In defense of monogamy

That said, I wish to talk about the current debate surrounding chastity and promiscuity at Princeton. My argument is this: Too much of the sexual ethics debate at Princeton is polarized, with images of the Center for Abstinence and Chastity on one hand and images of an imagined world of syphilis-ridden, vice-laden casual sex — “on par with a handshake”, to quote Tuesday’s op-ed by Joel Alicea ’10 — on the other. This division is obviously false — I’ve never tried shaking someone’s hand only to find them ripping my shirt off — but it is pervasive, even at official levels. Consider the infamous “Sex on a Saturday Night” freshman morality play. Of the main male characters, one is a rapist, one is a playboy, one is sexually abstinent and two are in a homosexual couple. Only the latter represents a serious, committed monogamous (yet extramarital) relationship, and even then the relationship is used more as a vehicle to explore LGBT issues — such as coming out and dealing with intolerance — than to deal with relationship issues in general.

This gap in the discourse — this refusal to acknowledge that ordinary relationships are common, healthy, safe and for many people a better option than the difficulties and frustration of abstinence or the unfulfilling and sometimes dangerous (in terms of both health and emotions) lifestyle of casual sex — is not good for Princeton or its students. Relationships are not easy. They need maturity, compromise, communication, time and commitment, especially at Princeton, where the student body fragments back across the country or the globe during winter and summer break. If half the effort that has been expended on promoting chastity was used to advise students on how to begin and maintain adult relationships, it would be good for us all.

On the question of a chastity center: I suppose I have some common cause with the “abstinence lobby,” in that we both think sexuality is normal and healthy sometimes. The difference is that I think that’s the case within committed relationships, whereas they often raise the bar to marriage — witness that Wednesday’s Center for Abstinence and Chastity lecture was on “Wedded Bliss,” but not one of this week’s events addresses ordinary young adult relationships. I’m not going to try to convert Princeton’s religious population in an op-ed, and I doubt I’d be successful if I did. But consider marriage as a civil institution, rather than a sacrament. To paraphrase Hobbes, marriages throughout history and across the world have more often than not been poor, nasty, brutish and much more long-lived than they deserved; arranged not out of love but for financial or political reasons; often between older men and younger girls; and characterized by inequality and disrespect. Surely the average modern relationship of even a few months is more loving, more committed, more equal and more respectful than many marriages of a century ago? Why should sex be right for an abused 1800s housewife, but not in a loving and equal, but unmarried, relationship of the 21st century?

Finally, the practical question remains: If we want to eliminate Princeton’s “hookup culture” (such as it is), is the Center for Abstinence and Chastity really the way to do it? Which is more likely to appeal to the students who are currently sleeping around: taking up the monastic approach of swearing off physical intimacy until they marry, if they ever do, or seeking out and maintaining a committed romantic relationship, where sex naturally plays an important role, but isn’t the main focus and isn’t self-destructive? For me, it was the latter, and it will be for many others.

Perhaps I’m wrong about some or all of this. Perhaps there are already enormous “Center for Healthy Relationships” flyers posted around campus which I’ve missed; perhaps I fell asleep when relationship issues were being discussed in “Sex on a Saturday Night.” But I don’t think so. I don’t think that committed relationships are necessarily better than casual sex or chastity; but they’re better for some people, myself included, and they need and deserve to be part of Princeton’s discussions on this matter. Remember that unlike womanizing televangelists or guys who think casual sex is awesome but can’t get a date, I practice what I preach. Let’s start broadening the debate from this unhealthy “chastity versus promiscuity” polarization, start catering to the needs and problems of real Princeton students and start promoting an alternative to the “hookup culture” that might actually work.

Rob Day is an exchange student from Oxford, where he majors in ancient history. He can be reached at rkday@princeton.edu.