Marcelline Baumann '07 surveyed more than 1,000 Princeton undergraduates for her thesis to investigate their views on "hooking up" and its implications. Her results showed a shocking level of pluralistic ignorance: Princeton students often feel pressure to engage in sexual ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
I think a lot of people dismiss everything Anscombe says because of its radical nature. While I am absolutely pro-sex (once a person feels they are ready to handle it), I do feel there are some major issues that need to be discussed regarding the college's "hook-up culture." I really don't think the casual hook-up is as prevalent as many detractors would like you to beleive. I also think that for some people, a casual hook-up is a totally fine way to have some innocent fun. But for a lot of people, the casual hook-up is a negative symptom of living in an environment in which there is too much stress (i.e. academic demands) and not enough time and energy left to pursue healthy relationships. While these people would prefer a more meaningful relationships, they accept whatever intimacy they can get because they (and their potential mates) are too busy and overworked to make anything more happen. In that case, the hook-up culture is not a result of some administration-imposed liberal moral degradation (as Anscombe would like you to beleive) but of the explosive combination of a 20-year-old's innate need for physical intimacy and an academic environment that doesn't allow that need to be fulfilled in a healthy way.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Yes, agreed. Also, the first time is never the best... so they're unlikely to get the "magical" wedding night they envision. And besides, if we all followed Anscombe doctrine, even in the context of marriage only certain sexual positions are ok... how boring! How sad.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
The thing is, by not engaging in sexual activity during your college years, you are being unhealthy.: if you remain chaste, you are denying yourself an essential part of the human experience. If you want to wait until marriage, fine, I'm not going to tell you what to do... but I will warn you that you are wasting away your most best (most physically capable) years by waiting. It won't have the potential to be as good once you hit 25+. If you really care about having a full human existence, you should not remain chaste. By the way, I do think that sexual experiences are best within the context of monogamous relationships.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
The Tory Blog has a comment on this article on its blog: www.princetontory.blogspot.com
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Interesting! Can I transfer it to the STD dating site called pozcupid.com? I'm sure many people will be interested
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Everyone's busy bashing the Anscombe Society, and while I find the Anscombe Society a bit too radical for my taste, I hold the Prince responsible for this article. The only reason I can think of that the Prince continues to print the same repetitive anti-condom editorials from the Anscombe Society is because it sells - you can see by the number of posts how much controversy it has generated. Prince, please stop being the publicity wing for the Anscombe Society. I would love to see a response editorial printed by SHA defending condoms.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I agree with your argument that the University needs to be more supportive of those students who would like to remain abstinent, but I would say that it is inaccurate to claim that the University releases STI statistics for campus: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/09/18/opinion/18602.shtml Not publicizing the extent of the STI problem on campus, which is apparently significant, only serves to distort students' preception of risk. This false sense of security is harmful regardless of what sexual decisions you make.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
ACTUALLY, "Detractorsjustdon'tgetit," the University does not think that all students should abstain from alcohol. If they did, then it would look pretty silly to offer WINE TASTINGS and BARTENDING CLASSES to students who are 21 and over. The University's alcohol policy is about safe and responsible drinking, understanding that alcohol can be an enjoyable aspect of our culture. The same is true of sex, even premarital sex, and even one-night stands. Safe, consensual sex is a matter of individual choice. I happen to enjoy it. If you don't, that's fine, don't have sex. But I'd like to continue to get free condoms and low cost birth control pills. Please butt out.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Again, this is not principally about economics; it's about whether the University steps into the moral sphere when it enacts policies like the institutional distribution of condoms. Here's the inconsistency I'm trying to get at: in many public statements, the University (McCosh) has said acknowledged that the hookup scene is inherently unhealthy, as a social phenomenon and as a health matter. So if the University must continue to distribute condoms, it (the SHAs) should also make a statement discouraging hookups. It may be true, as you say, that the University is not formally endorsing hooking up in particular or sex more generally, but the distribution of condoms DOES suggest that U has nothing against hookup sex in principle. If the U really did, it would have the same attitude towards sex that it does towards alcohol: it's dangerous in certain amounts/contexts, so students should abstain. As far as abstinent students needing social support, I'm afraid you're underestimating how challenging abstinence can be, when, as Yates' article and Marcelline Baumann's thesis suggest, students often begin risky sexual behavior for all the wrong reasons: fitting in, being perceived as "normal," etc. Abstinent students DO need support from the University; they need the University bravely to come out and say that its students really shouldn't be hooking up, if they care about their health. This would be no more paternalistic than the U is now, when it releases STI statistics for the campus. We all need to have good reasons for living the lifestyle we're living, and I'm afraid there's a distinct lack of good reasons for hooking up.