Over the past several years, we have seen the sexualization of gender expectations in both pop culture and academia. The effects of this phenomenon are most salient among young adults who, in this period of questioning and maturation, are most ...(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.
That pretty much precludes "casual" sex, doesn't it? I only mention that because some people on this board were suggesting that casual sex is OK. You seem to be suggesting a much more careful approach, and you also seem to be suggesting that faithfulness to each other is important. This is very different from the "anything goes" attitude expressed by some on this board.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Very simple: Get tested with any prospective partner. (You have no way of knowing if your spouse of 25 years is HIV negative until he/she gets tested, either!)
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
And exactly how do you know they are HIV negative?? If you are being promiscuous, it's probably not a good assumption that they aren't.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@^6P'11: Having sex with ten different people who are HIV negative is no more likely to result in contracting HIV than having sex with one person who is HIV negative. Monogamy has nothing to do with it.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
It's an argument for knowing your partner and for monogamy, and hence an argument against casual sex. Condoms fail on a regular basis, so don't count on that.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
That's not an argument against premarital sex per se. It's an argument *for* getting tested with your partner and using condoms responsibly every time.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
So, if you get AIDS from one of your hook-ups, we should just write you off as irresponsible and incompetent? But... that would imply that the hook-up itself is irresponsible and incompetent behavior...
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@@P'11: And millions upon millions of orgasms. Listing the bad consequences experienced by some irresponsible, incompetent individuals is in no way an adequate argument against consensual premarital sex for responsible, intelligent individuals.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I don't see it as "using" another person, as we have discussed at length before. But, I don't feel that it will be productive for me to explain, once again, why it is not exploitative to have consensual premarital sex.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
The risk of harm is not small. Nor is it a strictly personal risk. The collective effect of premarital sex includes millions of babies born outside of marriage, millions of divorces, and tens of thousands dying from uncurable diseases. Nice of you to try to minimize this.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
So, we can "improve" our lives by using other people. Great. That's a character trait we should all embrace.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Dear @Trade-off, It's as if you're not even reading my comments... (1) So premarital sex can be a "loving thing to do" if you make a commitment to the person? (2) You're being really wishy-washy here. You argued that premarital sex is wrong, in part because you observe that people are offended if someone they're in a relationship with go off and have sex with another person. I ask you to consider french-kissing, because I think that for many people, being in a relationship means not french-kissing other people. So by your logic premarital french-kissing would not be morally permissible. But you seem to imply otherwise without giving any rational explanation of that position. (3) You may have seen lives ruined. That's sad. But I've seen many lives made better by premarital sex (my own included). Your subjective perspective about whether or not premarital sex ruins lives or improves lives is no more valid than mine. This is precisely the reason that I believe people should decide for themselves. (4) You are not making sense here. .................@P'11, hear hear!
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I assume, @Trade-Off, that you rarely venture out of your dorm room without rubber gloves and a gas mask? After all, how can we ever know whether there is a disease or, worse, bioterrorist attack plaguing the campus. We must take absolute risk reduction measures to ensure that we minimize even the smallest risk of harm!
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Great that you like ping-pong. Do you also like to run the marathon? (1) If the state won't recognize your marriage, be bold and make that promise to each other anyway. You are engaging in diversion tactics here. (2) French kissing arouses passion, at least if it's done right. So, it has a clear connection with sex. But, if you go no further than french kissing, that is a world away from the emotional involvement you get from having sex. You still might want to avoid it because it is unfair to deliberately arouse someone without the intention of following through. (3) I'm not sure why you feel the need for a "news flash". I'm really just getting at the fact that there are, in fact, moral issues here. I'm sorry that it falls flat for you, but I doubt that it does for many others reading this. I have seen far too many lives ruined. So you think you can judge someone's intentions? I think you are really kidding yourself here. You can guess at someone's intentions, and you can get lucky. But don't count on it. (4) Many people don't think rationally. So what?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Yes, but I like playing ping-pong. (1) You missed the point. You claim that premarital sex is not a "loving thing to do" but clearly it can be when states or religious organizations deny marriage to loving couples. (2) As I said, I think french-kissing has an exclusive nature as well. So is premarital french-kissing morally wrong? (3) News flash: using force, threat of force, or other forms of coercion *is* illegal. While I believe that lying and misleading are morally wrong in this situation, it would be a mistake to make them illegal. Your attempt to make things personal for me really falls flat. I, like all good parents, will teach my children how to protect themselves, how to judge someone's intentions, and how to say "no" when they don't want to have sex, and how to have safe sex if they choose to have sex. But my children's future sex lives are the least of my concerns as a future parent. There is so much to worry about in this world, and for me, sex is not high on the list. (4) Claiming that many people agree with me was simply a rebuttal of your "nonsense" claim.