Blog
Girls Gone Mild
An article in the New York Times titled “Students of Virginity” reports on the surprising number of “abstinence clubs” popping up on university campuses all over the country. These clubs try to discourage students from engaging in pre-marital sex.
According to the article, a growing number of students that have been exposed to similar clubs in their high schools, called “chastity clubs”, are now entering university. They are alarmed by the prevalence of promiscuity on campus. Harvard abstinence club member, Janie Fredell, for example, said: “The hookup culture is so absolutely all-encompassing. It’s shocking! It’s everywhere!” Many of these students have created or joined these clubs in response to what they see as an immoral “sexualized culture”.
Presumably in order to have a balanced perspective, the article presents the opposing view, represented by another Harvard student, Lena Chen. Chen is a sex blogger who doesn’t see any problem with meaningless sex: “to say that I have to care about every person I have sex with is an unreasonable expectation. It feels good! It feels good!”
By the end of the article the reader is left with a very clear picture of the two disparate positions. As one blog puts it, you have Jezebel, on the one hand, and the Virgin Mary, on the other. Demonstrating this alternative, the article compares the miniskirt wearer that leaves nothing to the imagination versus her modestly dressed counterpart. Even their eating habits are compared in the article. While Fredell overcame her cravings for a sinful “chocolate explosion” dessert, Chen indulges her every desire “including a ginger cake with cream-cheese frosting and raspberry compote.”
The article leaves us with the choice between self-deprivation or indulging every whim one happens to feel. Are these really the only options?
A third alternative, which the writer does not mention, is that two people might value each other and engage in pre-marital sex. Such couples do not fall into either of the categories presented in the article—neither self-sacrificing nor hedonistic. They are not senselessly “sleeping around”, nor are they depriving themselves of the immense emotional/psychological benefits and pleasure that come from sex. To deny oneself these benefits, if one has found a worthy partner, is worse then senseless. If sex is a celebration of one’s life and existence, as Ayn Rand believed, then the self-denial of sex is one of the worst forms of abrogating one’s life.
Discussion
4 comments for “Girls Gone Mild”
Post a comment
Navigation
Objectivism
The Undercurrent's cultural commentary is based on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. Objectivism, which animates Ayn Rand's fiction, is a systematic philosophy of life. It holds that the universe is orderly and comprehensible, that man survives by reason, that his life and happiness comprise his highest moral purpose, and that he flourishes only in a society that protects his individual rights.Event Calendar
Great article and interesting thoughts.
Typical media tactic to polarize things in an attempt to make an issue seem sensational.
OMG. *Great* title for this post!
A good portion of abstainers are in agreement with Objectivism on an important point: that sex is a profound act of the spirit as much as an act of the body. Based on that common ground, Objectivism could make inroads amoung the members of that movement. No doubt many of them have a view of sex which is merely colored by religion, not rooted in it.
I doubt many abstainers truly admire or aspire to the self-abrogating perpetual virginity of Holy Mary. One abstinance approach, exemplified by Wendy Shallit, author of A Return to Modesty and a leader in the movement, holds that sex, a gift from God, is so good and desirable that it should be reverently set apart. Piety demands that it be limited to marriage. Those who follow this approach eagerly want to make sex a part of their lives, and look forward to marriage with great anticipation.
For Objectivism too, we might tell them, sex is reverently set apart. But it would have one exercise enlightened judgement; determining the propriety of any possible sex act based, not on definite and inviolable, though arbitrary rules of piety, but on the precious value they find in themselves and in their partner.
If you tell abstainers “you can have sex before marriage and be ethical too, and here’s why” I think many will be glad to hear it, and you’ll bring more attention to Objectivism.
I can’t help but think of the Abstinence Groups in 1984. I wonder if they’ve begun to wear crimson sashes around their waists yet. A sign of the times, perhaps.