Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Let’s Talk About Sex Again
The efforts to redefine rape on campuses would be amusing if they weren’t so dangerous. But I think we need to ask ourselves why the sex-with-no-consequences-ever crowd is suddenly a champion of sex-with-hyperbolic-consequences unless it is accompanied by lots and lots of yeses. I’m wondering, do both participants have to constantly say “yes” or only the females involved? Life is so confusing these days.
It doesn’t, however, need to be confusing. The truth is that “casual sex” has always been a myth, because men and women do not approach sex in the same way, which makes it a minefield. Two “consenting adults” probably have, in other words, wildly different ideas about what is going on and what it means. It turns out that sex is not just a powerful drive and a pleasurable physical sensation, it has social, emotional, mental and spiritual consequences that complicate what the kids have been told. All that extra baggage makes it possible — even likely — that without some mores, restrictions and good old-fashioned truth-telling, men and women will use and abuse one another through sex. Who woulda thunk it?
News flash: unlimited yeses do not constitute mores that guide moral behavior. What’s curious is that campuses are trying to do what social mores and custom once did, only from the back end. They are trying to control the explosive and dangerous potential of sex without walking back the “casual sex” myth and telling young people that sex is not just about physical pleasure. Curiously, our society has elevated sex to the be-all and end-all of life without giving it any depth. What could go wrong?
We have a real problem here, but the way to turn things around is pretty obvious. The answer lies in telling the truth to young people in sex education classes around the country. You don’t need to use a religious approach to do it, though kids armed with religion stand a better chance of resisting ubiquitous lies about sex. The truth is that being “consenting adults” or “consenting teenagers” is not enough, not by a long shot, because the pill did not make men and women regard sex in the same way. Also, the pill did not change the fact that when we give our bodies to another person, the rest of us participates too — our emotions, our need for love, affirmation, and being valued and appreciated for our whole selves. The potential for hurt, misunderstanding and all kinds of damage is simply endless.
Of course teenagers are raging hormone factories, and some will succumb to that, but we need to tell them that it is possible to resist, that if they are truly concerned for that person they think they love, they will resist. They need to be taught that sex is serious. I think we will find that if we teach them the truth, kids will be able to internalize values so that they can control themselves instead of relying on the astonishingly silly and superficial “control” mechanism of demanding an unending series of yeses.
What’s interesting to me is that at bottom everybody knows that sex is serious. Rom-coms regularly affirm it. Casual, uncaring sex is not celebrated in movies about romance because it’s not romantic. On the contrary, it makes what ought to be romantic sordid. The whole formula of rom-coms is to show a process — two people are attracted to one another, though they might even superficially dislike each other at first, and they overcome obstacles as they get to know and understand each other better, which leads to love, respect and the permanent commitment of marriage. It’s a tale as old as time and true as it can be, as Mrs. Teapot from Beauty and the Beast reminds us. Since everybody knows this on some level, would it be so hard to stress the point in sex education classes? Let’s get past the idea that all behavior is equal. Some behavior really is bad and destructive.
And while we’re at it, in those classes, could we also tell kids that they can avoid poverty for themselves and their future spouses and children by doing just four things — graduating from high school, getting a job, waiting until after marriage to have kids and staying married to raise those kids? If we taught them the truth, I think we’d find that kids are not so stupid as we think. They want to avoid the pitfalls of life, but currently are not being taught what they need to know to do so.
Published in General
Instapundit has had a lot on his blog lately about female sexual aggressors. Usually it’s a case of a teacher or person in authority taking advantage of a young student in a statutory rape situation. In one case in Arizona, a woman in her early 20s took advantage of a young teenager this way, had a child without telling him, then recently sued him for child support and won! These are horrible situations.
She writes a lot for The Federalist now. She and Rachel both participate on a blog of conservative women writers who hash out various questions. I’ve heard about some lively discussions! So far as I know she is doing well.
What I want to know is where all the teachers handing out non-devil threesomes when I was a teenager? (sex ed lab sessions that the guidance counselor left off my schedule – AH HA another woman)
Seriously, how inadequate of a male was I that I couldn’t pull that off? Is it the news or the porn (is there a difference anymore) that is leading to this crushing feeling of inadequacy? My wife is probably in on this. I will have to randomly give her the stink eye when she gets home, her 2 full size chromosomes instantly make her part of the conspiracy and are oppressing me. She has chromosome privilege!