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Do you ever get the feeling you are playing a game of ping-pong? (1) State marriages are one way to remove ambiguity, but I don't see why they have to be the only way. Bringing up the issue that some states do not recognize same-sex marriage seems to be a diversion away from the main argument. (2) The claim is that sex has an exclusive nature. This is relevant to the issue of premarital sex because premarital sex usually fails to remain exclusive. The existence of a boundary that most people would agree on supports my claim. The claim itself is not subjective. (3) Do you think there ought to be some ethical guidelines around this? And if so, how would you propose to enforce them, short of doing away with premarital sex? After all, it's easy to lie and mislead in an effort to convince someone to have sex, and it happens all the time (I don't mean your specific situation). We end up with an atmosphere of predation, with those who deceive taking advantage of others who are gullible or weak. Is that really the kind of world you want to live in? If you have children, is that the kind of world you want *them* to live in? (4) Having many many people thinking something does not make it so. Sexual behaviour of any kind always involves moral questions, because people’s deepest feelings are at stake. You go on about personal autonomy, but fail to recognize personal responsibility. And we haven't even begun to deal with the responsibility that comes with the possibility of bringing new life into the world.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
(1) My "example to the contrary is based on the presumption that the state must be involved in marriage," you write. Why, yes, I thought that was what we were arguing about: state marriages. If we're arguing about religious marriage then there can be no argument, since as an atheist, I would never pursue a religious marriage in the first place. So what objective measure do you propose for "unambiguous" commitment? If there is no objective measure, then I am justified in drawing the line wherever I am comfortable and so is my sexual partner. (2) You argue that anything involving genitalia would violate monogamy "for most people." Actually, I would be saddened if my boyfriend french-kissed another woman... who knew I'd be more prudish on that count? However, your conditional phrase, "for most people" betrays the inherent subjectivity in your claim. Also, the whole discussion of exclusivity is really tangential to the issue at hand. What we're really debating is premarital sexual activity. (Maybe you meant to say most people would draw the line of ethically permissible premarital activity before acts involving genitalia?) If you can't confine your argument to the issue of premarital sex, I wonder if you really have a good argument against it. I still haven't heard one. (3) Yes, I ought to consider the other person insofar as I ought not lie, mislead, coerce, threaten or use violence against that person in order to gain sexual pleasure from him. But if he freely chooses to have sex with me I cannot be said to be violating his rights by deciding to go ahead and have sex with him. (4) This is not "nonsense" to many many people. You certainly damage your credibility when you formulate an argument simply by calling my argument nonsense. I would argue that any action that would affect another person's wishes, preferences, or personal autonomy would be a matter of ethical concern. Since I believe that consensual sex occurs *by definition* in congruence with the expressed wishes and preferences of autonomous persons, there is no ethical argument against it. If your ethical framework includes some other values, such as obedience to a Judeo-Christian god, or a Natural Law sexual ethic, then our argument really goes much deeper and may be impossible to resolve.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Here we go again... (1) You are taking the "loving thing to do" phrase out of context. Read the part that comes before, which you have conveniently ignored in your response. I am certainly not claiming that everything that is not "a loving thing to do" is morally wrong. Your example to the contrary is based on the presumption that the state must be involved in marriage. I don't think so. It's the total commitment that really matters and the way it is expressed unambiguously. (2) You've completely ignored the point I made about exclusivity. I think anything involving genitalia is going to cross the line into the "exclusive" territory for most people. (3) I think you are an exception, and that is really the point I am making, isn't it? You ought to have consideration for the other person, not just yourself. (4) Your claim that consensual sexual activity is amoral is complete and utter nonsense. On the contrary, sexual activity always has a profoundly moral character. Any action that affects another person in such a significant way *is* the subject of ethical concern. You can't just wish it away. Your final thought is a good one though, and I don't disagree with that.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
You seem to back your claims largely with statements of personal belief which are not likely to persuade anyone that does not already agree with you. "The human heart demands that sexual activity be shared with one and only one other person." I disagree. According to the biology classes I've taken, the heart pumps blood. "Sex speaks the language of giving yourself completely, forever..." Again, that's fine that you believe this, but your opponents probably aren't going to buy it.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
You want to respect me? Stop telling me what I can handle and not handle. I'll hook up with whomever i please, and I'll make my decisions for myself, thank you very much. You're not having sex....good for you. I'm not particularly interested in the sex you're not having, or the flowery language you're using to mask your sexual frustration.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
