Chaste people have libidos?...Go figure!!

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.

Comments

[Caroline]

First of all, this post should win an award for one of the best titles ever.

But I read the article in question and I agree that it did seem rather gossip-y for a report on campus movements to promote chastity. Interestingly enough, it also portrayed Ms. Fredell as rather naive and Mr. Keliher as almost more wordly...perhaps this was also due to sexism on the journalist's part.

[Thomas Babcock]

Oh! I am SHOCKED, shocked! that there is gambling...Ooops, no, that is at Rick's.

I am shocked that a writer for the New York Times, of all places, would allow his preconceived conclusions to determine how he used his sources to direct us to juvenile interpretations, rather than allow his sources to guide him to well-conceived or thoughtful conclusions. Your blog brings out the obvious, that we are all susceptible to the stimuli around us, and the difference lies in how we behave in response to these stimuli. What amazes me is that Randall Patterson can be so superficial in his writing, that he misses even the most basic truisms about human nature. He miss the obvious implications about how conscience guides human behavior. He appears so quick to find quotes to support his attitudes, that he ignores what I would assume should be a basic principle in journalism, to seek out the "inform"ation that can allow one to make "inform"ed and reasonable interpretations.

[K.]

How bad is it, that I'd rather read this than the article in question? No doubt it's more informative.

Heaven forbid that chaste people actually want to have sex someday! People confuse the words chaste and virginity with prude all the time--majority don't understand that chaste is actually saying yes as well as no.

When you're saying no, you're saying no to sexual encounters that may leave their mark on you emotionally as well as physically. Saying no to sex right now just means you have the option of saying yes when you're in the safety of a monogamous, committed relationship and can express yourself sexually without fear of contracting some irreversible disease.

I just happen to think that there's merit in waiting, whether it's for marriage or not.

[Larrisa]

I'm afraid that I find the use of "conventional" and "unconventional" feminism a little offputting in your blog. Firstly, it doesn't seem very "modest" to make a gross generalization that certian groups of feminists actively seek out sex and sexual partners as some sort of public expression of thier feminism. I have studied the women's history for about three years now and I certainly can say that no feminist authors perscribe that all women should seek out such behavior. Even the most radical feminists beleive in the individual choice wheather that be sex or not.
Also I really think the contrast of the sexual motivations of pro-abstinence groups do provide does provide the kind of "shock" journalism that illuminates the personal power of these individuals. And certianly we can rail on this author for "bias" but surely we have praised others who are just as guilty of such things for illuminating the "facts." The magic of language is in the way it is loaded and manipulated and presented even if it is a "simple fact"

[Rofigo de la Mancha]

I actually read the article in question.

It's not actually that bad. Yes, there were parts that seemed to be more published gossip than "journalism"; however, for the most part, I got the sensation that the author was truly intrigued by the subject matter, and not in a condescending way.

I myself may wish to start or help run an abstinence program when I start college this fall. I don't plan on refusing to support gay, transgenger, or bisexuals, either. I'm not going to use religion as any sort of backing both because I'm not religious, and because using religion for ANY stance destroys credibility since one's religion is not necessarily universal across the whole of humanity.

If anything, I'm a humanist. I want to have a banner (for my club) of "Leave your misanthropy at the door" because an abstinence support group shouldn't be about devaluing those who don't wait, but rather, simply offering support to those who wish to. (True) self-respect doesn't come at the cost of another's.