|
|
 |
 |
D |
 |
| |
I know, I know-- this one's old news. The term "metrosexual", first coined way back in 1994 by journalist Mark Simpson in the UK Independent, had everything to do with the rise of an ostensibly straight man who mimicked all the feminine vanity interests of the "typical" woman-- or gay man. Thanks to the efforts of Simpson, ad whiz/trend spotter Marian Salzman, and the bobblehead media, the term gained momentum. Female trend watchers and consumers of popular media were blanketed with the idea that previously Cro-Magnon men were taking over their hair-care products and bathroom-mirror time with glee. The whole notion reinforced the concept of a future overrun with glossy, stylish, sweet-smelling fellas, who could not only chat away with certitude on subjects of art and style, but who would scold you for wearing sweats to run errands and flush the Chunky Monkey down the toilet when PMS overtook you.
Did this look good to women? Probably not. Well, if you were fed up with your boyfriend drinking out of the milk container and never wanting to see a movie starring Hilary Swank, you might've picked up "The Metrosexual Guide to Style: A Handbook for the Modern Man." You might've hoped to do for your man what the boys at "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" could not. But even then, the notion that it would be a good idea to eradicate male cluelessness in this arena, and replace it with that small feminine vice-- personal vanity-- really wasn't all that smart.
Despite the breathless prose of those cheerleading for it-- or indifferent to it-- insisting that the smooth-chested, eyebrow-groomed dandy was the wave of the future, I just never bought it. Yes, men account for a growing percentage of cosmetic procedures, proving only that human beings are all subject to pressures of vanity. But more likely the trend was and is the result of marketing "push" rather than a groundswell of "pull", a theory set forth by a self-proclaimed Metrosexual named Greg Lindsay, writing on the website theBlackTable.com. He makes the point that the image-making machinery (read "marketers")hopped onto Simpson's and Salzman's bandwagon in an effort to lure men into the same "beauty myth" that harangues females from the time they reach kindergarten. This makes a lot of sense to me, much more than the idea that men and women both are happy to be interchangeable, post-sexual drones. The polarity between the sexes, what makes us tantalizingly different, gives our lives that delicious whiff of spice. While we may like our guys reasonably groomed and capable of enlightened discussion rather than belches, I don't think either sex is ready for the Brave New World. I think Metrosexual Man is dead.
What do you think?
I had been expecting Randall Patterson’s New York Times piece “Students of Virginity.” (Patterson had also extensively interviewed myself and some others associated with the Anscombe Society here at Princeton for his piece.)
What I had not expected was to find a gossip column instead of a fair journalism piece.
While some people (perhaps even the author himself) may see this piece as breaking the story on the ironic sexual struggles of abstinence leaders at Harvard, most readers will surely discern the liberty the author took in relaying the details he gathered.
Take, for example, Patterson’s portrayal of Leo Keliher, one of the co-presidents of Harvard’s abstinence group, True Love Revolution (TLR). It is hard to believe that a Harvard student who has publicly committed himself to advocating abstinence (and who already has media experience) would divulge his temptations and desires to a New York Times reporter. When asked about the comments published about him, Keliher clarified that Patterson took many of his observations of society at large, and of men specifically, and inaccurately applied those general observations to Keliher’s own personal life.
This is not to say that Keliher, and other men (and women) committed to chastity, are immune from temptation and desire. Patterson certainly makes a point of conveying that. But in his excitement over the fact that even chaste people have libidos, Patterson fails to recognize the real news he has uncovered – namely, the constructive and healthy ways chaste people approach their sexual desires.
TLR’s other co-president, Janie Fredell, speaks of the allure of virginity as rooted not so much in “innocence and purity” as in “the notion of strength”. Certainly by this she means strength of will. Fredell’s conception of feminism reaffirms this. While “conventional feminists” teach “that control of your body means the freedom to have sex without consequences – sex like a man,” the “unconventional” feminism with which Fredell identifies encourages women to have the strength and will to control her body, but to control it “by choosing not to have sex”, at least not until marriage.
What the article leaves unsaid here is that the “unconventional feminism” Fredell describes is fundamentally better for women. Even women who have chosen the hook-up lifestyle have admitted that there is nothing liberating for women in this way of life. There is no such thing as “sex without consequences” for women, whose bodies are made to bond with the men they have sex with. What Fredell is ultimately suggesting is a better way for women to respond to their sexual desires. Rather than allowing their desires and impulses to control them (whether they are in a casual hook-up with an acquaintance or in a serious premarital relationship), women should be encouraged and supported in choosing to abstain from sex, especially out of consideration for their emotional, physical, and psychological health and well-being.
As Fredell says, “It takes a strong woman to be abstinent.” I, for one, think the world could do with more strong women like this.
