex/asexual.
You can try to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean, but that doesn't erase the connotations they have for the rest of the world. Nor does it obligate everyone else to assume you meant some obscure set of definitions, rather than the most commonly-used ones, especially when you don't even explain yourself before using them. Is it really a surprise that people are rejecting your ideas about virginity outright when you're insulting them so much?
I never insulted anyone, and I'm not a virgin, so maybe you are going to accuse me of self-loathing, but that would be presumptuous of you because I am, in fact, doing just fine (though this doesn't mean I still wasn't hurt by my premarital sex, I mean, if I am to believe that we are all sinners, then clearly either everyone is living shitty lives or through God or reason one learns from their mistakes). If you cared to read the rest of the comments, it boils down to the argument that sex outside of marriage can hurt both of the parties involved. It has nothing to do with skydaddy. I'm sorry you couldn't think of any arguments that don't include that line, but there are, contrary to what you think, many people who have sat down and thought about these issues and how they are, in fact, damaging to the person. People of faith can actually question their faith (crazy I know) and reason with it in order to better understand the commandments given to us by God) and can actually use reason to back up their claims. Again, I'm not going to present any particular arguments here because it is not my interest to defend chastity here, merely to clear up the misconceptions that Professor George and Londregan are being irrational or basing their arguments solely on religion; this I have done below in the comments if you care enough to read.
Oh, and I agree that the morality of sex is far more subtle than that of murder, for example, but all the more reason to study and discuss it. Trivial truths, like murder, it seems do not need much discussion, but at least some people perceive there to be hurt parties from disrespecting sex and to dismiss these arguments as religious and irrational (if they aren't) is not productive and does not help anyone, not even atheists.
Way to throw out rational arguments before even looking at them. Religious concepts. Sure. So are honesty, love, no theft, no murder, and all that other good stuff. I'm sure atheists have no use for these concepts either...
You're right, in a way: I find the idea of religion as an appropriate basis for morality to be so problematic that I give no weight to whether a given religion values a particular moral precept before making my own judgment on the precept.
You know, you don't do very much for the whole reaching truth thing. Stifling arguments and brushing them aside because they are derived from religion, though are backed with reason and arguments, doesn't give you much credibility.
My rejection of religious concepts of morality was given in the context of discussing the needs of atheists and agnostics. Arguments derived from religion are of no use in this context.
I do not consider the purpose of discussions such as this to be to arrive at some "truth." I find that word to be too loaded with religious connotation to be useful.
Fully accepted. Thanks for the response, it cleared up what you meant. All I would say is that, if you are assuming that all atheists and agnostics are are non-believers in God and his Authority, then any arguments that invoke this authority should be dismissed, sure. But arguments that use his authority can be argued in rational ways; and this is of use in considering the needs of atheists.
Quick illustration:
God says not to murder because we are his creations and to kill his creations would be undermining God's power.
Atheists can give me the finger and I'd just have to accept it because they don't believe in God.
However, atheists still don't murder, so there is clearly some other way to justify not only their personal choice not to murder, but a broader justification of a legal or moral mandate that prohibits murder. This other way is usually reason.
The same could be said of chastity, I would say.
God says we should only have sex to procreate because that is the purpose of sex and any other sex offends God.
Atheists gives me finger; I'm shit out of luck
On the other hand, if I can argue rationally that premarital sex harms those participating in it, then I have in no way invoked God or his Authority. Thus, it is still in the interest of the Atheist or Agnostic to listen and deliberate my arguments.
I just wanted to make that clear.
And I respect your distrust of the word truth, though I would remind you that both scientists, philosophers and mathematicians also seek "truth"...
However, atheists still don't murder, so there is clearly some other way to justify not only their personal choice not to murder, but a broader justification of a legal or moral mandate that prohibits murder. This other way is usually reason.
I had inferred from your previous reply that you were in the "atheists can't be moral because they don't believe in divine retribution" camp. I am happy to read evidence to the contrary.
On the other hand, if I can argue rationally that premarital sex harms those participating in it, then I have in no way invoked God or his Authority. Thus, it is still in the interest of the Atheist or Agnostic to listen and deliberate my arguments.
This scenario illustrates my take on this argument: (Since, to my recollection, you haven't actually presented arguments regarding the harms of premarital sex, my discussion of such arguments will be generalized.) A list of negative consequences of premarital sex is presented. The list likely will not distinguish by age, since marriage is the key criterion. The presenter most likely will not acknowledge any neutral or positive consequences of premarital sex. The presenter acknowledges acceptance of a tenet of her religion that declares premarital sex to be immoral.
As someone who does not subscribe to the presenter's religion, I am going to view such a presentation as not worthy of my attention. A presenter who focuses exclusively on negative consequences will be perceived by me as not having formed her opinion through reasoned consideration, but rather as someone who cherry-picks arguments to support a preordained conclusion.
Ah, thank you for your response.
I definitely understand better where you are coming from. So for a long time, sex has been demonized and those who engage in pre-marital sex have been demonized by those people that feel it is virtuous. However, I think one can still see that there are some "good" consequences but that premarital sex is still objectification. Does that mean that those who do engage in it are demons condemned to Hell? No. I'm sure that the sex actually did bring them together, actually did enrich the relationship. I mean, I do believe sex is powerful, so ya, of course I think good things can come from it. But this is a much deeper philosophical question than that. It is a very subtle argument that tries to get at what exactly is harmful about sex. And it is not a pragmatic one; ie. it does not say "oh, well, people can get hurt because one side may expect another so that is the reason", rather a philosophical one that focuses on treating the other person as a complete end.
I mean, and this is kind of off topic, but the same kind of argument could be said of capitalism. Ya, good things happen because of capitalism, but that doesn't mean it's not a sub-optimal system where wage labor is a bit objectifying. Same thing. Premarital sex is far from some other moral wrongs, but I still think it is sub-optimal compared to marital sex.
By the way, and this is even more off topic so please don't respond to it, I, too, for a long time thought that the question of morality depending on God was a bit over-zealous. Now, I'm still not entirely convinced that one cannot reach moral truths without God, but I think that there is definite worth in engaging this topic philosophically, if at least just as a mental exercise. Again, I'm not arguing for either side, and most people who do think you need to believe in God to be moral couldn't justify that view with reason to save their life. However, it's not entirely clear to that "one should not cause harm on others" as a basic moral tenet is so easily defensible. It seems like an outright truth to most all of us, but does it have prescriptive force (I mean, can you make the case for some alien coming down to earth that he shouldn't harm us?). Basically, just because the person in front of me can feel pain, it doesn't immediately follow that it is wrong to inflict pain on them unless, the enlightened religious person would argue, each and every person is God's creation and thus we shouldn't harm them because it would be tantamount to subverting his authority. I know philosophers have tried to connect the two logically and with reason, and there is, like seriously, way too much stuff to talk about regarding this topic. I just wanted to let you know that, for some, the question of morality, God, and their mutual necessity is not as simple as brushing it off. If you find this interesting, I hope you go and learn more about it.
I get it now. Sometimes I'm a little slow.
I explain that I have no use for arguments that are based in religious apologetics, and what is your response?
"I definitely understand better where you are coming from."
After which you continue to go on about the philosophical basis for your opinions, as if your philosophy is not determined by your religious belief.
And then, irony of ironies, you bring up objectification in capitalism. I have another example for you: Treating me as a target for proselytization is objectification.
Why I have any inclination to continue the discussion is beyond me, but ...
Your idea that premarital sex is objectification makes no sense. I am a serial monogamist. I have been in multiple long-term sexual relationships, two of which converted to marriages. (Not to suggest that sex ended at marriage, or at divorce for that matter.) Any assertion that these relationships involved objectification one day, then the objectification magically ended at "I do" defies reason.