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Well said, "Abstinent Myself." I would also add that in the "real world" there are places to go if you need reduced cost contraception: Many Planned Parenthood clinics, for instance, will provide the pill on a sliding scale based on income. And these places receive federal funds. What does this say about the federal government? Is the federal government endorsing the hook-up culture in our society? No. They're just taking a public health policy position that says that people are engaging in behavior X, and we can help reduce the risks of behavior X with little cost. Smart public policy, if you ask me. And Princeton is smart to do the same on this campus so we don't find a disparity on campus between the rich who can afford safe-sex and the poor who can't.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Detractsjustdon'tgetit: No, that's not true though. The fact that the University provides condoms doesn't mean that they endorse hookups. Imagine a different universe, for example, where there weren't any hookups--but everyone was in a steady relationship. Leave the judgments of premarital sex aside; I'm sure there would be a substantial number of students having sex in that situation. There isn't any hooking up there, but the University would still provide condoms, right? It isn't meant to endorse any type of behavior; it's just to try and help keep us safe. Treating us like 'adults,' which means apparently paying full cost for contraceptive items, is unrealistic. Unlike adults, the vast majority of the people using those free condoms don't have full time jobs. We're full-time students, and we can't really afford condoms. (I can already see some sort of idiotic "then don't have sex if you can't afford it" argument coming) It's responsible, not entitling. And there isn't really a double standard. How many people do you know that need SOCIAL SUPPORT because they aren't hooking up? Honestly, I think hookup culture isn't quite as big at Princeton as many make it seem--it just happens to be talked about a lot because many people find it more interesting than alternatives.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I completely disagree-- I am puzzled by the idea that college students are somehow entitled to free or nearly-free contraception, bestowed by their university. Princeton puts itself in a paternalistic position when it distributes condoms. (Because it's saying, "this way of doing things is what's best for you. Trust us.") The point Yates makes above is that the University should be even MORE neutral than it already is. By providing contraception, the University is endorsing a particular conception of relationships, and making a value judgment. If the University wanted to remain neutral, it would treat its students as adults in the real world, where no one has contraception handed out to them for free. Additionally, there's a double standard: the U gives resources (condoms) to students who choose to hook up, but does not provide resources (social support, perhaps) to students who don't, even though the U has publicly said that the latter choice is a healthier one.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Detractorsjustdon'tgetit: In fact, Anscombe is attempting to impose their view on others when they ask that condoms not be made available to students. This was the chief request in Nava's column, and it seems to be the chief request in Yates' column. Anscombe also denounced McCosh's decision to subsidize the cost of birth control when it suddenly rose from $6 per month to $50 per month. Thanks to UHS, we now pay $6 per month again. So if Anscombe has its way, no free condoms at Princeton and the pill is 8 times more expensive than it is right now. I'd say that's just a BIT of an imposition.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
So many of the negative comments here simply fail to understand the depth of the reasoning the Anscombe Society is putting forth. Anscombe is not imposing its ethics on anyone else...it can't. The only way it could impose its ethics would be with squads of morality police. Give me a break, people. Claiming that conservative students are imposing themselves on a liberal campus is a cowardly way of avoiding their arguments, many of which are quite valid. No one who attends Princeton should assume these folks can simply be dismissed. That's against the entire philosophy of what universities are about-- a marketplace of ideas.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"The health concerns omitted by this poster vanish when one practices fidelity to one's future spouse by remaining chaste until marriage." If we extend this logic to AIDS prevention, then under your worldview, it would be wrong for a person born with HIV (transmission from the mother to the child), to protect his/her spouse from getting HIV if they decide to have intercourse. I really wish Anscombers would just admit that their primary concern is not health. Their primary concern is a Catholic or "Natural Law" ethic which condemns condoms because they block reproduction during intercourse. Now, if that's their view, they have every right to live a "chaste" life. But to impose it on others is wrong.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
