TV Schedule

Ivy League push for abstinence

  2. embed code
  3. tracyclarkflory
  4. related topics
There's been a recent push on Ivy League campuses for abstinence until marriage. This agenda is being pushed under the cloak of feminism. The idea that a man can only intellectually respect a woman when she withholds sex is not only anti-feminist, but anti-male.
tracyclarkflory

14 responses // Ivy League push for abstinence

  • Abstinence until marriage will in my opinion always have its roots embeded the tenets of religion.
    I don't think abstinence should be interpreted as "withholding sex". Those terms alone are implying that sex is a weapon of oppression of sorts and I don't think that this is what the general idea is.
    In today's world there are so many reasons why abstinence might be important with all the STDs and other health issues.
    BaniProductions
  • "... not only anti-feminist, but also anti-male."

    ... not to mention anti-intellectual!

    Only someone who is sexually naive would believe that intellectualism and eroticism have no place together, especially on a college campus.

    Back when I went to such a school, public life on campus was plagued by wanna-be Republican talking point echo-bunnies writing columns for the official school rag. A topic of particular interest was the irresponsibility and promiscuity of unwed parents. To the endless amusement of the rest of us, two such budding right-wing script enthusiasts themselves became expectant parents out of wedlock, thereby providing a superb education in the entire cycle of conservative hypocrisy.

    It's not that you have to have sex in order to be smart. But the all-knowing condescension about sex by those who professed to never having experienced it was as pervasive on campus back then as it appears to be today -- and as sophomoric.
    amity
  • I teach college-level European and world history from preclassical times to about 1700. Based on my lengthy and broad reading in the history of human sexuality and gender constructions, I firmly believe that unless/until societies stop judging women (and men) by what they do with their bodies, we are all caught in a horrible trap. Feminism will never succeed in its aims of improving women's positions in the world, and so feminists can't improve men's positions either.
    debg
  • What was one of the reasons the colonists gave for going into these different cultures? Ans: they were bringing them a better religion.
    Thus when I say its roots embeded in tenets of religion, I mean the religion that like you said was the behind colonialism...we are saying the same thing from different sides....
    BaniProductions
  • I can't speak to the historical antecedants, and I'm not going to comment on the obvious religious aspect; my point is, the idea itself is stupid simply from a logical perspective.

    Look: biologically, guys have a biological need to, um, get off on a regular basis (otherwise, enlarged prostate and other complications can ensue). If one is dating a guy, and withholding one's favors in the expectation that that will make him *more* interested in intellectual, spiritual, and personal matters, one is fooling oneself. Desparate guys with raging testosterone are *much* less likely to be paying attention to *you* if their brain is full of the need to get laid. Crude, but there you are.

    I'm not arguing that all college women should jump in bed with their boyfriends; of course not. But to expect a man to be *more* intellectual when you are deliberately, um, withholding is a mug's game. Maybe when they're 30. At 19 or 20? Right.
    dougom
  • I didn't say guys had a greater need for *sex*, nor did I say guys have a greater *desire* for sex. Nor am I excusing crass behavior. Nope.

    All I said is that, biologically, because of how men are wired, they have to (sorry) ejaculate regularly. And when your brain is highly focused on that, you're not going to be as interested in (say) the latest Jane Austen movie, or whatever. And for a woman to expect the *opposite* is silly. Especially for *college-age* guys, for the love o' Pete.
    dougom
  • Maybe I should speak more slowly.

    Once again: I didn't say anything about "desire." Not a word. You keep bringing it up. Why, I have no idea. Too much spare time? Enjoyment of trolling? Deliberate desire to misinterpret declarative English sentences? Puckish mischievousness? Who knows.

    And my knowledge of the human male anatomy is not based on "belief;" heaven forfend, it's based on facts. Unless you feel that the knowledge of women having periods after menarche is a "belief" as well.
    dougom
  • Guys have a need to "get off" on a regular basis - you mean ejaculate? They can do that in their hands, or as one person in my acquaintance, into a silky piece of underwear. No need for sex with a woman, if all you need is to squirt.