Personally I like the idea of "do unto others" as basis for morality. I realize that this isn't perfect, because modern life is far removed from our Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA - a concept out of Evolutionary Psychology) so our evolved sense of morality can be lacking at times, but its a good start.
Good day, madam.
No, my philosophy is not determined by my religion, unless every scientists whose hypothesis is corroborated by their conclusion is also determined by their hypothesis. My hypothesis is my religion, sure I'll admit that. But my philosophy is how I corroborate my beliefs. I come in completely open-minded and willing to accept whatever logical consequences present themselves. It just so happens that most of my beliefs are supported by the conclusions I have reached through philosophical inquiry. I have yet to decide whether I agree with the Church's position on marriage and what-not for those who live in a secular, libertarian society. Religiously, sure I believe premarital sex is a sin. Secularly, I'm not entirely sure. And by you just dismissing these arguments as religious you aren't helping anyone reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Moreover, I have not tried to defend this position at all, I just wanted to present it in a way that isn't religious, merely philosophical. Therefore I have in no way objectified you as a subject of my proselytism. What God you believe or don't believe in is none of my business. Do I think there is much that Catholicism could offer you?> sure, but that's not my concern in this post. My concern is to clear George and Londregan of the being people who argue religiously (as opposed to philosophically) and who are shamers (they are not).
BTW, the assertion is not that it magically becomes an act that doesn't objectify. Rather the argument is that when two people dedicate the rest of their lives to each other and "give themselves wholly" to the other is the only time that sex is no longer objectifying, not becuase the sex is different and "GOD is there" or some bullshit like that. Rather because of the way the two people enter into the act (neither is looking just for pleasure, but something more unitive. Notice that this isn't a defense of marital rape either because clearly that is not a unitive act. Marriage is not sufficient for unitive sex, only necessary). As I have said before, if you wish to argue why longesvity is not necessary, or why "giving oneself wholly" is not necessary for sex to be unitive and not objectifying, then please argue as much, but don't just say that my arguments defy reason if you cannot procure an argument to defend that claim.
I'm sorry, that picture and slogan is just frigging hilarious. Is that the modern day chastity belt?
I was wondering why he didn't mention religious groups or others in his spiel. I mean, I had many friends throughout University who made the personal decision not to have casual sex. (To clarify, this was quite clearly personal choices, stemming from religious reasons, family reasons, or sexual abuse in their past ... I never felt judged or condemned by these friends for the fact that I had an intense sex life). Some became involved in (fairly liberal) campus religious organizations, which, while they didn't condemn sex, didn't exactly foster a 'hook-up' environment. Some became actively involved in political movements, or clubs, and met many like-minded people there. Or some joined sororities, and went out drinking several times a week, and avoided casual sex by the simple expedient of choosing not to have sex ...
Anyway, my rant here is just to illustrate how college students are capable of choosing not to have casual sex... and that there are plenty of environments on any campus which don't focus on sex. And, you know what? Students who chose not to have sex have an easier time fulfilling that goal if they find other things to fill their life. The idea of a space where people sit around and talk about how they're not having sex is ... kind of creepy.
I can't believe these college professors don't understand that health professionals shouldn't dispense morals, but facts and health information.
Plus, there view of the college social world is extremely simplistic. College professors should really know better.
What annoys me about their commentary is that they seem to assume that one is either a pious, "moral virtues" type or a girl- or boy-gone-wild. No middle ground. At least that's the impression I get from the quotes in this post.
Some people avoid the hook-up scene for reasons other than "virtuousness." (I use scare quotes here because I chafe at this smug word. Chafe!) I avoided it simply because I knew instinctively that I wouldn't enjoy it. And I didn't judge my friends who partook; I just refrained because it wasn't right for me. And that's just me.
Another thing. A campaign stressing virginity--a loaded word that implies remote judgment--may just alienate any non-virgins who want to drop out of the hook-up scene and could use some friendly support. It looks more like the old purity fetish at work.
these men are such idiots. One can have herpes and a 4.0 GPA. I know a few...
The way the picture is cropped right across her boobs really highlights them. Does anyone else find it a little weird to sexualize an abstinence ad that way?
This is crazy. Men and women are exactly the same. There is no difference between the men and women at 10 minutes until closing at a college bar. They are all interested in having sex with anyone they can take home. That is reality. Women work just as hard to "get laid" as men do. Women endure just as much rejection and need to be aware that if a man says, "No" he means no. The vast majority of my straight male friends say that they feel like pieces of meat. They walk into any social situation and women are after them like wolves. Usually they assign an "anchor dude" to keep an eye on the group in case a woman tries to take them into the parking lot for a quickie. Ever spend time in a Lesbian bar? The bathroom stalls are full or sisters randomly hooking up. We are all the same.
Your post. It's funny
LOL I needed a good laugh, Thank you.
Something about the virgin/whore dichotomy that really bugs me... they seem to think that college students are either a.) saving sex til marriage or b.) having casual sex with many other people. What about people in relationships? They are monogamous, but they aren't waiting til marriage to have sex, and sometimes aren't sure if they want to stay with that person their whole life.
It's just weird to me that they assume if you're an unmarried college student having sex, then you're just not in a monogamous relationship. They always say 'save sex til marriage.' What if I plan to marry the single person I'm having sex with? Am I still just as 'bad' as the person having sex with a new person each week? What if I don't plan to marry the person I'm with? Am I no longer in a monogamous relationship just because I know we're gonna break up in a few months? I know a lot more people who are in monogamous relationships than people who 'hook up.' And yet it's like we don't exist.
"What a" "couple of" "puritanical" "dumbasses."
This is ridiculous. If there was truly a demand for such a service, there would be one. Universities don't have safe places for women and homosexuals because they want to encourage. . .whatever it is these people are against pertaining women and homosexuals (feeling safe? dealing with abuse?), but because their students wanted them. If there were that many people looking for "guidance" for staying chaste, the campus religious organizations would be far more popular and have something better to do than weekly having free spaghetti dinners to entice new members. But no, adults would rather learn about how to use condoms, have a place to go when it burns when they pee, and have someone to talk to when something goes wrong with their relationship.
These people aren't looking for a place to "support" chaste students, they want to create a place to shame the sexually active ones.
So many misconceptions, and usually, I can't bring myself to correct them, but George and Londregan deserve it. I have to. I know this man personally, and first off, he, and Londregan, are in no way, as much as Jupter would love for them to be so (s)he wouldn't have to argue her point in an intelligible way, idiots. These men are far from idiots (I mean, they are teaching at Princeton...are you really calling them idiots?), and any person who has taken a class with Robbie, whether feminist or not, would most likely agree. Not only that, I can assure you they are not homophobic either, to write them off as such is to show intellectual cowardice in the face of their rational arguments.
Second, they are not assuming that young people don't like to have sex, they are actually assuming the opposite...which is why they think people are doing it...because they like it...but like many things that feel good, that doesn't mean, prima facie, that we should do them.
Third, it was already touched on, but to be absolutely clear, they aren't saying homosexuality is an ideology, merely that the LFBT center has an ideological bent; basically they assert that it is not neutral, rather sex-positive (So not only does the LGBT center urge you to embrace your sexual preference, which I'm positive the two professors in question would have nothing against as they aren't homophobic, but also to embrace sexual promiscuity; that's their claim, I'm not trying to say the LGBT here on campus actually has that ideology).
Fourth, you have not shown any evidence to support your claim that there is nothing wrong with sex. You probably haven't even read any philosophy papers they've written, so on what authority can you possibly claim that there is nothing wrong with sex? I mean, maybe there isn't, fine, but you certainly haven't elucidated that point. These guys are the least oppressive people I have met, they merely have their beliefs and provide them to those who listen. They don't go around campus judging those who are having sex and they don't think less of anyone who is having sex. They merely believe that a life without sex (at least until marriage) is a much more fulfilling way of realizing one's own end-nature and that of the people surrounding them.