And we can certainly do with more strong, respectful men as well. Keliher himself is one person who has learned to “love women out of strength and not out of need.” Just as self-control reflects a strong woman, Keliher states, “To have that kind of self-control [being able to deny yourself for the sake of the woman] is really what it means to be a man.”
Unfortunately, these more constructive and intelligent statements are overshadowed by Patterson’s excitement over the more “juicy” details that were communicated to him.
I cannot help but doubt the picture Patterson paints of his intimate conversations with these students, especially with Leo Keliher. However, even if Keliher did actually say everything Patterson reveals, why should it be so surprising that a young man, even one convinced of the benefits of chastity, would experience sexual desires, physical temptations, and lustful thoughts? We live in a hyper-sexualized environment – just consider the majority of advertisements and entertainment out there. Undoubtedly, college campuses are even more sexualized. With so much sex around us, we’d be hard-pressed to find a young adult completely unaffected by it.
Too bad for Patterson, he has missed the real story after months of research. The real story behind “Students of Virginity” is not that these virgins are cognizant of sexual desire, but rather that they have learned how to direct that desire toward a better goal. Despite common stereotypes, we are not talking about students who are meek, repressed, and scared of sex and sin. Rather, these are young men and women who value sex so much they find the strength and the will to save it for the man or woman they are willing to share the rest of their lives with – their spouse.
I thought this was a good news/bad news story. Good news in that the Haverhill, Massachusetts middle school's assistant principal was willing to enforce a dress code when she saw students wearing extremely short skirts. Bad news in that a parent objected to the principal's decision and tried to transfer her daughter to another school. Why isn't the mother siding with the school principle here? What message is this parent sending to her daughter about 1) appropriate school attire and 2) respect for adult authority? "Nettle Middle School sixth-grader Arianna Bouchicas...said she was returning from morning
recess when Nettle's assistant principal, Renata Bateman, asked her to
go to the school nurse's office and have her mother bring her another
outfit.... Bateman said the school dress code bans skirts that are too short and that Arianna's outfit broke the rule."
"Bateman said the school dress code is meant to prevent any distraction from learning."
" 'When you have kids that come in with unbelievably
short skirts, even though a skort has shorts underneath, we just don't
want it to be a distraction,' she said. 'Boys tend to look if a girl is
dressed seductively — and it takes away from time on learning.' "
Arianna's mother was so unhappy with the dress code enforcement that she asked to have her daughter transferred to another middle school. The superintendent supported the decision of the assistant principal:
"Superintendent Raleigh Buchanan said he met with
Arianna and her mother and told them principals have the right to
regulate their school's dress code."
" 'It is expected that Haverhill students be dressed
appropriately while in school and not dress in a manner that is
disruptive to the educational process or the environment of the
school,' Buchanan said. 'I told them I would not comment on the outfit.
The principal already made that decision.' "
The local newspaper published an editorial a few days later supporting the dress code enforcement: "Our view: Dress codes teach students proper behavior"
"If only parents would get as excited about their children's
educational progress, or lack thereof, as they do about conflicts over
a school dress code."
"...the incident should prompt school officials from the
superintendent to the School Committee on down to put the word out
again to parents: If they want the best education possible for their
children, they need to support an environment that focuses on learning,
not fashion and distraction. That kind of environment must,
necessarily, include a dress code."
"...Part of becoming a productive adult is learning to wear
appropriate dress. School is a work place, and the clothes students
wear should reflect that. Parents who want the best for their children
will support and take part in that training."
It seems to me that, in public schools anyway, female principals are more willing to enforce dress codes than male principals. Why is that?
I find it regrettable that a parent sides with her daughter and against the school principal and superintendent here. When I was growing up (long ago in the 60's and 70's), parents, schools and religious authorities were allies. Adults worked together and set the standards for children to meet. That seems not to be the case these days.
More evidence that early sexual activity is detrimental to teenagers, from a major research study in Ireland: "Girls who become sexually active before age 17 are almost 70 percent
more likely to experience a crisis pregnancy in later life and three
times more likely to procure abortion in their lifetime than those who
wait until they are older, according to a study released by the Irish
Crisis Pregnancy Agency."
"The Irish Study of Sexual Health and Relationships, the largest
nationally representative study on sexual knowledge, attitudes and
behaviour ever undertaken in Ireland, was published by the Department
of Health and the Crisis Pregnancy Agency (CPA) today."
"The research found that 14.9 per cent of men and 7.9 per cent of
women first engaged in sex when they were less than 16 years old. A
majority of the women in that group (59 percent) and more than a third
of the men (37 percent) regretted it."