In response to point (1), you write "Premarital sex is wrong because it is not a loving thing to do." I encourage you to read that, think about it, and then retract it. If everything we do that isn't "a loving thing to do" can be classified as morally wrong, then we're all sinners a million times over every day. Furthermore, simply stating that premarital sex isn't a loving thing to do does not make it so. For one example to the contrary, consider a gay couple that is not legally allowed to marry but deeply loves one another and wishes to express that love in part with sexual activity. (2) The point of an analogy is to shed light on a situation by examining a *different* situation and its relevant similarities to the situation of interest. The two situations need not, and indeed should not, be identical in order for the analogy to hold. Of course there are numerous differences between hugging and intercourse and I would never claim anything else. The point of my analogy, as I will reiterate here, is that both hugging and intercourse could result in a one-sided emotional attachment that leaves one party disappointed. Your challenge, as a person who decries premarital sex because of its emotional impact on a person who is "dumped" afterward, is to explain why one level of disappointment is permissible and why another is not and where you draw the line. Are premarital kissing, french-kissing, dry-humping, mutual masturbation, or oral sex permissible? Which level of contact is too much to be morally allowed without a state contract establishing commitment? And more importantly, why? (3) I think there are many other disappointments in life far worse than finding out that a person I've had sex with no longer wants to be in a relationship with me. Maybe I'm an exception, but I think most of us are a lot stronger than yout think. Not to be glib, but finding out that slightly more than 50% of Americans voted for a second Bush term in 2004 was a far greater disappointment for me than any break-up. But maybe I have a different set of priorities than most people. (4) You ask if it would be preferable to promote a particular kind of sexual culture in which marriage is required before sex. I repeat, because I believe consensual sexual activity is amoral (i.e. not the subject of ethical concern) it is not my place (nor do I believe it is anyone else's place) to promote any particular sexual behavior. If you want to encourage marriage, you might start by requiring that all Americans receive a living wage for their full-time jobs so that they can have a meal with their loved-ones and sleep with their spouses rather than work additional night shifts to make the ends meet. Just a thought.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I will attempt to address your points from May 18 4:13pm, which hopefully also addresses your latest post as well. Sorry about the length of this post! (1) This is exactly what I mean by "using". You have adopted a self-centred view of something that by its very nature involves the most intimate kind of connection between two people. Contrary to your assertion, the realm of personal responsibility includes your responsibility to ensure that your actions do not compromise another person. Eschewing this responsibility is fundamentally a failure to love the other person. I am not speaking here of "being in love" but rather of the love one should have for every other human being. Premarital sex is wrong because it is not a loving thing to do. (2) Most people reading this will find it very difficult to take your analogy seriously, as indicated by Anonymous on May 18 6:41pm. Most of us would not consider hugging or massage to be particularly exclusive activities, ie. we don't hesitate to engage in these activities with more than one person. Indeed, most of us feel it is highly appropriate to express our affection for family and close friends by hugging. There is an extremely sharp contrast between this sort of thing and the exclusive nature of a sexual relationship. The human heart demands that sexual activity be shared with one and only one other person, and most of us are rendered pretty miserable when this exclusivity is violated. I would like to know your answers to the following questions. How would you feel if your boyfriend hugged a female friend? What if he had sex with her? Likewise, how do you think he would feel if you hugged a male friend? And how do you think he would feel if you had sex with this male friend? Don't you see how these are very different? (3) It sounds like you handled it pretty well in the past. However, you cannot assume that it will be this way the next time, nor can you assume the other person will handle it well if you leave him now or in the future. Sex speaks the language of giving yourself completely, forever; and it is almost inevitable that one of you is going to start believing it, even without marriage vows. Sex has a way of escalating your emotional investment in a relationship, whether or not you entered the relationship with the intention of becoming emotionally invested. The other person may be holding something back to protect him- or herself. This situation is rife with opportunity for misaligned expectations and deep disappointment. Yes, disappointment is a fact of life, but this particular kind of disappointment is especially destructive for many people, partly because it tends to destroy a person's ability to trust, and thus a person's ability to form a strong bond in marriage. (4) I must beg to differ with you on this point, for you are in fact promoting the self-centred view of human sexuality here and in your other two posts. Contrary to your assertion, sex is not just a personal choice, because your choice affects at least one other person in a profound way, and the cumulative effect of everyone's sexual choices has repercusions throughout society. One effect of the "hook-up culture" is to undermine marriage, and thus the family, which is the foundation of society itself. Would it not be far preferable to promote instead a "culture of marriage" along with good role models for marriage? Diane Sollee from smartmarriages.com says: "... if we strengthen marriage, we strengthen the family, we strengthen the children and we strengthen the community. If your goal is to help improve the world, marriage is as good a place as any to start."