As for the commenters...to Lynne C. (are you my professor, btw? Chancer?) while it is true that many times society seems to turn a blind eye to male promiscuity, please let me assure everyone that George and Londregan are not of that ilk. They urge both sexes to engage in chaste lifestyles. Again, that is not to say that sexism in that way doesn't exist, I'll be the first to admit, but to the intellectual titan that is George, I'm sure the logical inconsistencies of such sexism would be quite infuriating.
To those comments about "support groups" being churches and religious groups...ever think that an atheist might want to be chaste? Of course not, chastity is for those fundamentalist Catholic crazies; everyone else in their right mind knows that sex before marriage is just the obvious right answer...seriously, do you people even think before commenting? (and by "you people" I only mean those who posted about churches fulfilling the role of a chastity center)
These support groups, btw, are for those students who feel that their chastity is constantly judged by those around them. And to be quite frank, it is not easy to be a chaste person in college. And just like homosexuals should have a place where they can feel comfortable being who they are, so should people who feel socially ostracized by virtue of their chastity. (And don't even think about jumping on me for "belittling the homosexual experience" comparing it to chastity, because I'm not comparing it. Clearly homosexuals must have a much harder time, but that doesn't mean that chaste people don't either, even if it is significantly less and hardly ever, if at all, violent).
George also never made the claim that Health Services (HS) needs to be moral, rather that because they choose not to be, there should be a campus center. Moreover, I'm sure they would argue that the HS is far from neutral. They probably feel that HS is actually promoting sex in that oh so neutral way of "if you want to have sex, go have sex". Clearly, this isn't about facts and health, this is an ideology about whether or not someone should have sex or not if they want to. Then again, this is neither an official view of George and Londregan (merely my speculation) nor is it a judgment of HS policies (again, merely speculation).
They aren't promoting a virginity center, rather a chastity center. There is, actually, a difference. They also have much to say about sex within a monogomous relationship, but of course, you'd rather put words in their mouth when presented with a lack of information, instead of doing a little bit of research before commenting on what they "seem to think". If you are going to talk about an personal observation of a wider movement, fine, but do so without implicating these two people of whose views you clearly have no grasp.
Right, to shame sexually active people. That's what they want to do. And I'm assuming you've met them, right? You know, it's people like you, nightingale, that add to the ignorance of the world. Not because you don't believe in chastity, but because you diarrhea out of your mouth without putting any real thought into it...
Sure, I don't know either of these professors. But if they fail to see how their suggestions intersect with a prevailing paradigm of equating chastity with virginity, and elevating chastity/virginity above sexual activity in a sort of heirarchy of virtues - epitomized by the denizens of the ineffective and misinformative abstinence-only culture - then it is they who need to perform some research by way of contextualization, not Jessica. (Look at that, I own a thesaurus, too!)
HAHA, sorry that I have a good vocabulary? I didn't mean to use it as intimidation, it's really just the only and best way I know of expressing myself without sounding like a a dumbass.
I mean, to be honest, your post really effectively gets across what you want to say...
Anyway, good point, but it's not their fault that there is such a virginity culture. Not only that, if you actually care to read what they say, they are not like the virginity cults that are profoundly un-intellectual (which is, in my opinion, why they fail in the first place, not because advocating virginity is somehow a flawed viewpoint). Moreover, it only hurts everyone involved, and I mean everyone, for someone to reduce their arguments to straw-men. It doesn't help people to talk past each other. It's everyone's responsibility, if they are truly seeking truth, to be intellectually honest rather than presenting watered-down arguments to make themselves feel smarter when they prove those arguments wrong. All Jessica needs to do is express their views as honestly as she can if she wishes to comment on them. I'd love to accuse her of being insecure about her viewpoints, which is why she would be presenting such a dishonest representation of their views, but I know that isn't true and I know that if I said that I'd only be making myself feel good because I called someone out (I mean, it's hard not to and I'm not saint so I still fall victim to my own desires of ripping other people a new one, but at least I have the fortitude to admit it). It's not some conspiracy she's conjuring up to throw-over the religious institutions, she is just very passionate about her views, and when someone is so passionate it is easy to overlook; not that her passion is bad (it's great, I mean, she is a feminist, after all, and I am too and I'm glad people feel so strongly about the issue), merely, it should be tempered with some skepticism.
Sorry for the earlier snark. ;) But the impression I got from your post was that you were indeed implying that Jessica (and those of us who agree with her) haven't done our homework. Jessica *did* just write a book about this, after all.
Ya, no, don't get me wrong, I'm all about people expressing their beliefs and stuff. I just think that a lot of the time, in that effort, they, and understandably so (we are all human, after all), are not as rigorous with the analysis of the other side's arguments. But again, it's not faulting her, it's just we should always point it out where we see it. I meant not to demean Jessica, rather, as I started my original post, I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions before everyone and their mom started posting stuff like
"oh ya, i totally agree, religion is dumb...these guys are stupid..." and all that other garbage.
I haven't seen anyone on this thread say "religion is dumb." I did skim it pretty quickly, though...But I did note several posts (including one of my own) pointing out that on many campuses religious life groups already attract many students who choose to abstain. I can relate to college students who aren't sexually active, because I was one myself. Sure, some people think it's weird. ButI don't think that shaming the students who make different choices is the way to go, and unfortunately these professors' language has that effect.
Oh, ya, I didn't imply anyone did, but all too often people start to chime in with those kinds of one-liners and there is no one to even offer a different viewpoint. Ya, I guess I'm biased a little because I have interacted with their arguments a lot, so perhaps I'm not seeing what you are. Again, not to be pushy or whatever it may seem like, but could you point out any specifics on where they do make it sound like that? I know that Jess posted the whole "What are they implying..." thing, but, and while I can accept that you feel their message is shameful, in the end, and to be true to ourselves, Jess is just speculating. She is, effectively, putting words into their mouths. Granted, sometimes some people do deserve it (again, classic example is the guy on the street corner telling homosexuals that they are going to hell). However, because I know him and am familiar with his arguments I know he is not trying to shame anyone, so I don't believe he deserves whatever defamation he is getting here.
The man really is incredibly open-minded. You wouldn't know what his viewpoints are when he teaches because he does present every argument in a passionate-less and non-judgmental way. It just really bothers me that someone who should be admired (because he should for inspiring students to discuss things intelligently and philosophically) is trashed the way he is. I'd stand up for Peter Singer, for instance, in the same way, mind you. It's not just because I think George is right...
Thanks for the continued discussion, by the way.
"They don't go around campus judging those who are having sex and they don't think less of anyone who is having sex."
If someone is characterizing people on one side of a debate as "living by traditional moral virtues", "promoting self-discipline and high moral standards", and "conduct[ing] their relationships honorably", what does that imply about those on the other side of the debate? Or, as Jessica already pointed out if you'd bothered to read carefully, "...if students who don't have sex are acting 'honorably,' what does that make those who do have sex?"
"...they aren't saying homosexuality is an ideology, merely that the LFBT center has an ideological bent; basically they assert that it is not neutral... not only does the LGBT center urge you to embrace your sexual preference... but also to embrace sexual promiscuity; that's their claim..."
And their proof is where?
"To those comments about "support groups" being churches and religious groups...ever think that an atheist might want to be chaste?"
Do they really feel that sitting in a campus group talking about all the sex they're not having would be helpful? If so, why hasn't there been demand by students for such a group? Perhaps you failed to read carefully (again), but there were a number of posters mentioning that when they were in college and didn't feel ready to have sex, they just didn't.