    Good discussion!
    Julie_Soller
  • You are right about the religious underpinnings of sexual abstinence. It derives from America's Calvinist roots (see: Jonathan Edwards) whereby pleasure for its own sake was prohibited as sin. (Our drug policies follow from this as well.) We as a nation have been hung up on sex ever since.

    But here's an idea I'd like the author's take on: The abstaining feminists whose Cinderella fantasy of finding "true love" before sex are sending this message: save me, but do it on my terms. If the shoe fits you get the prize. Of course we are all entitled to our terms, but this is not feminism (which should seek gender equity), rather it is a kind of sexual blackmail. An egalitarian approach would include a reasonable level of commitment and exchange from both sides. Men beware.

    As a final note, the male student in the article needs help ASAP to find a healthy expression of his desires. He's headed for a real disaster.

    Thanks for the article.
    AntEthicist
  • Good God, 96thdayofrage, why are you having so much trouble with this?

    I didn't say men had more desire than women; I didn't say men had a greater "sexual need" than women; I said men need to get off (i.e., ejaculate) regularly. This is a physical, biological fact of life. That's *all* I said. I am baffled as to why you keep torquing it into something different.

    And my main point is, if a woman is "withholding" her favors, and expecting a guy to be thinking *less* about having sex with her so that he can concentrate on other things, she's deluding herself. It's an absurd premise.

    Yes, of course, Julie; men can use silk underwear, or a wet towel, or a vacuum cleaner, or whatever floats their boat. But when a college-age guy has a girlfriend, and she's withholding sex, I think it's not unlikely a large percentage of the guy's brain will be thinking things like, "How can I convince her to at least do a hand-job?" or whatnot, and said guy is going to be less--rather than more--inclined to concentrate on the woman's spiritual and intellectual qualities.

    Or look at it like this. You keep someone from drinking for a full day, then sit down with them at a table with a cold bottle of water next to you and say, "Let's talk about my intellectual attributes!" Is the person going to be listening? Or are they going to be wondering why the hell you won't give them the water? (Or perhaps wandering away to get water at a nearby drinking fountain; not as good, but better than nothing.)

    But if you don't get my point, 96thdayofrage, I won't be surprised. I've said essentially the same thing several times now, and you haven't gotten it, so I'm not sanguine about my chances this time.

    And I don't read Maxim or Esquire. Nothing like unwarranted assumptions, eh?
    dougom
  • I have, 96thdayofrage. Several times. It's called "ejaculation." I didn't say a "need to screw," or a "need to have sex." How many times do I have to clarify this?

    A man's testes produce sperm continuously. This causes a need to ejaculate regularly. You can either do this through a sexual act, masturbation, or by ignoring it until you wake up one night with wet sheets in your bed. But male ejaculation to relieve the buildup of sperm caused by the testes' continuous production thereof is just human biology. "You can look it up," as baseball fans like to say.

    Note again: ejaculation, *not* sex. I tell you three times. It's not mysterious, although in the current moronic American culture, it *is* taboo to discuss it, more's the pity.
    dougom
    1 response to this
  • OMG..This just make me angry. I'm not sure when women will realize that respect is not found between our legs. However it is great way to lose self worth. When people try to over simply human nature, behavior and power structures they are bound to fail. Sure one too many partners or messing around with a guy too sound may make a women come off as a tramp. But thats just on top of insecure, lazy, stupid, desperate or co-dependent. If I was a guy I'm not sure I'ld raise my hand to marry a chick like taht either. But think about it....Most people look at anyone under 30 getting married like this are complete idiots. So are we all doomed to be "Thirty Year Old Virgins".
    GEMINISUN26
  • Gemini, true that! I am not what is between my legs.

    Actually a male friend of mine was discussing with me his desire to take his relationship further physically... but feeling like he was a pig in doing so. Then he went on to say how he thought that expecting a girl to be a virgin when he marries her is awful - that a man should be the only one to "own" his wife and deserves her.

    My friend was actually being feminist in that way. It was interesting.

    I hope that all made sense.
    samonster34

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.