The oppression never ends. MAAAATRIARCHY!
Yup–we’re in 1984 territory here.
At the heart of this problem lies the presumption that everything turns on consent. No doubt consent is required. But there was a time, and I remember it, when colleges and universities thought of themselves as being in loco parentis, and like any good parent they strongly intimated that consent is insufficient and that something more exalted is or ought to be involved than mutual masturbation. Here at Hillsdale, we have separate dorms for women and men, and we have visitation hours. We do not police the conduct of our students in a manner that is tyrannical, but we do gently convey that right and wrong are somehow at stake. At other institutions, they hand out condoms at freshman orientation.
This trend will turn every sexual encounter into Molly Bloom’s soliloquy, I suppose.
Exactly, Paul. They need to know that there is right and wrong in these matters. I’m curious to see what will happen with so-called “sex weeks” in the wake of all this. I’m just hoping someone will see how incompatible such events are with controlling sex.
Nice quotation, but this seems waaaaay more romantic that the sort of yes the State of California is demanding. Also, the “yes” MUST BE VERBALLY SPOKEN, YOUNG MAN.
Didn’t some business consultant write a book a few years back about negotiations entitled How to Get to Yes? Perhaps that is the direction sex week will go.
Here, by the way, is a thirteen-year-old description of Safer Sex Night at Oberlin:
Perhaps the Tent of Consent will come to other campuses.
You mean it hasn’t already?
Macho men might enjoy complaining about all the women who’ve raped them over the years, but what really frightens ’em is an unrepentant virgin.
Perhaps, but you know what you’re getting into when you go to Oberlin. It’s the bleeding edge of liberalism and libertinism. It says more about the people who choose to go there than the university itself.
So just attending — or even applying to — Oberlin would be prima facie consent?
Even getting verbal (I almost wrote, “oral”) consent is insufficient if it comes down to a “he said, she said” conflict in court or in front of a campus disciplinary committee. Getting written consent is too burdensome, and kills the moment, all the jokes about websites notwithstanding.
So I’ll share my solution to the problem. If I get “lucky” I secretly videotape the romantic encounter. Then, if challenged as to whether there was consent, I have the evidence. Just letting my paramour of the evening know, before she leaves, that I have the evidence obviates the need to use it. I guarantee there won’t be any complaint.
As a bonus, the videotapes also come in handy for those evenings when I don’t get lucky.
Brown University taught us that even if both parties agree that she initiates the sex and you are still a rapist if she has a sad afterwards.
If I understand correctly this legislation is just about sex on college campuses? If so the solution would seem to me to be no sex on campus at all. If found having sex on campus then both/all parties should be kicked out of school. If people want to have sex they can leave campus where these rules don’t apply. School is for learning not for fornicating.
John, Heather McDonald thinks that this is a good law in a way because it will likely lead to less sex. That is good for sure, but I think it matters how you get there. People need to understand that there is right and wrong when it comes to sex and they need to understand why there’s right and wrong. They need to have internal, not external controls of behavior. Self control will help them in all areas of life. It is very odd to teach people that self control is good except when it comes to sex.
Really. Wow. I was going to write about this a few times but deleted my efforts. I am really worried about this. But I didn’t want people to think I am nuts.
The woman-as-aggressor is showing up a lot in the arts media. That is going to have an effect on people, especially bored college students.
I worry about the guys. Geesh.
The thing that has impressed me most about this post and thread is that there are numerous references to academia, MSM, the film industry and other cultural influences, but absolutely no references whatsoever to the only thing that really matters- responsible parenting.
I’m a Boomer and grew up in some of the most culturally challenging times for parentals (the first X-rated films, top ten songs that included such smash hits as I Can’t Get No Satisfaction or the infamous House of The Rising Sun) but my friends/peers and I were strictly monitored throughout the “Revolution.”
My father’s philosophy was this: No curfew, no make-up or clothing restrictions and enjoy your friends in high school, but know that you must maintain a part-time job, minimum 3.5 GPA in high school, study hard for the SATs, get into a good (not mediocre) college and leave home after graduation because you will get a good job and become self-sufficient. This always struck me as a fair deal.
Most of the avant-garde thrills we enjoyed were strictly youthful dalliances; some of my *wildest* friends are now investment bankers, architects and automobile executives. Our parents may have given us some free rein socially, but placed enormous pressure upon us to succeed. I’m not a parent but this continues to strike me as a timelessly effective strategy.