"...you have not shown any evidence to support your claim that there is nothing wrong with sex."
That's because that point has been covered, exhaustively, in several books and in many previous threads right here on Feministing. We're assuming that people here are already familiar with the "virtue/shame" and "consent/collaboration" arguments about sex, and if they're late to class, they can catch up on their own time instead of derailing a thread to demand that the entire business be explained to them personally.
"...to the intellectual titan that is George, I'm sure the logical inconsistencies of such sexism would be quite infuriating."
Because no "intellectual titan" has ever been racist or misogynist, or displayed other "logically inconsistent" prejudices. Oh wait...
"you diarrhea out of your mouth without putting any real thought into it..."
Oh yes, that will convince us of your good faith and level-headed debate skills.
If George or Londregan were your university teachers, they've apparently done a lousy job. Your phrasing is terrible, your critical thinking is pitiful, and you can't even make citations correctly (who's Jupter?).
You fail. Here is your dunce cap. Go sit in the corner and read along quietly until you have learned enough to join the class discussion properly.
Right, great, shame me into not responding, and then when I respond call me overbearing, very subtle and very demeaning. Awesome.
Sure, of course, talk of virtue CAN be used to shame people, but those people are proud and are usually not very intellectual. Those are the people that stand on street corners yelling at homosexuals and telling them they are going to hell. They are the people that are so insecure about themselves and their ideas that they feel the need to shame others from responding so that their own ideas are heard, regardless of intellectual worth. Am I hitting on the right ideas here, or did I miss class? Plus, just because you feel shame doesn't mean that the virtue should be removed. I mean, we feel shame all the time, everywhere we go, particularly when we realize that what we did is wrong. I certainly feel ashamed that I used the whole diarrhea comment. However, the criticism still stands because the commenter did not support such outlandish accusations with anything but her own thinking (and if history has taught us anything is that we can't trust ourselves to be at all objective). A virtue shouldn't be assessed on the shame it produces, but rather on the virtue inherently.
Living a chaste lifestyle does not imply that you feel that those who don't feel a chaste lifestyle are shameful or wrong. George will be the first, and incidentally ends his discussions with pro-life and pro-family groups here on campus always reminding them that what is important is talking to be people and engaging them in their thoughts because they could be right and we could be wrong.
I never said anything about proof, I just wanted to clear up the claim they were making, because I didn't want people to misread and think they were saying homosexuality is an ideology. I was not writing an apologetic and I never said I shared his views, I just don't like it when people are not intellectually honest.
Also, there HAS been outcry from students, but the university, so far, has felt that there is no need for a center. George merely picked up the student's cause because he felt they needed a voice (which they did) in the administration.
Right, and because I forgot to write an i in Jupiter I don't know how to cite. Please, ShifterCat. I refuse to put on my dunce cap, for it's shamers like you who are the true stiflers of the advancement and search for truth. Catchy, isn't it?
I don't think you should have been called a dunce. However, I think the commenter was referring to the fact that you don't say who the Jupter/Jupiter you're referring to actually is. I doubt the Roman god of thunder or fifth planet from sun care much about what George and Londregan have to say.
Oh, haha, well, JupiterAmmon commented above me somewhere about these guys being idiots. In case anyone still cared to know to who I was referring.
"Sure, of course, talk of virtue CAN be used to shame people, but those people are proud and are usually not very intellectual. Those are the people that stand on street corners yelling at homosexuals and telling them they are going to hell."
Oh, come off it. You think that the only shame tactics are those employed by the Westboro Baptist Church? And if someone's not acting like that, then it stands to reason that they're "open-minded" and "tolerant"?
The use of language like "honourable", "traditional virtues", "high moral standards", etc. to describe your own side and, by implication, to describe your opponents as the opposite is so common that it's disingenuous of you to claim you're unfamiliar with it.
"...just because you feel shame..."
Huh? If I don't subscribe to someone's idea of virtue, how would they succeed in shaming me?
"Now, it's not my place to provide any evidence of this depression and anxiety..."
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you're going to defend your professors' arguments, then you should cite what they're using to back up their claims.
Look, I think I see what's happened here. You've met one or both of these guys in person, and admired them so much that you can't conceive of them having less-than-admirable views. Well, sorry, but sometimes our heroes have feet of clay. What we're judging them on is what they have written, not how nice a pair of guys they might be to have a beer with. So if you want to defend your heroes, you'll have to use their written arguments as well.
Look, I'll say it again, I'm not defending my heroes...I never said I was...
I was clearing up misconceptions. I have repeatedly said that. Whether or not people get depressed and anxious in a "hook-up culture" is of no concern to me. What is of concern is when people mistakenly attribute arguments like using shame tactics to people who are not.
It is all too apparent, now, that you are conflating the ideas of virtue and shame. It does not logically follow from the fact that people are not living moral lives that they should feel ashamed or be made to feel ashamed. I know it's hard to grasp the concept because for thousands of years people have used "virtue" to demean people and dehumanize them. But that doesn't mean that one who lives a virtuous life necessarily must think that others are shameful. As I said before, I am familiar with the idea, even though you make me out to be unfamiliar with it; I do understand what you are saying and I do see how it can be interpreted in the way you have.
You could actually empathize with those who aren't living a life of high moral standards and by calling it such it is describing it as just that, a life lead by high moral standards. I have not said anything about the "other side". These professors are not, and have not yet said anything, that directly implicates them using your purported shame tactics. They actually believe that casual sex can be harmful (ya, I know, crazy idea, but it's not just a cover up for religious conspiracy), and, while it may not be generalizable, there are, without any doubt, men and women who have been hurt by casual sex.
Oh, and I didn't mean YOU I meant ONE, sorry. I'm not a child, btw, and I'm already fairly disillusioned with the world, so don't give me any of this demeaning crap about "sometimes your heroes aren't all they're cracked up to be". Thanks for that, I'll keep that in mind next time I read my comic books... And I do admire these people for their intellectual rigor. These days it's really hard to come by, and I'm no exception.
"...for thousands of years people have used "virtue" to demean people and dehumanize them. But that doesn't mean that one who lives a virtuous life necessarily must think that others are shameful."
Okay then. If you think that George and Londregan are the rare exceptions who honestly aren't looking down their noses and surreptitiously shaking their fingers at everyone who they perceive as "less virtuous", can you provide anything solid to clear up this "misconception"?
You see, one reason why the tactic of smearing someone by implication of opposites is so popular and enduring is that it provides the person doing it with plausible deniability. "Oh no, I didn't say that my opponents are dishonourable or immoral..."
"Nor is it fair to students, especially women, who experience pressure to make themselves sexually available as the price of being treated as normal and feeling accepted."
I posted this before, but it doesn't seem you caught it. I reproduce it here. This, at least, shows their concern for the students. They actually see these ways as harming the students, again, as I said before. It is not because they get their rocks off from nagging and wagging fingers.
Of course, you would bring up:
"You see, one reason why the tactic of smearing someone by implication of opposites is so popular and enduring is that it provides the person doing it with plausible deniability. "Oh no, I didn't say that my opponents are dishonourable or immoral...""
I mean, ya, thanks for pointing that out, but I can't disprove that...all I can show you is that they have good intentions by way of the above quote. From there, you either have to take in on faith that they are looking out for the students or keep yourself in your conspiracy.
Okay, that's better. I still don't agree with the guy -- to me, his language still comes off condescending as hell -- but I can see how he might have genuine concern.
It does seem to me that he should shift his target, though. Genuine concern for young women would be better channeled not into attacking casual sex per se, but into attacking the wider phenomenon of the commodification of women -- which is, let us not forget, sometimes expressed in trying to "marry them off".
