thoughts on the "true love revolution"
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?
Birth control woes: the price is higher at American universities
So CNN reports that the price of birth control at college—even generic birth control—will double or triple in the next few months, as a Medicaid incentive program ends and contraceptive manufacturers lose the incentive to offer the Pill on the cheap. The overall price of maintaining a contraceptive regimen could be an additional few hundred dollars for the average college chica.
No fan of safety nets myself, I can’t chastize the government for taking cost-cutting measures—when appropriate. Yet I can’t see how this is going to save taxpayers money in the long run. So now women who can’t afford foolproof contraceptives are just supposed to “manage”? While I’m sure many of us will get along just fine, there’s just that much more risk for someone to slip through the cracks, experience an unwanted pregnancy, and then raise a child without the benefit of a college education to help pay the bills. Isn’t that more of a drain on our economy than $8-a-month Yasmine or Seasonale?
What do you think?
(Oh, and PS, this is definitely happening at Penn. Last time I checked, generic birth control was about 6 simoleons more expensive than last years’ offerings. While that’s chump change to many Penn students, that cost per month isn’t trivial to many other Penn kids.)
ETA: Feministing has a write up of the rise in birth control costs—check it out, the debates are always interesting to observe.
Also, Feministing reports that Republican Senator Daniel Patrick of Texas is offering $500 for women to give up their babies for adoption instead of aborting them. $500 is the price tag that this man would put on the arduous, thankless task of pregnancy and childbirth? I guess according to Patrick that women’s bodies are for sale—and that our price is veritably worthless. A sickening move from the party of “moral values.”
la ronde, and around, and around
My friend and fellow sex blogger Mikey Mongol attended the iNtuitons student production La Ronde with me last night—we were there to rah-rah (and ogle) a mutual friend, who was fabulous and genuine in her performance. The play is a 19th century German send-up about sex, lies, and syphilis, complete with poignant social commentary and more than a little simulated rumpy-pumpy. Yet as awesome as La Ronde was, Mikey and I found ourselves de-constructing the “fourth wall”—the tittering audience.
Mikey, a Penn outsider, was fascinated by the laughter during the sex scenes—the porn-like cartoonish Reverse Cowgirl scenes, the tender lovemaking, the (super hot, may I say) full frontal action – all of which were met by a cacophony of giggles and guffaws from our fellow observers. He theorizes that we laugh because we recognize our fellow jiggly, awkward sex selves—it’s the dawning realization that real sex ain’t glamorous that produces the cognitive dissonance of laughter. As they say, I’m down wit dat. Who can re-create Debbie Does Dallas in the privacy of their own homes? Heck, you could be Gisele Bundchen and still do this totally weird thing with your upper lip when you orgasm. It happens, it’s embarrassing, and embarrassing happens to be funny.
But could we also laugh because we’re uncomfortable seeing our Penn colleagues in flagrante delicto?
I mean, I’ve got no problems objectifying the cast members (and hoo boy, were they sexy mofos!) but I know it’s gonna be awkward if we’re, say, in line to make copies at Van Pelt and I can’t stop thinking about how pretty _____ looked in her Cosabella lingerie, or about how expertly _____ executed that reverse pile driver. I’m OK with ogling, all right with lusting—but to transfer that to the people who sleepwalk through 10 AM classes with me? Like, totally weird!
Call it a mother/whore complex, if you will. Or an experimental student theater/plain old Penn student complex. How do you reconcile campaigning for free sexual personhood and then getting all weird when you run into those totally free sexual people at Starbucks? Is this just a product of living in a compartmentalized society, or is it deeper than that—something more intrinsic in the human psyche?
At Yale, Getting Clean Was Never This Dirty
When it comes to hanky panky in the Ivy League, Yale’s got the rest of the Ancient Eight beat. Look at the evidence: compared to the rest of us with our pithy little erotica mags, they’ve got Chloe does Yale, nude calendars, Porn ‘n Chicken, Sex Week, pasty-studded screenings of mainstream porno Pirates. Their housing of Adonis-in-his-own-mind Aleksey Vayner certainly ruins their cred, but I’ve always thought of Yale as a “New Haven” for sex. (I hereby apologize for any more bad puns in this article.)
