« Dress Codes Being Enforced/ Parents Complain | Main | Is Metrosexual Man History? »

April 30, 2008



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.


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.


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.