|
April 29, 2008
Choose your identity group carefully, kids!
Reading Harvey C. Mansfield's review of Donna Freitas's "Sex and the Soul", I was struck by the foolishness of young people who (assuming Freitas is right) make the most personal sexual decisions according to a herd mentality. ...college students today enter a low hook-up culture when they leave the classroom. In case you don't know, a hook-up is a brief sexual encounter between two partners who don't necessarily know each other before and who don't necessarily want to know each other after. And it's free. The sort of transient sex that once was available to men only for money can now be had, without paying, from college women - as long as the man is a fellow student and minimally artful about his approach. If he is thwarted in one overture, he may try another with a reasonable prospect of success.OK, leaving aside the question of whether the male sex drive is inherently predatory in nature, when I read that, I have to admit I found myself feeling some revulsion towards such apparently mindless followers. I don't think individual sexual desires -- or individual sexuality -- should be dictated by peers or by a peer-driven culture. I hated that stuff in high school (seriously, it stands out as a huge factor in my adolescent rebellion), and I was delighted that when I began college as a freshman at the huge UC Berkeley campus, there were no peers I felt in any way obligated to follow. That may be because there were tens of thousands of students, and no discernable herd, but in any case, I was on my own. I suppose if I wanted peers to follow I could have found them, but I was more interested in finding friends. True friends, in my view, do not mess with you on that intimate level. (Unless they are lovers, but that's not the same as peers.) So my first reaction was to decry the apparent lack of individualism in the students as portrayed in the Freitas book. If they're that way about sex, little wonder they accept uncritically the postmodernist nonsense spouted by leftist professors. It was downright depressing. Anyway, I kept reading, hoping that someone, somewhere (either on the campus, in the book, or in the review) would remember that the right to do something includes the right to not do it, and that the right to say yes of necessity includes the right to say no. Contrary to what some believe, freedom is license. But license is a different issue than judgment and responsibility, and these things vary from individual to individual. Since when is the right to do something stupid a duty to do something stupid? Anyway, I found little talk of encouraging individuality. I did, however, find some advocacy of replacing peer pressure with peer pressure: Ms. Freitas does not celebrate this state of affairs, but neither does she spend most of her prose denouncing it. Instead she wants to understand how the hook-up culture functions and what forces might be at odds with it. Rather than confine her interviews to secular colleges, she visits religious ones, both Catholic and evangelical. The Catholic colleges, she finds, are little different from their secular counterparts; they seem "more adept at creating lapsed Catholics than anything else."I realize that appearances are often influenced by what other people think; otherwise we would not wear clothes. But I'm not sure what is meant by the appearance of promiscuity or the appearance of purity. Is it dressing like a slut as opposed to dressing like a prude? Not to sound sexist or anything, but I think most guys would have a harder time pulling off such a "look" either way. Unless he's an obvious gay slut, how does a guy dress promiscuously? Can you tell by looking whether a guy is a virgin? Or is it that these kids are merely lying about their sex lives or lack thereof? Are virgins claiming to be studs and sluts, while sluts and studs are claiming to be chaste? So they can fit in with their respective peer pressure groups? I don't know, but college sounds like an awful place. I'm glad I don't have kids, because I wouldn't want to have to pay money for indoctrinating my kids on how to be followers. We hear a lot about "choice," and we tend to think of it as an individual thing. At least, I've always thought of it that way. I'd hate to think that choice is being redefined as a choice of herds. The promiscuous herd? Or the purity herd? Another question which occurred to me is why religion keeps getting juxtaposed against promiscuous sex, as if it's one or the other, and the purpose of the former is to combat the latter. (Is the implication that atheists are sluts, while Christians are pure? Why?) I'd almost swear this begins to resemble identity politics. (Which is "choice" masquerading as the antithesis of choice.) UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, especially for quoting from this post, and a warm welcome to all! Comments invited -- agree or disagree. posted by Eric on 04.29.08 at 10:33 AM
Comments
I do think male sexuality is based on predation. At least, that's how my own wicked side works. As I get older (mid 40's), thankfully it gets easier to be a good little married non-predator. Me, I blame American Idol for the hook-up ethic. Not the show itself, but the mindset which has replaced the goal of pursuing Virtue with pursuit of Fame. So rather than blaming TV, I think the success of Idol and reality shows in general is due in large part to the pull of vicarious fame. Fame, in all its emptiness, has supplanted Virtue. And without Virtue, there is only what feels good now. Socrates · April 29, 2008 12:04 PM I'm not seeing anything new in this take on campus sex, other than some terms like "hook up culture". The traditional double standard for women pretty much died with the easy availability of birth control back in the 1960's, hence that "free love" (culture) you could hardly have missed at Berkeley back in the day, Eric. I sometimes share your concern about "mindless followers", but more so when I don't share their views. Funny how that happens. Penny · April 29, 2008 12:12 PM I believed in a free promiscuous lifestyle in college, but it was all theory. Not that I lied about my number of experiences, I simply advocated, from an intellectual standpoint, that women should be as free and easy with one-night stands as men. Somehow, when it came to putting theory to practice, however, I remained, um, "pure" until after I was 30 and married. So sad. So yeah, I was a big hypocrite.