Which is why I’m more than a little surprised to read about Yale College Master Jon Holloway penning a rather prude-y missive, alerting Calhoun College dorm residents about a 90 minute sex sesh that took place in the community showers the morning before. Calhoun warns the students thusly:
“Several times since the start of the spring term some Hounies have come across a couple having the time of their lives in a shower stall. Last night the shower flooded and the bathroom could not be used for over 90 minutes. To the as yet unidentified couple, this may be pleasureable and exciting for you but it is a violation of community standards.”
I’ve gotta say, I can’t completely disagree with Calhoun here. As much as the idea of the old in-and-out in the school showers sounds hot, flooding the bathroom for your fellow students sounds about as sexy as a pap smear at Student Health. (Which is to say, not.) Fucking in plain sight of other students—also not cool. As the BDSM community is wont to say, exposing other unwilling individuals to your kink is the manners equivalent of punching Emily Post. Bottom line—in this situation, the kids screwed up their screwing.
My question, though, is this—if the Calhoun couple kept it in their stall and didn’t necessitate a plumber to clean up after them, would they still have been wrist-slapped? Do dorm officials get to go all en loco parentis on these frolicking fornicators? Yale’s a private school and can do whatever they want, but why not focus on, uh, research, instead of policing what goes on in your undergrads’ pants?
I’m sure the blogosphere will weigh in over the next few days, but I’m curious—in college and out, where and when is sex OK outside the bedroom?
wharton = slavery? paging kanye west!
The Yes Men, a leftist anti-globalization group, wrote this satirical article about a faux Wharton conference on “compassionate slavery,” where “private stewardship” is promoted as the next “great hope” for the African poverty crisis.
This wouldn’t necessarily be news—after all, The Onion writes shit like this all the time—except for this strange disclaimer on the Wharton African Business Forum webpage:.
Please note:.
A panelist for the Wharton Africa Business Forum misrepresented himself as being affiliated with the World Trade Organization (WTO). Based on that misrepresentation, the individual was invited to speak at the Forum, which was held on November 11, 2006 in Philadelphia. As soon as the conference organizers realized the misrepresentation perpetrated by this individual, the other panelists were immediately informed. Neither the conference organizers nor The Wharton School had or has any association with the individual nor do they endorse the individual’s views..
Regards,
Executive Team
Wharton Africa Business Forum.
Hmmm. Were the Yes Men trying to pull a Borat?
As much of an Ayn Rand readin’, NAFTA lovin’ capitalist as I am, if this KKK-inspirin’ parody rally had made it into the Huntsman ivory tower, I’d like to think that my Wharton colleagues wouldn’t be laissez-faire enough to promote human bodies for sale. But then again—and what would this blog be without some tongue-in-cheek Wharton snark—why would those blood suckin’ capitalists give a crud about human trafficking? After all, those kids have already sold their souls.
formulaic fatale
So I got my first big-azz media attention thanks to the boys over at IvyGate, who lampooned my header alongside sex columnist Miriam Datskovsky's and Jessica Cutler's as "formulaic." (Lena Chen, mah pal over at Sex and the Ivy, didn't get mentioned because, as an Asian, she actually has mad web design skills. [Just joshin' ya, Lena. I kid because I love].)
Getting mentioned, naturally, led to an Existential Crisis. Because gosh darn it, those IvyGate boys are right!
I'll readily admit to being part of an old meme (although I did found Quake back in the good ol' days of April 2005, which means I was just riding the H-Bomb train along with everyone else.) Why don't men in the Ivies ever opine about sex? Are there any male collegiate sex bloggers out there? Please, I'd like to know. But what-eva, I don't think sex can ever get boring. So I'll keep writing about kinky sex. And politics. And guys who dress up like terrorists for Halloween. And my crazy family. There's nothing new under the sun, kids. Nothing new.
But seriously, forks, I'm flattered to get noticed by IvyGate. Especially when they brought such comedy gold as Aleksey Vayner to the world. Now that, my friends, will never be old meme.
amy gutmann gets a little jihad on us, moral outrage ensues
It seems that the very same conservatives who worshiped Danish cartoonists last year can't understand the joke when it's told on American soil, in conjunction with the "leftist" Ivy League cabal.
IvyGate and The Spin have excellent recaps of the story, but for those of you who don't get high off of Ivy League blogs, here's the deal: Saad Saadi, a Penn senior, went to Penn prez Amy Gutmann's casa for her annual Halloween party dressed as a suicide bomber. Amy (who poses for pictures with almost everyone at the party, may I add, and usually only gets a millisecond of face time with each student in her crowded-ass backyard) poses in the above picture with Saad. Moral outrage from the right ensues. Oh noes, an Ivy League president made the choice of honoring a student's right to free expression for one second in his bid for transgressive, ironic, and timely humor! Alert the Internet!