"The study states, 'Lower age of first sex is strongly associated
with regret at the timing of first sex, among both men and women.' "
" 'According to research, the majority of young people wait until they
are 17 or older to have sex for the first time,' said the CPA's
chairperson Katharine Bulbulia."
"However, for those who have had sex before 17, the research shows
the impact of early first sex on the individual's later sexual health,
and suggests that some young people...are having first sex at a time
that is not right for them. "We need to equip young people with the knowledge and skills they need to delay their first sexual experience.' "
Wow, this from the country whose government was all too willing to give contraceptive "jab" to 16-year old teens. We're making progress here! Even if you don't believe that people should wait until they are married before engaging in sexual activity, even if you think that's "unrealistic," this study supports the idea of teaching teens to at least delay having sex. Inch by inch, step by step, the tide is turning!
Interesting article by BU religion professor Donna Freitas at the Wall Street Journal, on the culture of sexuality at many college campuses. She's surveyed 2,500 college students and found that many students want romance and dating, but they're stuck in a 'hook-up' culture. Freitas' blog is here, with links to some of her books on spirituality and sexuality.
"After conducting a national college survey of over 2,500 students, I
found that among those who reported 'hooking up' -- a range of sexually
intimate acts, from kissing to intercourse, that occur outside a
committed relationship -- at Catholic and nonreligious private and
public colleges and universities, 41% are profoundly upset about their
behavior. The 22% of respondents who chose to describe a hook-up
experience (the question was optional) used words like dirty, used, regretful, empty, miserable, disgusted, ashamed, duped and abused in their answers. An additional 23% expressed ambivalence
about hooking up, and the remaining 36% were more or less 'fine' with
it. And 45% of students at Catholic and 36% at nonreligious private and
public schools say that their peers are too casual about sex. Not a
single person at these schools said that their peers valued saving sex
for marriage, and only 7% said that they felt that their friends wanted
to reserve sex for committed, loving relationships."
"When last semester I taught Wendy Shalit's A Return to Modesty, in a
class at Boston University called 'Spirituality & Sexuality in
American Youth Culture', I assumed that my mostly left-leaning students
would reject her arguments about the terrible effects that the hook-up
culture has on young women and the positive effects of traditional
religion and morality on young women's well-being. Instead, my students
ate up her critique and were fascinated by her descriptions of modesty
as a virtue, especially within the context of faith. One student said
that she felt empowered to stop tolerating vulgar remarks about sex
made by peers in her presence."
Freitas notes the disconnect between these students' ideals of romantic dating and their practice of casual sex. Why the disconnect? How to counteract that? "The question remains, though, why students who feel bad about hooking
up, who wish their peers would act less casual about sex and who dream
of living with at least some restrictions on their sexual relationships
then choose to act as they do. The answer lies in community. Most
campuses do not provide an environment where acting on romantic
desires, rather than sexual ones, is feasible. It takes a village to
set standards for dating."
Hmm, I'm not crazy about the whole "it takes a village" to do anything, be it setting dating standards or raising children. Who then, to raise the bar on dating, romance, interactions between men and women?
Clearly many colleges are eager to distribute condoms and safe sex advice, but unwilling to distribute anything that recommends abstaining from or delaying sex. It's OK for them to espouse areligious, secular "values" (uncommitted sex, sexual experimentation) but it's not OK to espouse any religious values about sexuality, even those shared by virtually all of the world's religions.
This means that student organizations such as The Anscombe Society and True Love Revolution are so vital to spreading their message to their peers. I see them as being part of what Pope Benedict calls the "creative minority" who eschew the "strange consensus of modern existence," and who exemplify another, more positive way to live.
Ladies (and gentlemen) who are college students, I'm wondering what your experiences have been with college dormitories, whether co-ed or single sex. I'm curious after reading this article in the Boston Globe that more colleges are offering "gender neutral" (mixed sex) dorm rooms. "Now, some colleges are crossing the final threshold, allowing men and women to share rooms. At the urging of student activists, more than 30 campuses across the country have adopted what colleges call gender-neutral rooming assignments, almost half of them within the past two years."
Being an old-school person, I don't think much of this idea. I think there are benefits to separating the sexes, especially for what are essentially the private aspects of one's life (sleeping, showering, using the bathroom). I think it also flies on the face of biology, not recognizing that sexual urges are pretty strong in this age group. Why would you even want to put students in that position? College administrators seem to think that having dorms segregated by race and ethnicity is good, but segregation by sex is not. Inconsistent, no?
I went to Smith, a women's college, so obviously I have no clue what co-ed dorms are like. I know I wouldn't have been comfortable in a co-ed bathroom or co-ed dorm floor. Readers and fellow MZ bloggers, what are your experiences? Does your college have same-sex as well as co-ed dorms? Do you/did you have a choice? What did you choose and why?