The connection to Nava is fair since it is essentially the same argument about a new sexual health initiative. Nava was complaining that providing condoms at flufest promotes the "hook-up culture." Yates is complaining that providing condoms on valentine's day promotes the "hook-up culture." Same argument, rewritten for another op-ed, for more exposure of their student group. It's unoriginal and redundant. But worse, it is deeply offensive as explained by "Abstinent Myself." Condoms are great. Sex is fun. Chill out, Anscombe, and stop telling me I'm too stupid to answer these questions for myself.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Princeton Alum: The Anscombe Society, in my opinion, gets a lot of hate mainly because they make moral judgments about students for doing very usual things. However, as much as the morals of the Anscombe Society may offend certain people, I think it's the condescending nature of this particular article that makes it so bad. First of all, the author seems to have this notion that condoms are inherently incompatible with the idea of love, which is obviously ludicrous. Secondly, there's an incredibly condescending way in which she states that "the health concerns...vanish when one practices fidelity to one's future spouse." I think we all know that abstinence eliminates these risks, thanks. But the fact is that college students DO and WILL have sex, and to condescendingly 'suggest' abstinence there is just a tad offensive. Thirdly, the criticism of this article is largely misdirected. I'd ask the author what alternatives she would recommend that UHS and SHA take. In my opinion, the fact that they make condoms freely available doesn't imply anything about the hookup culture, other than that it exists. It certainly doesn't encourage it. There are few people who, upon seeing one of those signs, suddenly realize that "WAIT! I SHOULD BE HOOKING UP WITH PEOPLE!" That's absolutely absurd. UHS and SHA are here to make sure people are as safe as possible, and making condoms easy to obtain does, in fact, help that end. It's for that reason, perhaps, as "Give Me A Break" notes, that genital herpes and genital warts are the most common diseases. Take the condoms away, then...would we really prefer syphilis?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
With the overwhelming amount of disrespect, distain, and contempt that has been bestowed on the arguments expressed by Ms. Yates and Mr. McGinley this past week, it leaves me almost convinced that the Anscombe Society may indeed need a support center. It is quite clear that although the lifestyle of these students is really only challenged by what appears to be the University's wholesale encouragement of a sexual culture of "hooking up", the expression of the Anscombe’s Society’s moral and medical arguments seem to be completely unacceptable to a significant and vocal portion of the student and faculty commuinty, even if their conclusions are also a fundamental part of the Judaic, Muslim and Christian faith traditions. This, in fact, is how certain groups in society can be “tolerated”, yet in fact be intellectually oppressed. How sad, for this seems to indicate the apparent lack of open, civil discourse at Old Nassau.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
This is the worst column I've read since McKinley's last lie-fest. If the Anscombe Society really cared about safety, then they'd stop bashing condoms and start promoting the HPV vaccine.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I am consistently disappointed by the conduct of my fellow Princetonians on these comment boards. The responses are far too often more fitted to a childhood sandbox than a premier University. The comment regarding Nava is really despicable, attempting to discredit Emma by comparing her and her work to the tragic story of Francisco is beyond the pale. "Campus loonies"? Really? Is this the way debate is conduct in the modern academy? The argument that abstinence is the best way to protect against STI's (like HPV) is not exactly groundbreaking - it's the position of the CDC - http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm. Finally, the suggestion that Emma stated that condoms don't protect "at all" against HPV is clearly a distortion - the article explicitly says "relatively ineffective," which by no mean carries the suggested connotation. If one is going to respond to a well-formed argument, one should be armed with more than insults and demagoguery. Unfortunately, these posters checked their powers of reason at the playground gate.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Valentine's Day is dedicated to romanticism? Really, I for some insane reason thought it was about the Hallmark cards, cheap chocolate and chalky candy hearts... In any case, SHA's stance, here called a libertarian one, is practical. It is stupid to assume that people are not going to have sex. Given that college students have sex, it is practical to make sure that they are doing so in a safer manner. Condoms are not perfect. This is true (though the assertion that they don't protect AT ALL against herpes and HPV is demagogic). However, despite their failings condoms are the most effective defense against a variety of STIs, such as AIDS. Perhaps SHA should more emphatically tell people about the health risks of sex, but the availability of condoms is essential. Also, I can't help but wonder--perhaps the reason herpes and HPV are the most common STIs on campus has to do with the fact that they are the least protected by condoms. Without readily available condoms, STIs would likely be more rampant on campus, and one has to wonder what might be the most common STI? HIV? I don't know. In any case, as to your study--I have to say that I have very little respect for the argument that some people only have sex because it seems that all the other people are doing it too. If you're committed to abstinence, then good for you--but that commitment ought not be influenced by the actions of others. What if all the other people were jumping off of bridges?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Students are instructed to make the choices that are "right" for them. In this clearly libertarian suggestion, there is no room for the health or safety of sexually active students. The poster does not say "make the choice that's ‘safe' for you" or " ‘healthy' for you" What does that even mean? Obviously the "right" choice is the "safe" one. Why does the Prince keep posting opinion columns of the campus loonies?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
most students think that the choices that are "right" for them are also the choices that are "healthy" and "safe" for them. the SHAs are doing their job perfectly. and clearly, you are doing yours, Emma. Evangelizing to the pton community about chastity is clearly your goal here. and you have a right to do that. but I for one am glad to live on a campus where free condoms are available. rehashing francisco nava's column against condoms is really unoriginal. just please, don't go off the deep end like he did.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!