RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-Prince"You’re not religious. Why should you be abstinent?”
Or: “Abstinence is just for conservatives. You probably also think gay people shouldn’t get married.
Or, even better: “Abstinence is just an excuse because you’re not getting any.
At ...
(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.
This is one of the more utterly incomprehensible articles I've ever seen in the Prince. Let me get this straight, saying that "I'll have sex when I want to, but I don't feel like it right now" is what you call abstinence?
AMEN (no pun intended). in this self-created culture of ad hominem attacks, closed-mindedness, and general bickering from both sides of this debate, it is incredibly refreshing to see someone attempting to find common ground-- and furthermore, discouraging people from imposing their opinions on others. hats off to you, ladies.
Amelia's views are either trivially true or wildly false. In this piece, thankfully, she gives us a much-needed break from the latter.
Think of abstinence as an analogue to fasting (or, perhaps more correctly, think of fasting as an exemple of abstinence). Those who fast generally do it only for limited and set amounts of time. Can't abstinence work this way as well? I'm going to be abstinent this snow day!
well said, amelia and cristina. i agree that abstinence should always be part of a comprehensive sex-positive education and plays a huge role when individuals consider their own personal boundaries! cheers to that!
Believe it or not, there is such a thing as temporary abstinence.
I think mostly spiritual or insecure women and right-wing men consider abstinence (at least voluntarily). I can't think of any reasons why someone would choose not to have sex other than religious beliefs or a female sense (on the part of some women) of feeling violated by the penis. I may have left some reasons out, but that's what's coming to mind. Certainly most non-religious guys (and girls!) consider sex a positive thing that they seek out. I don't understand abstaining for a while and making a big deal about it. Choosing abstinence does seems to lead to confused argumentation.
@screw--your ad hominem argument is destructive to any rational discussion about sex. Please do not post if you aren't willing to take the issues seriously.
That aside, let me preface this by saying that I have been disappointed by prior articles arguing for traditionalist and liberal sexual ethics. Both sides have failed to convince me of their views, as they have relied on puzzling premises and unfounded conclusions. This article is a new approach, as it attempts to argue from a stance of Pragmatism. From what I understand the central argument is that abstinence is not good in itself, but can be psychologically, emotionally, and physically beneficial to the individual who abstains.
This is a unique approach and probably the one with which I most agree. However, there are problems with this view. First, the pragmatic approach to sexual ethics really doesn't say much. Arguing that sex is sometimes good and abstinence is sometimes good eliminates the need to think about the issues of sex more broadly. How can sex be contractual without a deeply committed relationship? How does pre-marital sex affect one's sense of moral worth? Can casual sex adversely affect one's ability to love? All of these are important issues that, unfortunately, the pragmatic stance fails to answer. The article focuses on the short-term benefits of abstinence and sex, but does not take into account that sex can have a lasting psychological affect on the individual. This is why holistic ethical arguments are important to people.
All in all, this was a great article, and I would like to see how others respond either in this post or in other more developed articles.
Great job!
You seem to be the only one interested in having "rational discussion," Interesting. This article is a religo-hippie meditation, and my comment was a meditation based on my experiences. This is not an Academy, it is a place for comments. As far as "ad hominem" attacks are concerned, I was expressing my belief that the majority of people do not seriously consider abstinence. Those of my acquaintances who do fall into the categories I mentioned. If I were presenting a formal argument, you would be right in admonishing me to stick to logical formulas. In fact, though, I was not arguing with anyone, but reporting my impressions of life. It is truly not useful to restrict others' modes of communication, trying to force them into Sophistic debates.