The buzz is that Bill O'Reilly will be righteously indignant about those darned liberal Ivy League colleges on his show tonight. This is the same Bill O'Reilly who decried the "Islamofascists" and saluted the Danish for their bravery when they chose to scrawl cartoons satirizing the prophet Mohammed in a transgressive, ironic, and timely manner.
So dressing up as a suicide bomber for the purposes of irony (and a photo with a known left winger) isn't kosher, yet a cartoon published by a Danish conservative newspaper mocking Islam is to be defended? Sounds to me like some conservatives are (dare I say it?) "flip-flopping" with their version of free speech rights when it is politically expedient. They are completely ignoring the true conservative principle that there should be no taboos, no sacred cows, when it comes to speech in our society. Gutmann may be a liberal, but I"ll argue that shes acting more libertarian right now than O'Reilly and the peanut gallery at the Democracy Project are at the moment.
Gutmann's detractors are saying things like, "Well, what if someone went to the party dressed as Hitler? What about that?" My response is the same: if Halloween is a time when transgression is A-OK, than nothing can be sacred. At different times in our history, different costumes would hit a cultural nerve. Personal distaste is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is whether or not Gutmann is dishonoring the University by associating with Saad. I would argue that she isn't.
To be sure, as much as we should honor free speech rights, honoring free speech also means allowing detractors the right to disagree. I would fully understand the conservatives right now if this picture had been snapped, say, on any day outside of October 31st, and Amy had gotten a little too chummy with Saad. However, Amy's responsibility that night was to be a respectful host to her students, and Penn's free speech code is ranked one of the best in the nation by FIRE, the free speech watchdog. If Amy is representative of the University, and the University honors student's rights to total free speech, what would it say about that standard if she had thrown Saad out of the party? I imagine the very same conservatives whom are boo-hoo'ing Amy right now for their own political gain would be siding with Saad. (I'm looking at you, Alan Kors.)
True conservatism means sticking by the First Amendment even when it means you can't make a cheap shot with morally superior invective. Unfortunately, I doubt O'Reilly and his fan club will ever get that memo.
clearly, the daily pennsylvanian is on a roll
In today's Daily Pennsylvanian, op-ed columnist Gabe Oppenheim calls out the University for its shameful non-response to sexual harassment and rape on campus.It's an amazing piece, and even cooler that such a necessary calling out has come from an XY chromosomed member of our campus. Bravo, Gabe!
curt weldon outs anonymous sources!
My Penn friend and Daily Pennsylvanian reporter Stephen Morse, who brought us that infamous Dan Savage interview ("Carl Romanelli should be hit by a truck," anyone?) has done it again, this time with his stunning interview of Republican PA congressman Curt Weldon. In the course of the interview, Curt rather shockingly leaks the names of the "anonymous sources" in the current FBI investigation about him. Weldon alleges that Melanie Sloan, the executive director for CREW, is the main source that spurred the FBI's investigation.
I'm amazed at the citizen-journalism potential of avenues like Youtube. Do you think Curt Weldon would have released as much shocking information if the interviewer wasn't a college reporter with a shaky camera? Stephen got Curt off the cuff, and the results are not only fascinating, but instantly accessible to everyone with Internet access and political interest.
a zygote's a zygote, no matter how small?
There's been a bit of a brouhaha lately on my campus surrounding a controversial ad campaign by Penn for Life, the pro-life organization of the University of Pennsylvania. The advertisement, which depicts a bifurcated cell named "Elena," ends with the tagline, "A Person's A Person, No Matter How Small." The original copy for the ad includes a child's handwriting and pictures of stars, cars, and other "childish doodles":
Now, I'm perfectly fine with and respect peoples' ethical arguments against abortion (even though I'm pro-choice), but this emotional manipulation -- this equating a two day old fetus with a grown child -- just rings inappropriate.
With this dubious logic, social conservatives can argue that we should ban emergency contraception -- after all, isn't an unimplanted zygote an "abortion"? I realize this is a slippery slope, but the argument could go further. Why not ban contraception, for instance, which prevents ovulation but can also prevent implantation? Is a zygote a "person, no matter how small"?
After the scan was made available on Livejournal, my friend/Photoshop expert Mike VanHelder created this brilliant parody of the ad:
You can say we Philadelphians lack class, but you can't say we're sans snark.