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Anonymous 6:41pm: Thanks for those good points of clarification. You are absolutely right that most people view intercourse as more serious than massaging. However, it's interesting to consider that there are a continuum of physical interactions from handshaking to intercourse. Where should we draw the line for ethical premarital interactions (if you believe that consensual physical contact is an ethical matter, which I don't)? Interestingly, some cultures forbid hugging and kissing before marriage. My main point with regard to the hugging-massaging-sex analogy is that these are all physical interactions that usually involve some emotional response and could lead to one person becoming more attached than the other. It may be a matter of degree--it may be the case that it is easier to fall for someone after sex compared with receiving a massage. But I wonder why the person objecting to my original post believes that at one level it's normal and non-objectifying, and at another level, premarital contact is a selfish abuse of another person's feelings. Lastly, I suppose I have never had a break up as tragic as the one you described. This does not however mean that premarital sex is wrong in any way. As you correctly pointed out, a break up without premarital sex can be painful as well. It is up to the individuals involved to decide if they are willing to take this risk, and you and I have decided that we are willing to take that risk for the many benefits of premarital sex. It will therefore be our responsibility, should we ever be dumped by our boyfriends, to own our emotions, to recover, and to move on. Just like any disappointment in life, being fired from a job you love, growing apart from a good friend, losing an athletic competition, what-have-you... most of us are resilient enough to get over heartbreaking disappointment over time. But if you're not, you shouldn't be having premarital sex (maybe not even marital sex, given the divorce rate in this country). And that's your decision to make.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ Trade Off I personally agree with you, but I think there are a couple things in your post that I think makes your points a lot weaker. First of all, sex IS a much bigger deal than massaging or hugging, and I think 99% of people would agree on that. You can't argue that a hug involves the same kind of physical intimacy as sex. There are scientific reasons why it could involve more disappointment (oxytocin for women), and sex is much more risky, with potential for STDs and pregnancy. I would hazard to say that a woman who has a one night stand with a man (or even a relationship), and gets pregnant and then has the guy break up with her, is in it for a lot more disappointment and heart break than someone who shares a hug with someone else. Secondly, for many who experience a bad break-up, it isn't just feeling crappy for days. I have known many for whom it took 6 months to a year to get over a college relationship, with at least 3-4 months of outright depression. And this was not because they had nothing else going on in their lives. I do believe however, that it is very possible to have a hard break-up regardless of whether or not you have had sex with your partner. I think you are going astray by trying to minimize the (real) consequences of making the choice to have sex in a relationship that is not marriage. They definitely are there, but that doesn't mean the risk isn't worth it. Sex to me is a very intimate form of connecting with someone, and is one expression of love, and I am very happy to share that with my boyfriend.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
(1) I am not taking a chance with someone else's life. We have both rationally weighed the pros and cons of premarital sex and have agreed to have sex. Each of us is therefore responsible for our own actions and feelings. (2) The point of the massage or hugging analogy is that each of those activities involve physical contact that could be interpreted in different ways by different people and could result in the same kind of disappointment you're talking about regarding sex. Just because sex involves full nudity and penetration doesn't mean that it is that much more serious in terms of personal interconnectedness. (3) I have experienced a bad break up, like most people my age who are dating. You cry for a while, you feel kinda crappy for a few days, weeks, whatever. But if you've got other things that you care about in your life (school, activities, friends, family) it's not a life-ending crisis. And as I said before, disappointment is a fact of life and you can either risk disappointment or not, and that's your choice, which leads me to my final and MOST important point... (4) I DO NOT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER recommend any particular course of action to anyone else. This is my personal choice. Other people, I trust, are smart enough to think about their own needs, interests, values, etc., and make up their own minds. This is the major difference between the liberal point of view and the conservative view as encapsulated in McGinley's column. McGinley argues that in order to be "manly," men should be stopping other men from having premarital sex with women. It is precisely because I believe that consensual sexual activity is an amoral act that I do not prescribe what course of action anyone ought to take with respect to consensual sexual activity. That's consistent with core American values including privacy, personal choice, and individual liberty.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Of course I was being deliberately provocative. I thought your original post merited this sort of reaction, given the cavalier manner in which you dismissed the virtue of chastity. The impression you conveyed of your relationship in your original post was completely different from your more recent post. You said "hook-up culture" which in reality does mean treating people like garbage. Now you mention "commitment to one another" and "many years" which really changes the picture quite a bit. But I feel it would be appropriate for you to at least acknowledge that you are taking a chance with someone else's life, and not be so quick to recommend the same course of action to others. Surely you can't be serious when you compare hugging to sex. It occurs to me now that maybe you have never experienced a bad break-up, and you actually have no idea. I do think the example you give to children is relevant. Obviously, you aren't going to tell them about your sexual exploits-- I wasn't even remotely suggesting that. But you also can't hide the fact that you are sleeping together unless you engage in deliberate deception, and I don't get the impression that is your plan (nor would I recommend it). The fact that you are a good role model in other ways (which I had anticipated when I made my original comment) actually makes this a more serious issue than it would be otherwise.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Whoa, anon from 6:58pm, I'd like to think that was a satire. But something tells me it wasn't. Listen, I've been with my boyfriend for many years. We are best friends and lovers. Just because we don't have a state-signed contract establishing our commitment to one another doesn't mean we selfishly treat each other like garbage. Now, I also believe that consenting adults should be able to engage in sexual activity in more casual circumstances. If two competent, uncoerced individuals decide to use their body parts to give each other pleasure and they understand the possible consequences involved, there can be nothing morally wrong with that. If not, why would consensual massage-giving or consensual hugging outside of wedlock be permissible? Each of those activities might result in one individual believing there is a connection that the other does not believe exists. But as I said, disappointment is a fact of life. It happens. It's not the end of the world. You stoop pretty low to say my boyfriend and I are bad role models to children. That in itself allows me to dismiss your comment as pure vitriol. I'm a princeton student. I volunteer regularly. I will be going to medical school and will serve in underserved areas when I begin to practice. Not to be conceited, but I think I'm a half-way decent role model, regardless of whether or not I'm a freak in the sheets (which by the way, I don't tell children about).
