"Sexuality, Integrity and the University"--the Name Tag Stays On

Hello!  My name is Patricia and I'm a student at the University of Toronto. I met Wendy Shalit after reading her book and was motivated to start a new group on campus, but more on that later!

For now I want to report on the weekend conference organized by the Anscombe Society at Princeton University, which I attended last month:

    While returning to Toronto I  was startled  when an airport security guard called me by name. “How does he know my name?” I remember, hyperventilating, until I realized that the guard had read my name from the conference tag from the day before.

      He may not have been able to read the finer print of my conference name tag: “Sexuality, Integrity, and the University” but I wish he had. I could have told him about one of the best experiences of my life.  First, I noticed that people at Princeton cleverly match their socks with their overcoats and live in Hogwart-ish buildings (sadly, I did not see any bats or owls).  I observed a great deal of layering and accessorizing among the ladies which produced some of the most modest- and elegant- styles I have seen. More importantly, like Wendy Shalit’s writings, which were the first to make me seriously question the sexual mores of our society, the Princeton conference exposed the false promises of freedom in the hook-up culture.  Exposed and debunked them.  

            Mary Eberstadt of the Hoover institution began by explaining the current hush-hush about the pitfalls of the sexual revolutions as the “will to disbelieve”.   I became a believer that night. Why had I ever disbelieved? I couldn’t answer that question without the help of Professor George of Princeton University who explained that “culture influences conduct”.   I agreed, wondering if without conduct one can talk about culture at all.  I also remember questioning whether we can we influence culture. I saw an answer before me in the person of Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, who is an influence if I ever saw one.  She is living proof, as Professor George so eloquently stated, of  our uncanny ability to think and articulate: in season and out of season. 

    Bradford Wilcox, Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia had a “friendly giant” presence and an ability to make logic and scientific inquiry human.  His presentation on the negative impact of pre-marital sex and cohabitation on marriages was fantastic. I was surprised to learn that cohabitation before marriage can increase chances of divorce by 33-151 percent. I had never heard these statistics before. Maybe that is why we are living in times of Fragile Families (a must read study). Perhaps the greatest insight from Wilcox was this: cohabitation is not a clear, public commitment (like marriage), which means less trust in the relationship which means that when marriage happens; it is more likely to fail.  

            I was also uplifted when I was reassured that I had a soul. As professors Laura Garcia of Boston College and  Christopher Toffelson of the University of  Carolina explained,  behind this flesh is the intellect and will.  Garcia made a point which I think could be a starting point for discussion on every campus: is pre-drinking before hook-ups a deliberate separation of body and soul? How can we tolerate this? Can we? To those that are convinced that men cannot function without sex, I offer Tofellson’s idea of plasticity: sexual appetites can be melded by our desire to respect our beloved and ourselves.  This is a radical definition of masculinity.  Gentlemen, take note!

            Ladies, step into the office of Dr. Miriam Grossman.  Don’t worry, she won’t give you condoms,  Prozac or pat you on the back after you’ve had your heart broken again.  She will tell you the truth. For starters, the “politically incorrect” hormone oxytocin is the reason women can’t suppress the strong emotional attachment towards men they’ve had sex with.  In fact, as Dr. Grossman warned with genuine concern, we should be careful hugging for more than 20 seconds. After that, our brains release trust inducing hormones which affect our judgment.  I recall that the smartest in the crowd quickly calculated “that still leaves 19 seconds!” To which we all laughed, but quickly grew silent--realizing that something much greater than hugs is at stake.

            What is that great thing? It is love, which needs our defense.  That is the secret of the conference which cannot be held hostage any longer. We must be bold.  We must break the confines of the liberal university education and follow the lead of the great minds who have taken this stand.  On my end, I will keep my conference name tag “pinned” to everything I wear.  From now on, I think as I smile to myself, it is the wardrobe accessory, proclaiming "human relationships are back in style!"

Comments

[Summer Lashley]

How can I get more information about this conference? I work in Student Life at a University and would love to attend this conference.

[Patricia]

Hi Summer,
The Anscombe Society:http://www.princeton.edu/~anscombe/

and the Love and Fidelity Network:
http://www.loveandfidelity.org/

[dominik]

Summer, the conference already happened.

Details here:
http://www.loveandfidelity.org/conference.html

Hopefully they'll post videos soon.

[Eve]

I found your article very interesting, especially the plasticity idea is intriguing. I do not see to much evidence of men making much effort to control or mold their desires. It would be interesting to hear a male perspecive on this. Were there many men at the conference and what's their reaction?

[Patricia]

Hi Eve,
That's a good question. I'd say the conference was half male, half female. Unfortunately I can't offer you a male perspective. If I'd have to guess by attendance, I'd say plasticity is a possible for both sexes.

[Marnia Robinson]

Casual sex has hidden costs, but oxytocin is not the enemy. Oxytocin is what makes love, friendship, love of God, and even affection for pets possible. It also increases plasticity in the brain, which may actually helps us forget former romantic attachments and accommodate to new ones. (See psychiatrist Norman Doidge's book, "The Brain that Changes Itself.")

We need not fear nurturing or healthy affection with the opposite sex. Both are nourishing. The danger is in not understanding how sex itself affects the brain. In this regard, this article might be interesting: http://www.reuniting.info/science/sex_in_the_brain

Obsessing about a partner is painful, but it is partly a function of being a pair-bonding mammal. We humans are molded to find the loss of a mate painful. The more centered and balanced we are in the rest of our lives, the better we can cope.

Love is not dangerous. And marriage will not necessarily protect us against the workings of our biological mating program, which actually urges us to fall in love madly, and then habituate to a partner and long (often) for a new one. There's a very ancient solution to this problem, but it calls for a different way to manage sex itself.

[Rofigo de la Mancha]

Thank you, Marnia, for phrasing so much better than me what I feel myself.

Oxytocin is not the enemy. It is the reason we seek love in the first place. It is that beautiful "morning after" feeling between two lovers, after a night of steamy passion. For me, it is that hug where I don't want to let go, and worry that she wants to stop... but find that she doesn't want to let go either. It felt like we just stood there, locked in affection, for what seemed like 15 straight minutes (which long in "real-time" romance).

I'm not with her anymore, but I won't forget what that feels like. And it's moments like that, that fuel my efforts to seek out and welcome romance, not hide from it. Am I picky/cautious about who I give such moments to? Yes. But it's quite okay to let them happen with the right person.