Yo, I like where your heads at. I'm sure they wouldn't be against your ideas. I don't like the thought of that either. But, I think that "marrying off" is a usurpation of the powerful bond that is a marriage. Look, I don't deny that hate-filled men have dominated people (both mean and women, though for obvious ideological reasons, women more so) for a long time. People desirous of power over others have affected all facets of human society, be it religion, politics, economy, science, etc. Yet, just like (ok, might be a stretch, but go with me) those institutions, the abuse of marriage does not constitute dismissal.
I would be up in arms right now against arranged marriages, trust me, (And this is NOT a justification, they shouldn't happen ever),but I wish not to offend those in such an marriage, for who am I to say one can't find happiness there.
They also urge their students to debate and engage people of different minds, I can't corroborate this with quotes or anything other than my having participated in a discussion when he said that. I don't see how this attitude reflects a shameful notion of the "other side". On the contrary, George has always advocated for treating one's interlocutor with respect and dignity as they could have better arguments and they could be closer to truth than you are.
I'm loving that graphic, and the way they ingeniously compare women's genitals to flesh-eating insects. (Not that I, um, personally have a problem with being compared to an insect--see above name--but I do resent them saying so anyway.)
P.S. Roscoe, you say that because we haven't met the two people in question, we can't judge them or their motivations. Er, based on reading what they've said, I'm pretty sure that yes, I CAN judge their motivations-- fairly accurately at that. It really doesn't matter what you "truly believe" or are "truly like" if that's not what you express to the people around you. And what they're expressing is sex-shaming, judgmental nonsense.
Look, they aren't judging anyone. Your defensive retorts may be indicative of your own insecurities, doubtful, but if they are, please don't take them out on these guys. They are trying to be sympathetic to what femiinists on this site and all around see as teh problem of blind-eyeing male promiscuity at the expense of women who feel they need to put out in order to be thought of as normal nowadays. I mean, we are talking about it right here, on this blog, that women are being objectified and this is an exact quote from the article:
"But this is not fair to students who see things differently. Nor is it fair to students, especially women, who experience pressure to make themselves sexually available as the price of being treated as normal and feeling accepted."
They aren't being sexist, they are just saying, like all the like-minded feminists on this site, that women and men feel unfair pressure to put-out. Not once did they shame or judge anyone who hooks up. Not once did they accuse women of being whores. Not once did they do any of the things you are accusing them of doing. If I am reading this wrong (and I'm serious about this, because I really do want to see where you are coming from) please show me what parts of the article you find most offensive. I'm as open-minded as any human being could be, as you'll see, but I have no tolerance for rhetoric and sophistry.
Oops, I accidentally hit "liked" instead of reply.
Anyway, Roscoe, perhaps you could answer Jessica's question for me: "...[I]f students who don't have sex are acting "honorably," what does that make those who do have sex?"
They also refer to hooking up as "the dark side" of campus life. Does that not seem as if they have a negative view those who participate?
I guess I am really just not seeing any of your purported open-mindedness in your posts.
Ah, ok, I see.
So, and I know this is going to get a lot of sighs or something, but what they refer to as the dark side is not the people who engage in it, rather the consequences it has on those people. The dark side they are referring to is the depression and anxiety people feel when it comes to hooking-up and the pressures of such a "culture". Now, it's not my place to provide any evidence of this depression and anxiety, as I do not wish to defend them in this comment. I only want to show a different reason for their viewpoints. I think they are genuinely concerned about the health and well-being of every student on campus. Again, people who are on the street corner persecuting homosexuals are probably not concerned about their well-being. But these professors are not trying to demonize the people engaging in those actions. They are merely trying to point out the social pressures that many men and women face to hook-up (By the way, this argument, about social pressure, probably does not apply to people in relationships, as most likely it is consensual, and when it is not, it is more obviously wrong. When it comes to monogamous relationships I think it becomes a lot more philosophical). Perhaps they are being presumptuous and paternalistic for having their views, fine, I'm willing to accept that criticism as I think it is a fair one (though it must be defended). However, to say they are trying to shame them is something I don't believe to be defensible. Again, if you can show me where exactly these two professors seem to be shaming, I'm willing to discuss that too.
Well, actually, those street-corner preachers railing against homosexuality do claim to be concerned about the well-being of the people they're persecuting- they say they're trying to keep them out of hell.
These professors appear to be doing something similar. They're claiming (with no apparent evidence) that sex outside of marriage is bad for you. Just as those preachers claim (with no apparent evidence) that having gay sex is bad for you.
What's the difference?
Quickly, because they have reason to back them up, while those picketers do not.
professors: It's there, and articles aren't necessarily the best things to read as they don't put forth a full argument, rather commentary. Academic papers are the best. Google Scholar is wonderful.
street-corner picketers: A misunderstanding of their Christian morals, if they are Christian. I can't speak for other religions, as I am not familiar enough with them. Reason would have us believe that if Pride (man, capitals make words sound so important!) is a mortal sin, then those picketers are effectively "throwing the first stone". They do not realize, or perhaps are in denial about, is that if we are all sinners (hehe, not accusing you) and all sins distance us equally away from God (it's kinda binary), then they are in no way better than the homosexuals themselves, in God's eyes. In God's eyes their all the same. It comes to them having the pride to judge what only God can. Who are they to condemn those poor souls to Hell?
Seeing as how religious and rational Prof. George is, I have faith (I mean, ultimately I can't really know, right, maybe he's a bastard) that he feels compelled to think in a way other than this.
Here's an article by George on abortion:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1346
From this, it's obvious that George's views are based on religiously conservative values. So I agree that yes, these centers being proposed belong in churches, not on campuses disguised as objective centers for help.
Just because they are based on religious values doesn't mean they aren't rational. Basically, you are logically making the case that all religious values must not be trusted, regardless of their intellectual rigor. Because murder and stealing are religious values too, right?
It may be tempting to chalk it up to religion so you don't have to argue with him, but if you have any desire for truth, the least you could do is be open-minded enough to accept his arguments as they are and debate them, rather than making a specious ad hominem about his religious values.
"Just because they are based on religious values doesn't mean they aren't rational."
No, but any argument that equates a clump of dividing cells with a sapient being is not a rational one.
Ah, and it comes out. Way to defend that claim. I don't even know where to begin with this one. No one is saying a sapient (I mean, sapient works, but I think you meant sentient, regardless, my criticism will still stand) being is equivalent to a bunch of cells. Neither is a stupid kid (I mean, c'mon, kids are pretty stupid, if only by virtue of the fact that they haven't gone through enough schooling) the same as sentient beings. Are you asserting that we should be allowed to kill babies? Clearly you are not (it's not meant to be a sarcastic jab, btw, it is a reductio I'm using). But, then, how do you compromise your feelings about sentient beings with infants and children?
A better argument, in my opinion, is to accept that there is no difference other than time. At that point in time, the lump of cells inside the womb is not sentient and cannot feel, breathe and do all that other stuff. Regardless, it is a being with those capacities. It is, in fact, a being that can think, breathe, feel, etc. just not at that particular moment in time.
By the way, your assertion that pro-life arguments are irrational is really just ignorant. Why do you think philosopher's are having this debate in the first place? Because they are responding to each other's RATIONAL arguments. That you cannot see said rationality only elucidates your own lack thereof. Have you even read the arguments or are you just making baseless claims?
"...I think you meant sentient..."
I know the words "sentient" and "sapient" are often used interchangeably, but I use the latter to eliminate confusion.
"Neither is a stupid kid... the same as sentient beings. Are you asserting that we should be allowed to kill babies? Clearly you are not..."
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but in any case this isn't the thread for it. Wait until a relevant post comes along.
"By the way, your assertion that pro-life arguments are irrational is really just ignorant. Why do you think philosophers are having this debate in the first place?"