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
It is annoying that McGinley is appealing exclusively to men in this piece, when he should be saying exactly the same thing to women. You have have indeed miscalculated, because your calculation is entirely self-centred, and completely ignores the effects of your actions on others. What you are doing is wrong not only because you may get hurt, but also because you may hurt others. What you are doing is using another person. It does not matter that he wants to be used in this way. The fact that misguided and weak-willed people exist in the world does not entitle you to use them for your own selfish purposes. The damage you may cause is not only emotional hurt to him (and yes, men do get hurt too; they generally deny it in order to uphold the "macho" image that is expected of them), but also damage to his future relationships, including his marriage if he does marry. By allowing him to use you, you are perpetuating in him the notion that it is OK to use women. And finally, both of you are a bad example to those around you. The effect is particularly insidious on any children who may look up to you as a role model.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
One element of the hookup culture that is actually harmful is the no-fault attitude that it encourages. If it's okay to hook-up with someone else and leave, no responsibility and no strings attached, it often fosters the feeling that it's okay to do this in other relationships. You're done hooking up, you peace. Which i guess might be fine if you keep that in the consensual hookup arena, but one rarely does. it leads to the "once i'm tired of my husband/wife, i can leave" attitude, which is unhealthy for families and relationships. The attitude that it's preferable and allowable to walk away completely from something rather than take responsibility for your actions is detrimental. And generally people don't go on from hookups to form loving relationships. Maybe intentional-avoidance, often regret, generally nothing so worthwhile.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
What I'm most curious about from the anti-"hook-up culture" crowd is this: Since when did a little heartbreak cause so much concern? Heartbreak is a natural part of life. Since when is anyone entitled to a disappointment-free life? If two people engage in consensual sex and later do not forge a strong relationship, hurting one of the person's feelings, this is not some huge wrongdoing on the part of the other person. It's just how things worked out. We can't always get what we want. But if the prospect of getting hurt in this way is so unbearable to you, then you should not have sex. It's that simple. And maybe that's where some of this chastity business comes from. And that's fine. But I have personally decided that I value sex more than I value a disappointment-free existence. You may think I have miscalculated. But I have every right to make this decision for myself without a bunch of chivalrous McGinleys telling my boyfriend to stop having premarital sex with me. Stop trying to get in the way of a girl and her orgasm, eh?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sorry, how is that line is relevant? You seem to conflate a concern with formal, legal issues of inequality, or with the insitutionalization of practices that disadvantage certain social groups, with emotion. Some of us happen to care about empirical reality and outcomes, not your particular sentimental attachments. But whatever it takes to pat yourself on the back...
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
How does the "hookup" culture lead to dysfunctional families? Who marries someone whom they have only hooked up with? If anything, people hookup and then go on to develop a strong relationship afterward.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I disagree with your definition, that all "coerced" sex is rape. Legally, it isn't. Often (though not always), bringing women flowers is one in a series of steps to get women in bed. Using psychological "tricks," or EVEN pressuring someone to have sex is not rape itself. It may be unhealthy, but it is not rape. Now, as to "a certain degree of pressure."...first of all, I was NOT assuming that men only start pressuring women to have sex when women say no. In many situations, when women give men unclear signals ("I'm not sure..."), men try to convince them to have sex. Is this wrong? I don't think we can definitively say yes. Men like to have sex, and so they will pressure the woman when she is "on-the-fence," especially if the men aren't looking for "meaningful" sex. If women don't like this, they should say "no," and men will leave. If men continue to pressure them, then that is sexual harassment. So, pressuring once the woman says no is wrong. Pressuring her before that is not necessarily wrong. So, in the "hook-up" culture, I think it is 100% wrong to rape anyone, and it is 100% wrong to harass someone to have sex after they have said no. But, there are certain aspects of the hook-up culture that are NOT the man's responsibility. It is NOT our problem if the woman is not sure if she wants to have sex and we convince her to and she regrets it. It is not our problem if women WANT to just hang out, and we want sex, and we leave her when we find out she is not interested. If there is alcohol involved, it is BOTH parties' responsibilities to not demand the other for sex. It is WRONG when both male and female are drunk, and only the male gets blamed for having sex with the female. So, Brandon's article could have been summarized as so: in the hook-up culture, it is OBVIOUS men should not rape or sexually harass women. men AND women should also take care not to have sex when either party is intoxicated.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Oh, to be so thoroughly misunderstood (re: my post from late last night and the response from @Dan). Of course, I was not being very clear. Let me try again. I was absolutely not suggesting that the mere fact of being legally married fixes everything (or fixes anything, for that matter). In fact, I was trying to convey just the opposite: you must work to build the marriage that you want. Why cast your lot with the 50% of marriages that fail instead of the 50% that succeed? Yes, many of us are happily married, and some of us even met and married at Princeton. Why do you feel that you can't build a solid marriage? Regarding premarital sex, I hope everyone recognizes this is risky behaviour, but it is less risky if you are sure this is the person you will marry, and more risky if you are not sure.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Another attack on the purported "hookup culture". Wicked and pernicious sexual beasts we all are! Yawn.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
