The “tragedy” of hook up culture. And scare quotes.


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.)

and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

99 Comments

  1. scryptkeeper
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    “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” ;)

  2. Lynne C.
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    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.

  3. Lynne C.
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    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.

  4. Meep
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    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.

  5. sly
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    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.

  6. sly
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    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.

  7. MsKTP
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    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.

  8. Blitzgal
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    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.

  9. Flower
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    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.

  10. Blitzgal
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    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.

  11. llevinso
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry, that picture and slogan is just frigging hilarious. Is that the modern day chastity belt?

  12. raq
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    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.

  13. dormouse
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    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.

  14. Cory
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    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?

  15. Yeshe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    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.

  16. Yeshe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    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.

  17. Yeshe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    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.

  18. capillary
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Bingo. This is where it belongs, too: churches, religious groups, and so on.

  19. JupiterAmmon
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    these men are such idiots. One can have herpes and a 4.0 GPA. I know a few…

  20. FrumiousB
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    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?

  21. Subestimado
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    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.

  22. Lilith Luffles
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    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.

  23. Yeshe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Your post. It’s funny

  24. sly
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    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.

  25. Jessica
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    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.

  26. Nina212
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    LOL I needed a good laugh, Thank you.

  27. Brady Bonk
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    “What a” “couple of” “puritanical” “dumbasses.”

  28. nightingale
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    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.

  29. Roscoe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    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…

  30. SaraLaffs
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    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.

  31. SaraLaffs
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    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!)

  32. Entomology Girl
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    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.

  33. Roscoe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    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.

  34. Roscoe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    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.

  35. ShifterCat
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    “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.

  36. YouCan2
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    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.

  37. Roscoe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    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?

  38. SaraLaffs
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    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.

  39. Roscoe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    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.

  40. Roscoe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    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.

  41. Roscoe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    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”.

  42. Posted March 26, 2009 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    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/

  43. SaraLaffs
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    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.

  44. moonfall
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    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.

  45. Lorelei
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    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.

  46. WickedAnnabella
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    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.

  47. WickedAnnabella
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    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.

  48. Roscoe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    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.

  49. Roscoe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    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.

  50. Roscoe
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    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.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

238 queries. 2.862 seconds