Practically everyone in my high school was raised like this. It is, um, not a universally successful strategy, unfortunately.
Do you possibly think there are cultural variables not taken into account? I recently visited my high school (public) and it had a 99% college acceptance rate and the majority (70%) of the students were attending U-Michigan and MIT.
Edit: There was one additional parental contractual clause — no safety nets after college graduation.
I think it has more to do with a combination of innate scrappiness and dumb luck. Some people are by nature pretty scrappy, and believe in themselves and their ability to succeed no matter how many setbacks they encounter. Others find it very difficult to navigate setbacks without a moral compass.
A setback is, of course, a temporary failure (at least, you have to hope it’s temporary, or else that’s the end of your life as successful human being). Where does a moral compass consisting only of the imperative “succeed” point to in the midst of failure? When you’re in the middle of failing at something, how does “succeed” tell you how to behave?
A person without a moral compass that addresses what to do in the event of failure might get through alright if he’s naturally scrappy or if by dumb luck he never encounters the kind of setbacks that cause him to question his worth as a human being. But if all your self-worth is wrapped up in success, what moral reason do you have for, say, not killing yourself, or succumbing to the most wretched of habits, the first time you meet with failure?
In our family there was always the assumption that the kids would go to college and have to support themselves thereafter. We didn’t exactly preach this to them overtly, but we did talk with them about what they wanted to do with their lives, where their talents might take them, etc. Only the youngest went to college pretty sure about his major. The others floundered a little in figuring that out, but all graduated in 4 years and everybody has gone on to grad school. Even in-between times, they’ve taken temp jobs to get through and still support themselves. We haven’t had any boomerangs. With regard to sex, we taught them all, with the help of our church, that sex should be reserved for marriage. They all understand why and I think agree that it’s a good idea. They don’t confide everything in me, but I think they’ve been pretty well-behaved. Basically, we taught them what was right and hoped and prayed they would behave themselves–which they largely have.
I have no possible way of responding to this because I was brought up to believe that there is always a way to overcome the inevitable failures and that this is what truly separates the strong from the weak.
My favorite example: My brother received *hell* for leaving U-M as an engineering major and defecting to USC film school. It took him 10 years to succeed in what he wanted to do (writer and producer) but he did it. I do give my parents credit for paying the tuition, but he was on his own after that.
What do I think kept him going? Answer: an obsessive determination to do what he loved coupled with the fear of settling for less.
One last observation: MFR, there really is no such thing as “dumb luck” and I believe scrappiness is as learned a trait as it is inherited.
Midge, this is an astute observation. I read on Public Discourse a few months ago two articles by young women who I think were Princeton grads. They said that some of the saddest cases are young women who are virgins because young men see it as a challenge to change that and even regard it as a kind of right, which leads to some very bad situations. Scary stuff. And of course, this is devastating to the young women who have scruples and do take sex seriously. Virgins, who will admit to it, are somewhat rare on many campuses, and consequently are seen as freaks. The kind of messages that have heretofore been sent by freshmen orientation type skits have not helped, nor, of course does “sex week”. Basically, the whole attitude toward sex needs to be rethought and revamped on campuses–the point of the OP. I’m so hoping these new rules, stupid as they are, will spark that discussion and process of re-thought.
I think as parents we need to be pretty broadminded about what we call “success”. In our family it’s finding a job and supporting yourself and family. It doesn’t matter what you do. All work is honorable. We have been very fortunate and were able to afford to put them all through college, but made it clear that after that they were on their own. We still help them here and there when we can afford to, but they know that their education is their inheritance. Fortunately none of them have mental problems or anything like that. None of them are likely to be rich, but I’m really proud of them all.
Well, then you were given some moral compass beyond the imperative, “Succeed.” A person who was merely ordered to succeed without further instructions would not necessarily know what to do about failure.
Success is having the ability to live your life the way you want to.
Scrappiness can be learned to some extent. It comes more naturally to some than others, though.
But there really is such a thing as dumb luck. Life is a gamble, and sometimes by sheer chance, you lose. You can insure against risk (at a cost, which may or may not be worth it), but you can’t make life risk-free.
My fault entirely for failing to specifically define my family’s definition of success. Again, I have a tendency (as iWc so astutely posted last night) to be “surprised” at having to explain things I have always taken for granted.