What do Girls who have Gone Wild grow up to be? If they're like Ashley Alexandra Dupré, they become high-priced hookers whose clients include men like ex-Governor Eliot Spitzer. Although Dupré's involvement in a high end prostitution ring has been widely publicized since the story broke on March 12th, it was revealed only a few days ago that she also participated in numerous Girls Gone Wild videos back in 2003.
When questioned by the Palm Beach Post (at the time) why she was performing in these videos, Dupré explained, "You might as well show off what you have before you don't have it any more!" She then went on to say, "It's not stupid to do it (take off your clothes for GGW). It's all fun and games."
After the news of her encounters with the former governor broke, Dupré confided to a friend, "I just don’t want to be thought of as a monster." The reality is, though, Dupré's actions since as far back as 2003 may have had monstrous effects on countless families and marriages because although Dupré claims that making a Girls Gone Wild video is "all fun and games" pornography can be just as damaging to a relationship as prostitution. (Of course the men that participate in pornography and prostitution are responsible in their own right.)
While Dupré is correct that the body loses its appeal through the aging process, what counts most-- a good character and moral compass--can and should get better with time. Let's hope that Dupré figures that out before she loses those parts she loves to show off and finds herself left with nothing.
My last post on this blog discussed the on-line news and culture magazine, slate.com, and one piece published there where the writer declares that she is not a prude after admitting to being disturbed by an overly sexualized movie advertisement.
I could not help but post another "I am not a prude" citing on slate.com. In a recent piece published about the governor of New York being caught in a prostitution ring, the writer discusses the history of prostitution and the law. After listing the arguments that support the illegality of prostitution, she writes, "You don't have to be a moralist or a prude to buy the argument for banning prostitution."
What is this with prudes and slate.com? Is it a coincidence that both writers are women? Are women more afraid of being viewed as prudes than men?
A friend of mine has a daughter with Down Syndrome, and she recently sent me this video which I thought was very well done.
Here's what my friend wrote: For the record, I'm personally 'pro-choice'. Though I feel strongly that when it comes to Down syndrome, the whole notion of 'choice' has been virtually eliminated and replaced with fear and inaccurate information. Parents should be given the opportunity to make an educated choice. The medical establishment has not allowed that to happen. The overwhelming majority of people with Down syndrome live happy, healthy, productive and long lives; even those babies with DS who are born with major heart defects go on to thrive. Parents need to know this BEFORE they make their choice.
I fear that a generation from now, there will be no people with Down syndrome. And this trend will only serve to facilitate more prenatal testing, and a desperation to eliminate all differences or exceptionalities.
The world will be a much less beautiful and compassionate place as a result. To me, a poignant reminder of that "other" kind of modesty: knowing our own limitations, while not rushing to assume that we know other people's.
The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (CBLPI) is challenging young college women to get as many of their college friends as they can to sign up to receive a free copy of the “Luce Ladies” 2008 calendar. “The Lady with the most names wins an authentic, cedar-lined hope chest filled with $1000 worth of fantabulous stuff for her future marriage – and a $500 contribution toward the big day.”
What a brilliant idea!
During a month when The Vagina Monologues insult women (and men) across the nation, and New York City health officials tell city-dwellers to “get some” through a mass condom distribution campaign, CBLPI is encouraging women to set their sights (and hearts) on marriage instead of sex.
Common misconceptions about medieval marriage law and customs associate hope chests and dowries with women being devalued as property. In reality, these traditions carried with them no such degradation. Hope chests were simply used to store the hand-made goods and other items that a woman wished to bring to her future marriage. Essentially, a hope chest was part of her preparation for those first couple years of marriage, and, as the name suggests, symbolized her hope in marriage.
I actually think it a shame this tradition has died out. Many of the happiest couples I know, be they newlywed or not, admit that much of their marital happiness is due to being dedicated to their spouse, even before knowing who their spouse would be. In other words, before marriage (and sometimes even before meeting their future spouse) they would pray for him/her, and certainly they would save themselves sexually for him/her.
Their love for and fidelity to each other did not start upon saying “I do,” but was rather developed and strengthened long before then. A hope chest could very easily assist such spousal commitment by orienting a young woman’s thoughts and heart in that direction. The more she thinks about her future husband and prepares for life with him, the less likely she will be to get distracted from this goal through casual relationships. Her hope chest would serve as a reminder of her future husband and their life together, thereby strengthening her love and commitment to him.
Whether you can participate in this competition or not, I propose we follow CBLPI’s lead. Let’s help young women hope for happy and stable marriages in the future by preparing well for marriage today.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