Hypocrite · April 29, 2008 03:56 PM As the parent of a soon-to-be-freshman-age son, I have discussed the "herd mentality" aspects of sex with my 17-year-old predatory male. He is currently grappling with his first long-term, serious relationship as a high school senior, and dealing with the issues of sexuality versus intimacy versus responsibility versus reputation, in what I see as a rather mature manner. What I see reflected in the campus culture is a replay of the 1960's, where young males used every technique they can imagine to get into a girl's pants without accepting any of the responsibilities, personal or public, that the girl would ideally desire a mate to have, either short-term or long-term. That girls put up with, accept, or reciprocate in this idiocy is foolishness on their part, as females in a group and as individuals. My younger daughter is being taught that No means NO, and is getting the mental skills and physical tools to enforce that dictum. I anticipate her laughing in the faces of the clowns who try to use her for their own momentary pleasure. In short, real men don't do that, and real women don't let them. Mikee · April 29, 2008 03:59 PM "But most students also believe that "everyone does it," even if the individual student, for some reason, cannot locate a partner. Thus an active minority sets the tone and makes hooking up a "culture." So what exactly is news here? That's the way it's always been among young people, and it's still that way. Get over it and move on. Andy S. · April 29, 2008 04:03 PM "But most students also believe that "everyone does it," even if the individual student, for some reason, cannot locate a partner. Thus an active minority sets the tone and makes hooking up a "culture." So what exactly is news here? That's the way it's always been among young people, and it's still that way. Get over it and move on. Andy S. · April 29, 2008 04:05 PM I am a boomer who went to UCLA in the early 70s. I am here to tell you everyone appeared part of the herd and wanted to, but were not. That peer pressure and herd mentality always made me go the other way and still does. All boomers brag about the drugs they did and the years they don't remember, but I'm here to tell you not all did because I never so much as smoked pot. (My hubby, OTOH, back then did every drug that existed.) It's kind of embarrassing to admit but I don't care. It was all my friends being into drugs in high school that made me not give in but find a new group of friends. We won't even talk about how late I bloomed sexually. ;-) But, back then a lot of us didn't and I know now a lot of kids don't. It's very sad that they all want to look like they do. Peer pressure is the worst thing kids growing up have to deal with and this casual hook-up mentality is really sick. It leads to a degradation of the culture and fabric of society. Which does lead directly to Dr. Helen's numerous discussions of why men no longer want to marry and what in the world is wrong with today's women... Our culture and mores may be disintegrating in irreparable ways. So much for sexual freedom and the sexual revolution. Peg C. · April 29, 2008 04:40 PM Couldn't this be another case where the "subjects" tell the author what they think they want to here. It sounds too much like a repition of Margaret Meade and the errors she made. Frogge · April 29, 2008 05:35 PM Doesn't bother me who gets laid. Let the whole herd enjoy themselves for all I care. But hasn't it struck anyone that we are wasting a lot of money, paying for (and even borrowing for) college? Seems very few students are actually interested in studying anything. Why the expensive charade? Barry · April 29, 2008 05:39 PM Barry, It was always thus. If you go back in time say six or eight hundred years the big complaint was college students spent too much time and money drinking and carousing. Our biggest trouble as a culture is not the decline in morals (they have always been declining) but the idea that history began this morning. And yet despite continuously declining morals we seem to manage. M. Simon · April 29, 2008 05:53 PM Oh, I'm not decrying declining morals. However, when a large percentage of the population does to school, and many borrow money to do it, we may be having a problem akin to the housing bubble. Prices of "higher education" are rising at ridiculous rates, but people keep paying, if only out of