well written article and interesting idea -enjoy your summer
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Men and women view sex differently - men have a much easier time disconnecting sex from an emotional attachment of some kind. The "hook up" culture definitely causes a lot of damage. It hurts women emotionally. And it teaches men that sex can be had with no strings attached. That is a deadly combination that leads to dysfunctional families -- and dysfunctional families tend to produce messed up kids. Sex can be wonderful and amazing and life affirming. It can also be immensely demeaning and destructive. The difference between the two? Brandon's article makes a good case.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Ca09 has pretty much said this all already, but I'll say it again. You argue that women shouldn't be respected for "their sexual openness...but simply because they are women" -- NO, women should be respected because they are PEOPLE. Chivalry has nothing to do with that. You also claim that chivalry treats women "as better than equals" -- No, it treats women as things to be taken care of, and there's no equality (and not a lot of respect, either) involved in that. On a similar note, Poster #23 - treating women "like ladies" is not the same as treating with them respect, and is often quite the opposite.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Princeton2009: 1) there is a difference between regretted sex and rape. regretted sex is perfectly consensual sex between fully informed, competent individuals during the actual act, but later one, is regretted. "i shouldn't have hooked up with him/her..." That happens. we all make mistakes. rape is sexual battery. coerced sex. coercion can be physical but it can definitely be psychological. pressuring someone to have sex? that's coercion. 2) what do you mean pressure to a certain extent is okay? I really don't get it - why is it that one "no" is not enough? I just can't imagine why any man in his right mind would decide that a "no" can be ignored. I mean, do you think some girls have little cracks in their guard that a guy can and has all right to somehow break by pressuring them over and over? And how is dong that okay? Or is it because guys have urges that need to be taken care of, and all people have the right to pursue those desires? I just don't get it. According to you, it's really up the girl to defend herself while the guy uses every single trick in the book to pressure her sleep with her. I'm not accusing you of being that guy, but pressuring, any and all kinds, should feel disgusting to you. Yes, girls should definitely say no when they dont want to have sex, but after that no is said, guys should respect it. period. there is no reason why anyone needs to defend and explain herself when she says "no."
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Ca09 I do see something wrong with your statement. The age of consent in New Jersey is 16, not 18.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
what counts as pressure? to me, pressure can involve asking someone to go out with you, to have sex with you...it does not mean harassing someone to sleep with you, definitely not forcing someone to sleep with you. that is rape, and that is largely what speakout "speaks out" against. and i am with them. but in terms of males trying to convince females to sleep with them? i don't see anything wrong with that if the females agree to it. biologically, many males are trying to make cases for females to sleep with them. some do it more overtly than others. i stand by my point, as long as no one is forced to sleep with another, and as long as both are seen to have reasonable judgment (by law, that is "being over 18" and "not being intoxicated"), i see nothing wrong with that statement.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
To GS- It's not my place to respond to any substantive differences you have with Brandon. It is, however, mine to point out that Brandon's byline clearly states that he's from Pennsylvania. And it is also my place to point out that your comment reminds me of a great line by the satirist Tom Lehrer; "I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I HATE people like that."
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Thank you, Brandon, you help me to understand how it is that Princeton was the last of the Ivy League universities to admit female students. You must be from the South, and a descendant of landed elites, right? I understand many of you are from South, and hear that southerners enjoy chivalry. I am trying to understand more about the US, so relating these attitudes to different backgrounds helps.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"some guys might pressure girls to get with them, but depending on the level of pressure, it is ok." SHARE, Speakout, and all people in their right minds, PLEASE don't let this one go untouched. I'll start. Pressuring someone to "get with you" is never "ok", regardless of the level of pressure. Never. Ever.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
What, an editorial on gender and no abortion flame war in the comments yet? Let me begin: abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion Enjoy!