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that there is no such thing as a rational pro-life argument; some pro-lifers are able to argue their position without resorting to calling abortion murder.
"Have you even read the arguments or are you just making baseless claims?"
I read the essay YouCan2 linked to, and the thrust of George's argument seemed to be "fertilized ova are God's creatures too". Which is a theological argument. It's perfectly valid in that regard, but it is an argument based entirely on religious belief. Which was the point.
Now, since I'd rather not derail this thread any further, I suggest to you that if you want to get into an abortion debate, wait until a post about the subject comes up, and comment on that.
Ya, I wasn't going to post again because it is off topic, but I had to say that I'm sorry to put words in your mouth. I see your point. Pardon.
Gag. This drivel reminds me of an interview I caught recently with Steve Harvey on Oprah recently. Evidently Steve thinks women shouldn’t be such sluts. Conversely, I think he shouldn’t be such a dick: http://urbzen.com/2009/03/25/steve-harvey-wishes-you-werent-such-a-slut/
I'm tired of this "hook-up culture" crap. I'm about to graduate from college. I have never had sex, but I'm not planning on waiting until marriage either (supposing I even marry in the first place). Casual sex just isn't my thing, and I have problems forming romantic relationships. I'm tired of people assuming I'm in college so I must either be a "slut" or a "prude."
I could probably benefit from counseling, but not in the way these guys are talking about. I don't feel persecuted. I just want help dealing with my relationship problems and insecurity issues.
i'm in college and practically married, so where does that put me? :-P
also, i don't think the skit 'Sex on a Saturday Night' exists. every reference i find of it online is either this article or referring back to it. can a Princeton student/alumnus chime in on this? i'm very curious if this is a skit and if it is, what it's about... or if it's some paranoid imagining.
Yo, I don't know how to, like, authenticate my enrollment in the school, but it definitely is a skit that is a REQUIRED at Princeton.
To be clear, it is NOT a sex-laden play and it doesn't actively promote sex. What George and the like are arguing is actually due to this subtlety of it. They argue that such a nonchalant depiction of the attitudes towards sex further perpetuates the idea that college is the time and place for sexual liberation, or at least a sex-positive normality. So, I would say the argument is not so much that it outright condones sex, rather it fully ingrains in the freshman's mind that hooking-up is the norm. (It is a date rape oriented skit, so in a sense, it is directly about hooking-up). I can't remember the story line, so I can't comment on the soundness of their arguments, but the reasoning does make sense.
Oh and I just caught that people might somehow misinterpret what I meant by:
"(It is a date rape oriented skit, so in a sense, it is directly about hooking-up)"
I didn't mean to equate hooking-up with date rape or any other nonsense like that. Only that relationships aren't the main focus because it's specifically about the more prevalent date rape (the rape they depict is not the violent kind, rather the "girl is passed out so she can't say no" kind, ugh, just talking about it like that repulses me) not like "relationship rape" (not scare quotes, I just don't know what that is called) or rape of that sort.
I'm glad that you caught that because I was going to coment on it.
ya, I mean, you should have too. If someone did amount hooking-up to date rape or something like that, it should definitely be called out.
"Sexual health offices do not supply the need because staff members see their roles, not as promoting self-discipline and high moral standards..." so, to me this says that if you are having sex that you're not living a life of self-discipline and high moral standards. "Princeton and other universities have proposed the establishment of centers on campus to support students who seek to lead lives of moral integrity and decency." This again says to me that students who are having sex are not leading these lives of moral integrity and decency. Since when does having casul sex mean that you can't live a moral, decent life?
To make it quick, I think it has something to do with casual sex objectifying the parties involved. Probably using Kant's vocabulary of treating people as ends and not means to your own ends (namely a means to your sexual pleasure). This is clearly just 2 sentences so I have added a link to Princeton's chastity website if you care to read up. There is a lot to read and it really is on you, now, to educate yourself. I'm down to discuss any points you read, if you would like, but I find it very hard to articulate the philosophies of all these people as well as they can. Check it out.
http://www.princeton.edu/~anscombe/resources/resources.htm
"I think it has something to do with casual sex objectifying the parties involved."
The problem with that argument is that it proposes a false dichotomy stating that casual sex is inherently about "using" someone, and monogamous sex is inherently about Twoo Wuv. That's just not so -- casual sex can be a mutually respectful sharing of pleasure, and monogamous sex can be selfishly taking your partner for granted.
Therefore, teaching students to treat their partners with respect and care whether they're planning to be together for an hour or a decade is a much more productive lesson than "casual sex bad, chastity good!"
It has nothing to do with a false dichotomy. Honestly, have you even read this stuff? I mean, you answered pretty quickly, so either you have read them before (which I doubt because your criticism shows otherwise) or you are, yet again, making baseless and uneducated claims. The argument is much more philosophical in nature, and because you seem to not want to read the site, I will include the argument below for your reading pleasure.
"Within marriage, sex serves as the ultimate physical expression of love and unity. Because in marriage spouses are united to one another on the mental, emotional, legal, and perhaps spiritual levels, it is appropriate and good that they also be united on a physical level. Such physical union is actualized in sexual intercourse. The nature of this sexual act is itself unitive--two become one flesh. Sex is thus the actualization of the marital union, concretizing the mutual gift of self between the partners. If experienced outside the context of marriage, therefore, it cannot actualize the union, for no union exists.
Outside of the context of marriage, then, sex ultimately reduces the participants to mere instruments serving an incomplete end--be it the desire for emotional intimacy, physical pleasure, or personal security. Even if two people love each other and plan to marry later on, sexual intimacy must articulate a unity and gift of one's entire self that has yet to take place. To use sex for pleasure or emotional fulfillment alone not only fails to realize the essential purpose of sex, but degrades the inherent dignity of the human being to that of an object--a means to an end."
From what was posted, the purpose of sex is to actualize "the union". I find it hard to swallow that the only appropriate "union" is marriage, and presumably heterosexual marriage.
Roscoe, I get the feeling that you're a freshman philosophy major, am I right? I don't know how to put this really, but just because a philosopher said it doesn't make it true. They don't get to just plunk down decrees of what sex is or what isn't.
Sigh, no, I'm a senior economics major. I don't know what I am talking about. But what I do know is that I didn't say I was defending him. I was clearing up misconceptions. For all you know, I may think he's bat shit crazy. For most of my comments so far I've just been trying to present his arguments as rational and not aimed at shaming. I haven't yet talked about whether I think his arguments are sound. Like I said, I would defend other professors in the same way, whether or not I disagree with them.
Articulate as the argument may be, it still doesn't hold water. It's basically saying that unless you have a piece of paper legalizing your relationship, you're degrading your partner by having sex with them.
So... even though my husband and I were together for ten years before we decided to make it official, "no union existed", we were not "concretizing the mutual gift of self", but were in fact "reducing each other to mere instruments serving an incomplete end".
No.
Also, according to this logic, gay couples in the U.S. can never "articulate a unity and gift of one's entire self". But up here in Canada they can.
Well, first off, I think your conceptualization of marriage as a piece of paper legalizing marriage is pretty far off from what George would argue it is.\
I am not one to judge your marriage, but I think what is most important to keep in mind is that it is necessary for the two parties to mutually give themselves to each other, and lifelong partnership, I do strongly feel, is part of that, with those other details about paper and ceremonies being important in that they are expressions of that unity, but I'm open to anyone who believes otherwise. I'm sure it could be argued that those details don't matter, for instance, or that lifelong unity isn't needed.
