thoughts on the "true love revolution"



chastity-belt

I suppose it was inevitable.

After years of the Ancient Eight and their siblings flaunting their sexuality—H-Bomb, Boink, Squirm, Quake, Chloe does Yale, SexandtheIvy, KissandtellKate, Porn ‘n Chicken, Yale Sex Week, and the occasional naked party—we now have backlash in the form of True Love Revolution, the Harvard group promoting abstinence as a “positive alternative for personal and health reasons.”

Now, gentle reader, before you paint me a brazen hussy demanding nookie from every National Honor Society joinin’, soup kitchen volunteerin’, Speech and Debate winnin’, perfect SAT scorin’ guy and gal out there—I’m down with virginity. Really. Truly. Honestly.

Not ready for making the beast with two backs? Religiously committed to saving your maidenhead for matrimony? Simply wanting to take a break from the heady emotional rush that comes from flagrante delicto? Then I support you. How could a sex-positive person not support someone waiting for one of the best pleasures of life until they are emotionally ready? Sex ain’t sweet unless you’re all there, right?

However, no matter what the Crimson-ed pedigree, I am not down with emotional manipulation—or with tying virginity into some way medieval idea about female “worth”. When I hear stories about True Love Revolution doing this:

Harvard student Rebecca Singh said she was offended by a valentine the group sent to the dormitory mailboxes of all freshmen. It read: “Why wait? Because you’re worth it.

“I think they thought that we might not be ‘ruined’ yet,” Singh said. “It’s a symptom of that culture we have that values a woman on her purity. It’s a relic.”



Or, like TLR member Janie Fredell, writing editorials in The Harvard Crimson opining like this:

“The woman who succeeds in resisting this temptation is she whose sex appeal transcends her sexual aptitude. Such women boast the intelligence necessary to make healthy life decisions, the charm to win the attention of men without promise of physical compensation, the maturity to acknowledge the difference between love and lust, and the confidence to demand the former in situations where they are pressured to compromise themselves for the latter.”


I have to wonder what the real agenda of the “True Love Revolution” is, and how sex-positive the group really isn’t.So, Janie—women (and where are the men—are they a lost cause?) who don’t choose abstinence are unintelligent, immature, and insecure? Really?

Interestingly enough, Janie points out at the beginning of her op-ed that virginity “is a much simpler means of garnishing male attention.” Yet later on in the article, she claims that “true sexiness” comes from understanding she does not need male affirmation. Erm, say what? Even the title of her op-ed, “Abstinence: The New Pink?” suggests an argument for abstinence expressly tied to image. The subtext of Janie’s message is that “girls who don’t” will get the right man, and “girls who do” are destined for a life of spinsterism and an apartment full of cats. Just a teensy scratch on that pro-woman veneer and it’s evident that some Ozzie and Harriet ideas about women having sex are still alive and kicking, even amongst the Cambridge set. Quite frankly, that’s pretty darned troubling.

I hope, for TLR’s sake, that they aren’t promoting an ideology that implicitly puts down people who make different—but valid—decisions about their personal sex lives. It would be awfully archaic, and heaven knows that we sex-positives have enough trouble combating the crap spewed by Focus on the Family.

Can’t acceptance, not abstinence, be the new pink?

- posted Apr 2, 12:18 in pennivy-league sex-sex-sex

Comments

  1. Mikey Mongol, Apr 2, 15:21:

    But if we accept everyone, who do we look down on?

  2. Oscar the Observer, Apr 3, 11:45:

    Hey,
    Do you know movie “40 Days and 40 Nights”? I watched it once. LOL, I know it may have stupid plot or whatever but at least the basic idea behind is that a guy is too addicted to his penis that he had to stop having sex for 40 days. Why not make abstinence be just a phase for some people when THEY themselves need a break for WHATEVER reason they want? NOT to force-push an ancient useless idea of virginity for a man’s ownership but a personal choice?
    I personally do NOT want to be without sex but am without since I am separated at this moment. However, I am not going nervous panicky etc etc for sex but will take my time and have sex WHENEVER it comes up. Is that abstinence or simply being cool with life?
    You did a great post :). Love your optimistic view.

  3. tom paine, Apr 7, 07:26:

    It’s funny how gays try to manipulate bisexuals, bisexuals try to convert hets, the frummies pressure the sluts, the sluts say they’re better than the virgins. Yawn.

  4. Angela, Apr 7, 07:50:

    Tom, it’s not so much that the sluts say they’re better than the virgins. It’s that they know better. So long as there are women manipulating men while denying them sex, there will be bad girls ready to fill the gap, be it as easy sluts or sex workers.

  5. Ruby, Apr 8, 16:47:

    Bravo! What a refreshing take on virginity. You’ve inspired a new post for me, as a matter of fact. Thanks:)

Commenting is closed for this article.