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
So, I don't agree with many of the points Brandon makes. I think I would echo Ca09's sentiment on his definitions of chivalry and feminism. But this article in general does provokes a lot of thought on an important issue... how men and women behave when they're in their social/party world, how they justify their actions, and why all of that can be problematic. I personally think that Princeton's hook-up culture can be very damaging. So, I have friends that go out to the Street with the goal of hooking up. Why? Maybe it's fun for them, relieves stress, or there's that one cute guy/girl that they've been eye-ing for so long. Maybe hooking up is perceived to be the only way that any sort of meaningful relationship can begin. And then, I have some friends that go out really just to have fun, flirt a bit, meet new people. There are at least 2 problems with this. 1) So many of my girl friends that hook up will talk about sexual liberation and how they can separate their body and their minds just like guys can. or whatever. and they'll freely talk about their the spiciness and excitement of their hook-up at brunch the next day. And then a few weeks later she'll see him with another girl and she's heart broken. To me, there seems to be such a significant disconnect between mind and action... why?.. Problem #2) You have the individuals that choose to hook up (or do they...) and individuals that don't. I think that a lot of the unwanted sexual encounters happen here because so many people have this expectation that if someone is tipsy/drunk, flirty, dancing seductively, he/she (mostly she) falls into the hookup group and is asking for it. And in one sense, I wonder - can you really 100% blame these people with these expectations? There are so many "successful hookups." We are living in a hookup culture where this is the norm and there is pressure TO hook up. But so few people actually make a serious effort to communicate and differentiate between the available and not-available partners. And there is absolutely no excuse for harassment and assault. But, before you know it, she's saying "no no" in that non-aggressive tone that gets interpreted as simply teasing, and he's saying "oh baby come on, you're so beautiful, we were having so much fun together, just the tip..." It's all just so unsettling. But those are my thoughts. Feel free to tear apart.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
1. clearly more men on this campus need to hook up with each other. then they can stop treating women as sex object and start treating them as platonic friends. also if more women had sex with each other they might stop pressuring men to exhibit their manliness so much. 2. if there was one word i'd say defines manliness it would have to be 'privilege' 3. i *love* how this article ignores the history of the concept of chivalry and the implicit sexism of the term 4. can the social/sexual conservatives on this campus stop using the word 'profound'? why does everything that involves 1950s style ideals of monogamy and gender relations need to be called 'profound'? wouldn't a better term be 'idiotic'? 5. i also love how the author makes it feminism's fault that men have such horrible 'misconceptions' abt manliness. if only feminists stopped being whores men would stop being predators 6. learn something abt the history of feminism before characterizing the concept, ok? please? please?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@KM: I enjoyed your thoughts, keep sharing them.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Brandon: I was hugely relieved to read this piece. I don't think you put too much blame on the guys. Most girls I know here would rather be in relationships than engage in the hook-up culture, but in an effort to behave "like the guys" lower their own standards of sexual interaction. Maybe that's part of the vicious cycle? Anyway, I really appreciated your article. I'm glad to know that at least one guy out there thinks this way.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
why is the burden of all of this on the male? men just openly judge women, but women judge men on all sorts of characteristics: height, outside valuation, etc. there is physical judgment and social judgment on both sides, i don't know why the burden for any of this falls on men. strangely, the people advocating the most for "respecting women" are the ones who are least respected by other women.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
You're right that charm may often be used as a "way to get women into bed with them," but honest chivalry is supposed to be mean really caring for women. it would be really awkward to define chivalry as "a way of luring women into having sex by showing them respect"
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ Nope: wow, that ends our dialogue... look, I'm not afraid to admit it when I don't know something. I honestly just wanted you to explain so that I could give a thoughtful response. I don't call myself an expert on any issue, but isn't the whole point of this to just reflect and discuss? At least that's all I wanted to do.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Dan: The divorce rate in this country seems to clearly refute the notion that marriage represents an unshakeable commitment. Rather than rely on a legal contract, people should just determine whether or not they trust the person they are with and/or whether they are willing to accept the risk of hurt feelings for the benefits of sex. But previous McGinley columns and to a lesser extent this one, have argued that premarital sex is wrong and marital sex is A-O-K.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Km: amateur
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ Nope: Can you elaborate on 'armchair psychology'? I'm not familiar with the terminology.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
08 Woman: it's not the piece of paper (or the legal aspect) that matters. It's the promise that you make to each other. If you have indeed made a commitment to one another, then your relationship may be closer to marital than premarital. That is not the case for a lot of premarital relationships though. If the commitment isn't formal, can it be broken? If so, it is unfortunately likely that one of you is going to get hurt. I hope that does not happen to you.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@KM- agreed
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@@Ca09: excellent point. i don't think Brandon considered the fact that traditionally, men have exhibited chivalrous behavior as a way to get women into bed with them.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@KM: Armchair psychology... not the best argument.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I think chivalry is better defined as acting as a gentleman and treating women like ladies (ie w/respect). I do agree that many men today have forgotten that true chivalry is a great way to charm women.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