As for homosexual marriage, I think it hinges on what one's view of parenting and whether homosexuals can fill the same roles as do heterosexual parents. I think a case can be made, and one that is not fueled by hate or homophobia, for a child's right to a mother and father, given that because of our biological nature, the infant may hardwired to "expect" a female and a male as their parents, given that the being brought into the world could only have gotten there by the combining of a man and woman's DNA. Now, technology is sure to bend our notions of this, so I cannot say that it would not be possible for two men or two women to have babies (I mean, I think they were just able to do that recently, or something in that direction), and for babies to "expect" either two men or two women, or hey maybe more. Science could alleviate this moral problem, I suppose. But then that gets to talk about whether we should do that or not, etc. So, while perhaps a technologically superior (and not like sci-fi, hah, like increasingly soon) and libertarian society could be a way to justify homosexual marriage.
Regardless, I still think the strong case remains for sex within a marriage but I want to hear your thoughts on why you think otherwise.
The thing is, when you strip away all the self-help book language, the argument above is basically saying that weddings are a sort of magical ritual that alchemically translates sex from a degradation of your partner into a mystical union of body and soul.
Sure, there are some religious traditions which believe this -- like the Mormons -- but if you're going to posit that, be upfront about it. Don't hide it behind a lot of psychobabble.
As I mentioned, I am married myself. So no, I don't think that it's "just a piece of paper", or why would I have bothered? But it would be incredibly arrogant of me to presume that my relationship is inherently better than other people's just because it's legally sanctioned. And to say that the sex act is spiritually different now would be to deny my own experience.
As for the entire business of same-sex marriage and parenting, that is 1. Presuming that the purpose of marriage is producing children (what about ghost marriages?). And the business about "expectation of opposite-sex parents" is completely out of the blue, and I've yet to see anything resembling proof. Whoever you got that from is doing an Ass Pull.
Whether or not same-sex couples believe that they should be "chaste" before marriage is irrelevant to my argument; the fact is that right now, according to the logic above, whether your relationship is truly "concretized" is dependent on GEOGRAPHY.
Off to work now.
You'd like for it to be that so you can just dismiss it as rational. It has nothing to do with alchemically transforming the act of sex. It's the same goddamn movements. Sex itself doesn't DO anything to the people having it. Weddings are merely a way to concretely set a point in time and place where you are dedicating the rest of your life to your partner, which is think is an integral part in the whole "giving yourself wholly" to the other person. You are putting religious words in my mouth to make me sound irrational. Building a huge straw-man. Now, granted, I'm sure you aren't doing it on purpose because you don't understand my arguments, so surely it's in part my fault for not expressing them well enough. Regardless, it still stands that for all those who hold the arguments I am presenting, your responses are severely lacking; they are just not addressing my arguments.
As for your relationship being BETTER or not, I was not implying such a thing. This is where a lot of people misunderstand the argument. I'm not saying the relationship is more worthy of the couple's having sex once they are married, rather it comes back to the whole lifelong partnership thing. When you are actually having premarital sex it may feel powerful, and perhaps the same way as when you got married (I mean, no one is denying that, it's can be a very unitive experience, that is what they are saying). However, it still stands that you have not yet dedicated your entire life to the person, so in a sense, somewhere deep inside, you must not feel comfortable with completely giving yourself to the person, or at least, you haven't thought of it deeply enough (I mean, I don't think everyone in a pre-marital relationship is secretly planning to break up with their significant other sometime in the future), I just mean to say that there must be some reason you have decided to NOT solidify your lifelong union. The reason sex can be harmful, it would be argued I think, is because there is something still holding you back from giving yourself completely to the other person. One could argue that it is not necessary to intend a lifelong partnership to give yourself entirely to someone, but I think it is not an obvious argument, and thus, it definitely needs more defending than just stating the argument. I'm not familiar with those, so I will not present them in my comment, but I am open to anyone who wants to.
As for the homosexual marriage thing, to your two points:
1. Ya, sure marriage may not be about having kids, but the state, it could be argued, has an interest in marriage because, again the chastity people would argue, that marriage is the ideal institution to raise children. That doesn't mean I am judging other types of family situations as all necessarily producing fucked up kids, but it still may not be the ideal.
2. I never said, again, that I was defending the argument, merely presenting it because clearly people don't have a good grasp on it. At this point, it gets really into science and biology, which I am not qualified to say anything about, but I do know enough to present the arguments. Only science can tell us what a baby "expects", but already things like breast feeding after birth giving the child antibodies until they can develop their own (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081026101713.htm) show that it is not "completely out of the blue". Again, that is not to say that all babies that don't get breast fed will die, but it does show that babies are, at the very least, hardwired to have very specific type of relationship with the mother. And this is all science, not some religious dogma. And, again, this is but one example that is not meant as proof one way or another, merely to show that it isn't a completely illogical argument to make.
"You'd like for it to be that so you can just dismiss it as rational... You are putting religious words in my mouth to make me sound irrational... Now, granted, I'm sure you aren't doing it on purpose because you don't understand my arguments..."
You're assuming that I've never heard this sort of argument before. I have, and I've had plenty of time to analyze and deconstruct it.
Whether or not the people making those arguments realize that they're engaging in magical thinking, the fact remains that that's what they're doing. This entire business about needing state-sanctioned wedding to "give of your entire self"? That's marriage-ceremony-as-magic, right there. Some people can -- and do -- devote themselves to a lifelong partner and yet decide that they want nothing to do with the institution of marriage. Here's an example.
As an aside: if conservatives really think that marriage is this amazing spiritual panacea, why don't they want marriage for everyone, gay and straight? They're being awfully selfish, insisting that this thing they keep rhapsodizing about be limited only to people like themselves.
Then, of course, there's the entire notion that you have to "give of your entire self" to the person you're having sex with, or there's something drastically wrong. Find me one person who claims to have been "damaged" by friendly and considerate sex. I can find you plenty who haven't.
Something else they probably don't realize is that love being the most important factor in a marriage is a very modern concept. (This book has more.) The need for chastity before marriage is a remnant from eras when the most important thing in a marriage was inheritance of power and property; the emotional needs of two little people were not society's concern. Non-religious arguments for chastity before a marriage that's all about love and emotional needs are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
"Ya, sure marriage may not be about having kids, but the state, it could be argued, has an interest in marriage because... marriage is the ideal institution to raise children. That doesn't mean I am judging other types of family situations as all necessarily producing fucked up kids, but it still may not be the ideal."
But the state does not prohibit the marriages of infertile or childfree couples, nor does it force single or widowed parents to marry. Therefore, it has no business legislating against same-sex marriage.
[Snip entire breastmilk argument]
This has nothing to do with that "psychological expectation" ass-pull. An adopted child who is going to a heterosexual couple gets the same amount of breastmilk as if they went to a same-sex couple. And, of course, a child born to a lesbian mother will get breastfed just as much as a child born to a heterosexual mother.
You keep saying that you're not really sure where you stand. Well, personally, when I notice one side's arguments keep falling into shambles under a bit of objective scrutiny, I start taking a hard look at what thinkers on the other side are arguing.
Anyway, this post is getting old, so I'm going to leave you with one last bit of advice, then I'm done here.
If you, or a friend of yours, is looking for a non-religious justification for abstaining from sex, why don't you simply point out that everyone is entitled to express their sexuality as they see fit provided it harms nobody, and that celibacy is how you're choosing to express yours at this time? It lays out your own boundaries while remaining respectful of others' differences. As Greta Christina put it, "Sex-positivity isn't about being a cheerleader for sex, all sex, all the time. Sex-positivity is about seeing sex as an essential part of human life: as diverse as the human race, as ecstatic and sad and absurd as the people who are doing it."
So I know you are signing off, but I felt like posting anyway, because maybe a couple weeks down the road you'll come back and see my post and it may start up another conversation again. I also post because I have a sincere desire to keep hashing out these intuitions and talking about the arguments, as I am still not sufficiently convinced that you understand the arguments fully, not to your discredit. If you've really tried deconstructing them that much, let me help you by adding my perspective.