frenetic fear. I mean, I drank and surfed my way through college, myself. But I don't have any student loans. Now, when I talk to people in their 20s, they seem to owe ungodly sums, and for what, really? It's one thing to party your way to your mid-20s, it's another thing to party your way into six-figure debt with no assets. That's my concern with it. Barry · April 29, 2008 06:00 PM Barry, My #2 son got a $160,000 dollar education for about $10,000 in debt. How did he do it? Scholarship. He is/was an outstanding scholar. The school (a top tier University whose name you would instantly recognize if I was totally into bragging) paid his way. He graduated with honors. And how was it possible for the school to do this. Obviously, all the not so good students were in some measure paying his way. His position is that he now has a good asset (an excellent education) and relatively low debt. And what did I do? I went into electronics as a bench technician (R&D) and worked my way up to aerospace engineer sans degree. BTW I spent my 20s drinking and carousing totally. Lots of hook ups. My experience? Even for casual relationships (one night stands to 6 month relationships) there was a lot of wooing involved. Even in the 60s/70s very few women gave it up on the first date and if they did they expected to see more of you at least until they figured out that they really were not interested in something longer term. As I pointed out in my comments with the Demographics link - human nature is what it is. It doesn't change very fast. I once did a calculation to figure how much women differed from men in terms of interest in sex (about 3% of men are interested in fetishistic, sex the number for women is 1%) it is about 1/2 standard deviation difference. Not much. Just enough so that demand exceeds supply. i.e. women will always have the edge in relationships. Which is as it should be since the cost for them is much greater. Women get choice. Men get what ever women are willing to give. That is not going to change no matter how much "culture" changes. Culture changes are cosmetic. It does get a lot of people frothing who like to froth so I expect there is some value in that. Now if we really wanted to change "culture" we would make sure that in all situations the numbers of women and men would be balanced +/- 5%. The rules in Islam seem quite harsh (they are) but they are rooted in biology. Our rules are an attempt to transcend nature. We can't. So we get a different set of outcomes. Fortunately we are rich enough to afford it. Kinder and gentler always comes at a price. I'm willing to pay it. M. Simon · April 29, 2008 06:39 PM We hear a lot about "choice," and we tend to think of it as an individual thing. At least, I've always thought of it that way. I'd hate to think that choice is being redefined as a choice of herds. That's what happened on the Continent in the 19th century, when the Leftist premise of "national self-determination" was substituted for the Enlightenment idea of "individual self-determination" in the meaning of "freedom". That is why the history of Europe has followed the path it has since the Enlightenment went out. Is the Enlightenment going out here? Well, these particular teenage canaries have been keeling over since the 1960's.... Seerak · April 29, 2008 06:54 PM Most of these young people have already been heavily indoctrinated/trained in PC "herd" passivity throughout their school years, long before they get to college. Ben-David · April 30, 2008 06:13 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2008
March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
A Wright-wing conspiracy?
An Unkulunkulu atheist vows never to be out-atheisted again! Where Do The Commanding Officers Live? Choose your identity group carefully, kids! The Chickens Are Coming Home To The Roosters UGH! In The Middle Of The Road How many wrongs make a Wright? The Devil Speaks Supply and Demand
Links
Site Credits
|
|
In the old days whore houses used to be a natural part of every city. The men could get their sex without involvement and women were to some extent protected from the predatory nature of young males.
The "Progressives" cleaned all that up. And so here we are.
Of course a lot of the hook-up culture is due to Demographics.
When men are in short supply (as they are on most college campuses these days) Girls Go Wild.
You can't fool Mother Nature.