While I agree that consensual premarital sex between two fully informed individuals is certainly not disrespectful in any sense, I do worry about the modern trend of equating feminism with sexual liberation. The idea in the most basic sense is convincing: women owning their sexuality. However, I am afraid that too many women claim that their sexual choices (like 'hooking up') is empowering, when really, they hook up because sexually available women are hot and wanted or because hooking up is the way into Princeton's social scene. So, they label their sexual encounters as an expression of liberation and empowerment, when really it's a form of accepting and giving in to the cultural norms and pressures.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ 08 Woman: Good enough for me, I figured you were working from a background. Fairly freaky. I second your arguments.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Crusty Alum: Based on McGinley's previous columns and his vague allusions to them here, yes. I believe he is denying the legitimacy of a female sex drive. Women need to be protected from men, even if they *want* to have premarital sex, according to McGinley. He imagines that any premarital sex is disrespectful fo women, even if they freely and rationally choose to have sex.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"If there were one word with which true manliness could be defined, it would have to be 'courage'." Of course women know nothing of this courage word, it's located on the Y chromosome, you see.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I couldn't get past "are most desirous of" either. It really hurt to read, and then re-read, and then re-read. Replacing that with a simple "care most" might be able to sort of make it work. I dunno, I'm probably a jerk, but I too got badly distracted by all the $2 words and flowery language. I came away thinking this is one of those exercises where you have a list of words and have to somehow work all of them into a piece of writing. If that was the assignment, well played. @ Sure... I prefer to don my knightly armour, it seems to work better that way ;) @ Woman... Is this a chastity screed or have there just been so many of those lately that you are assuming it is one? If it is a chastity screed, I'm on your team. Good points.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
This piece defines chivalry as "profound respect toward women, which is most importantly and courageously expressed in refusing to make inappropriate sexual advances" - that's not chivalry, that's common human decency. Women deserve profound respect not because we are women, in need of defense "from other men who do not abide by that code of respect", but because we are human beings. It's not chivalry, it's common sense. Chivalry "does not treat women as equals; it treats them as better than equals" - I'll take equality thanks, no pedestal for me. Feminism has spurned chivalry, calling it "quaint, paternalistic and misogynistic", and surprisingly so, based on McGinley's definition of chivalry, which doesn't even make it to quaint or paternalistic - it barely stops short of awarding men "chivalry points" for not committing sexual assault. Do we really want to set the bar this low?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
yes, let's go back to medieval conceptions of gender relations. that's sure to work well. also, we could ignore advances in modern sciences and ignore global warming, reinstate a monarch, dawn knightly armour, and storm in iraq on horseback. can you suggest an approach to feminism that isn't paternalistic and medieval?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Yes, very good point by the poster below: What do you mean by "inappropriate sexual advances" Brandon?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Brandon, you write "I define chivalry as a male disposition of profound respect toward women, which is most importantly and courageously expressed in refusing to make inappropriate sexual advances and defending women from other men who do not abide by that code of respect." Though you fail to define "inappropriate sexual advances," I take it from later passages that you are referring to premarital sexual advances. But why do women, especially women who are "better than equals" need you to protect them from their own free will and decision making abilities? I would venture to say that I am a reasonably intelligent woman who understands the risks and benefits of premarital sex with my boyfriend. If I rationally weigh these risks and benefits and decide to have premarital sex, am I in need of your protection? No. Is my boyfriend being disrespectful by having consensual sex with me? Absolutely not. On the contrary, whether or not we have a piece of paper recognizing our commitment to one another, sex is full of love and fun and pleasure, and for two people who fully understand and accept the risks and benefits, it has none of the serious emotional downsides you imagine. Furthermore, your definition of courage is really weak. Perhaps if you have remained chaste for all these years, resisting the huge build-up of sexual desire requires a great deal of "courage" or at least will-power. But if you allowed yourself to have consensual sex, you might begin to think that it is not such a life-consuming act. There are many other personal challenges that require courage. Just to name a few, how about the courage it takes you to write a controversial column for all your peers to read and judge? How about the courage to choose a difficult, low-paying, but honorable service-oriented career? How about the courage to choose a difficult, yet more intellectually fulfilling major? How about the courage to serve in the military? For those of us who don't think that sex is such an enormously morally-charged or serious act, your definition of courage seems superficial and, frankly, silly.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
this was a good column--thanks brandon!
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
P'08 and 'Nother '08, you sound like the same person. If you're really a senior, you must be done with your thesis, and you should have a little bit more time to think about what you're writing. Be nice.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
chivalry! speaking of nostalgia for things that weren't true... anybody remember mcginley's days as a shill for this guy: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/12/14/opinion/19732.shtml
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Brandon - here's a quick lesson on how to write. The phrase "are most desirous of" is awkward and superfluous. Instead, use pointed and direct phrases to engage the reader's attention. Also, your column doesn't make any sense, but fixing that would require a lot more time and effort on my part.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!