The wedding bit: I am not saying that we need
"state-sanctioned wedding to "give of your entire self"" rather I am saying that to me (and now this is personal, rather than arguing for George and Londregan) the most important part is that lifelong pledge to the other person. If they don't want to have a state-sanctioned marriage, I'd tend to be a little lenient as what is of concern to me is that lifelong bond. So, all I mean to say about the wedding is that it serves as a physical manifestation of your bond, though is in no way a sufficient one. I mean, when we graduate from high school, we have a ceremony; same with college. Is your diploma and graduation based on the fact that you had a ceremony, no, but it is a physical and outward expression of graduating (Granted, the analogy doesn't hold because for graduating, it is more of a celebration of something you have already done, while the marriage ceremony is more of a celebration of something that has yet to happen, or better worded, yet to flourish).
Sure, you may not have to give your entire self, I already said that this could be a valid argument; perhaps not sound, but that's another question. I would tend to argue that, while it may not damage the persons or irreparably harm them, a strong case could be made that when you do give your entire self, and accept the consensual giving of the other person's self, then sex is necessarily NOT objectifying the other; they are seen as an end, not as a means for pleasure (Of course, marital rape exists, but here is where I don't think the aggressor is accepting the consensual gift of self of the other person, but rather taking it forcibly). Now, the objection would argue directly with the logic of whether a lifelong union is necessary, but do you see that this does not necessarily have to be a religious argument? It doesn't have to rely on saying that lifelong is necessary because God says so? It could be argued philosophically, using talk of ends or means, and how treating the person as an ends entails a lifelong relationship if sex is to be had. I provide no argument for the lifelong claim, as it is heavily philosophical and I truly think it would be better for whoever is interested to honestly peruse philosophical papers regarding this topic. I merely wanted to point out that it doesn't have to come down to skydaddy.
"But the state does not prohibit the marriages of infertile or childfree couples, nor does it force single or widowed parents to marry. Therefore, it has no business legislating against same-sex marriage."
Sure, the state does not prohibit those marriage, but I'm not arguing that marriage's purpose is to have kids, rather, and this is subtly, but importantly, different, marriage is the best place/institution for the raising of kids. You see how the latter does not entail the former? Just because marriage is the best place FOR kids doesn't mean that every person within marriage must have kids. But then when it comes to homosexuals, one must talk about what marriage means. This is also another long subject that must be treated very deeply. Suffice it to say that if marriage is supposed to be the best place for a child to be reared, then it follows directly that the best people for the job are ideally the biological mother and father (Ideally, perhaps not practically). This is exemplified by the Breast Milk example because the baby receives the antibodies from its mother, which is most compatible to it (rather than the breast milk of someone else). The second-best, I would argue based on parsimony, may be A mother and father, which is what the state does currently recognize as the second most ideal option, and thus the best option for adoption. Again, the resaon your lesbian couple argument doesn't address this argument is because a lesbian couple lacks a father figure. And it is at this point where any further assertions about whether a child "expects" a father an mother, or whether those roles are socially and culturally formed, is a matter of pure science, particularly biology, though philosophical theses can be made to back up both points of view.
As for your suggestion about a non-religious justification for abstinence, I'm not interested in personal choices, rather moral arguments. I may find that rape is not something I personally would engage in, but if I think that rape is a substantial enough social harm, then I should argue for its immorality to a larger audience. I'm all about respecting people's differences, but there are some differences that cannot be tolerated (surely you wouldn't want to tolerate people's different views on rape, rape, I would think, is clearly something that should be practiced by no one, regardless of whatever personal differences people may have). Likewise, and while I'm in no way cmparing the harm of rape to the harm of pre-marital sex (Obviously, while I think for some people premarital sex can and has been traumatizing and dehumanizing, I can reasonably accept and see that for others it clearly isn't as big of a deal), the harm of premarital sex could be perceived as enough of a harm to people that one may feel compelled to argue it as a broader moral question. I must point out, again, that this is not because skydaddy said so, it is out of a genuine concern over the health and well-being of those engaging in premarital sex. Paternalistic and Presumptuous, again, sure, one can make the case. Religious. I would posit a resounding NO.
This is becoming a ghost thread. In "a few weeks", it'll be utterly abandoned. But comment notice happened to show up while I was perusing, so what the hell.
You're rambling so much, and with such incoherent phrasing, that it's often not clear what exact point you're trying to argue. If, as you say upthread, you know that you don't know what you're talking about, then spare us the wordy evidence of that fact and put more effort into learning.
I know that's waspish, but I really lack patience with people who first admit their ignorance about a subject and then give long, patronizing lectures concerning it.
Two things in the last paragraph stuck out, at least:
Hence "everyone is entitled to express their sexuality as they see fit PROVIDED IT HARMS NOBODY".
"If it harm none, do what ye will" is perhaps the oldest and most enduring moral argument there is. If you haven't heard of that one, you really need to do more reading.
That is one bad case of last-word-itis you've got there. I am not going to exacerbate it any further.
I wasn't claiming to be ignorant, I was being sarcastic towards Annabelle because she thought I was a freshman philosophy major and insulted my intelligence by implying that I took philosophical arguments on authority.
As for the rest, you mustn't have read my entire comment. I don't mean to prolong the issue, but you clearly haven't studied, yourself.
I understand full well about the "harm noone" caveat. I was just trying to say that the question of whether premarital sex harms people (by way of diminishing them to a means instead of an end); perhaps not in a physical way, but in a psychological, emotional, perhaps moral, way.
I have no problem with giving you the final word, but not when it grossly misses the point of my last comment. Just accept that there are non-religious arguments about the harm of premarital sex and that is all I ask. Now, go read, because if I've had to clear the argument up this may times, you clearly do not understand. Which is fine...but at least educate yourself if you really want to talk about this issue instead of derailing it as a religious, shame-inducing argument.
These professors have spent their entire lives educated themselves on these issues, and from both sides mind you! I just find it disgraceful for anyone to just dismiss their arguments as religious and having no intellectual worth. Which is effectively what everyone on this post has been doing.
I wasn't claiming to be ignorant, I was being sarcastic towards Annabelle because she thought I was a freshman philosophy major and insulted my intelligence by implying that I took philosophical arguments on authority.
As for the rest, you mustn't have read my entire comment. I don't mean to prolong the issue, but you clearly haven't studied, yourself.
I understand full well about the "harm noone" caveat. I was just trying to say that the question of whether premarital sex harms people (by way of diminishing them to a means instead of an end); perhaps not in a physical way, but in a psychological, emotional, perhaps moral, way.
I have no problem with giving you the final word, but not when it grossly misses the point of my last comment. Just accept that there are non-religious arguments about the harm of premarital sex and that is all I ask. Now, go read, because if I've had to clear the argument up this may times, you clearly do not understand. Which is fine...but at least educate yourself if you really want to talk about this issue instead of derailing it as a religious, shame-inducing argument.
These professors have spent their entire lives educated themselves on these issues, and from both sides mind you! I just find it disgraceful for anyone to just dismiss their arguments as religious and having no intellectual worth. Which is effectively what everyone on this post has been doing.
And that last sentence stands whether or not we are talking about homosexual marriage too. Like, I think it could still be argued that homosexuals should live chaste lives before marriage.
BTW, coolvirginity.com is hilarious. Like, you really wonder why abstinence-only edu doesn't work? I mean, can we really say it's because kids are just "going to do it anyway" or is it better to say that if this education is anything like cool virginity, it is bound to suck balls? I mean, honestly, being a virgin is cool? I'm pretty sure it sucks...