Her.meneutics: The Downside of Hooking Up

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

Twitter feed

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

Free Newsletters

more newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« First Dalit Woman Elected to India Parliament | Main | Redeeming Twitter »

June 16, 2009

The Downside of Hooking Up

The message of 'female sexual liberation' comes with a cost.

Christine A. Scheller

In 1980, Roger Ebert reviewed a coming-of-age movie called Little Darlings. The movie starred Tatum O'Neil and Kristy McNichol as summer campers who embark on a bet to see who can lose their virginity first. Kristy was taught by her mother that sex is nothing more than a biological function. About her on-screen deflowering, Ebert wrote this:

"It was not, of course, quite like she expected it to be. She sits quietly in a corner of a deserted summer cottage, her thoughts a million miles away from her teen-age boyfriend. At last she says, "I feel so lonely." The feelings implied in that single line are completely true to the scene and to the character. Kristy is lonely because she has suddenly and rather unhappily passed on from the ranks of pubescent girls. She is now an individual, possessed of the sometimes uncomfortable freedom to make decisions. Sexual intercourse, she tells the boy, "made me feel like you could see right through me." She slept with him for childish reasons, but now, we feel, she will never approach the decision so casually again."

That was nearly three decades ago.

Fast forward to June 2009. NPR reports the now-old news that young people are "hooking up" rather than dating. The reasons, according to "experts" cited in this article, include delayed marriage, fragmented lives that make young people skittish about intimacy, women's sexual empowerment, and social media.

Hooking up reportedly emerged in the 1960s and '70s out of the worst idea ever: co-ed campus housing. Back then it was called casual sex or one-night stands, which stilled carried a stigma, at least for women.

It is the diminishment of female sexual stigma that Jessica Valenti, executive editor of Feministing.com, thinks is the real source of concern in regard to hooking up. Valenti writes, "The message seems to be that the only kind of sex young women can have is dangerous, drunk sex that leaves them disheveled and traumatized. But the thing is, despite what these books and articles are saying - sexually active young women are in fact not diseased, depressed drop outs. They are doing just fine."

Never mind that in 2006, more than one million cases of Chlamydia were reported to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Valenti imagines something "insidious" going on instead. "Almost all of the books and reports written about hook-up culture are done by writers and researchers with ties to conservative or anti-feminist organizations - some are even outright funded by them." She refers to statistics in Miriam Grossman's book Unprotected that indicate that sexually active young women are more likely to be depressed and suicidal. Valenti says these stats come from a study done by the Heritage Foundation, "a conservative think tank that's a strong proponent of abstinence only education."

For her, promoting abstinence automatically invalidates a source, as if some of us haven't been down this road ourselves. She views solutions like early marriage as oppressive, and instead of questioning evolving cultural norms, pushes ahead with the tired message of female sexual liberation.

Ultimately though, Valenti concedes the following: "All of this is not to say that I don't think there's a problem with how oversexualized the media is, or how women and women's sexuality are portrayed in pop culture - I do think that there's a problem. I also think we need to have a serious conversation about sexual assault, rape and alcohol on college campuses - these are issues of sexuality that are immediately dangerous to both young men and women. I even think that there's a lot more we could discuss about hooking up. But let's have that conversation with nuance and realism, and let's certainly have it without an agenda."

I couldn't agree more.

In an interview with U.S. Catholic, Donna Freitas, author of Sex and the Soul, discusses the findings from her extensive research into attitudes toward sex and religion at public, private, evangelical, and Catholic colleges. Freitas found that the only campuses where the hook-up culture was not ubiquitous were the evangelical ones. (Christianity Today also interviewed Freitas in August 2008.)

She says, "To be young and evangelical is really to be immersed and participating in or creating a youth culture. They are young theologians of a sort. They are interpreting Scripture, writing books on dating, overseeing their own faith lives, and holding their peers accountable."

Freitas said, however, that on all campuses, hooking up is far more talk than action. She summarized her findings thusly: "It's not that they [male and female students] don't want to have sex ever or that they want to save sex for marriage - so, parents, don't get your hopes up. But when they have sex, they want to be in love with that person. They want respect. They want someone to know them. They want hundreds of candles lit. And they don't want to get there right away."

In other words, young adults want what Kristy McNichol discovered she wanted in Little Darlings, and what God wanted for Adam, and what we who are parents want for our children. They want a companion, with whom they can be naked and unashamed.

How will we help them get there?

Comments

I think that we help them get there in at least two ways.

First, adults who love kids, youth, and young adults need to be aware of the trends, and even the language, they are facing. "Hooking up," like the word "gay" has come to mean something different in the last few years than it did when I was in college.

Second, I think that we need to be honest with them. I happen to believe that sex has emotional consequences and creates emotional connections. That belief is separate from my belief that sex should not occur outside of marriage. I think that it may be too easy to focus our time on the list of do's and don'ts and not on the why's and how's. I know that when I was in high school and college, I heard a number of lectures, sermons, talks, etc. about the Biblical approach to sex and relationships. But, aside from the whole "sin" perspective, I never heard anyone say, "Whatever you believe about God and His plans, let me give you some other good reasons to remain chaste." I had to learn about the potential for social and emotional damage through experience and observation.

There are very, very good reasons to delay sexual activity and / or remain chaste aside from my belief that it is the Biblical approach to sexuality. My faith says that sex outside of marriage is outside of God's design and a sin. My reason says that sex outside of a healthy relationship leads to emotional wounds from which recovery is difficult, which may also affect other relationships, and subjects youth -- especially women -- to the potential for abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancy. I think that we need to share both our religious and non-religious stance on sexuality.

Well said, LawGirl. Any relation to Christian Lawyer? : )

Gee whiz I was there back in the 70s when co-ed dorms were the up and coming thing at Cornell. I remember doing a talk for some young incoming freshman where I basically said why I thought it was wrong. I did everything short of saying, "Hey I tired it and it doesn't work." Wish I knew where my note cards from that little talk were. It really spoke to the girls. Since then I have learned about soul ties and how sex creates them and how you loose a part of yourself to the one you have sex with.

I agree that sex outside of marriage is wrong and should not be entered into. There is some insight that isn't being addressed that needs to be considered with the churches position and our interpation of the biblical view of sex.
When Mary had Jesus she was most likely a young teenager (13 or 14) most likely. In those days young people married very early in life, because the life expendacy then was in the middle 30's. Grandparents were very rare and by the time a couple reached there 20's they could have several children. The culture has changed we don't marry off our young teenagers. Young people sometimes are in their late 20's and even older before they marry. What hasn't changed is when a person reaches the peak of there sex drive (late teens and early 20's). What the church is asking young people to do, obstain from sex when it is the most difficult to do so! I am not saying that we should change our position on young people having sex. We need to have more of an understanding about how young people living in such a sexually charged culture can resist the pressure to do so!

Is this blog stuck in an episode of Little House on the Prairie or what? The "virgin lips" movement, remembering back to a time "when the word 'rape' would not be said in public," the Quiverfull movement, feminism makes women unhappy, and now, female sexual liberation is dangerous?

The "message of female sexual liberation" is neither "tired," as the article claims, nor the cause of the hookup culture problem, as the headline suggests. What's tired is the decades-old blaming of all the bad things on progress made by women in exercising control over their own lives. There is nothing inherently inconsistent between liberation and responsible decision-making.

Jessica Valenti is right that there is a problem with the over-sexualization of popular culture. But, the answer is not, as the article seems to suggest, a return to the double standards and stigmas of yore. And, Valenti's got a definite point about how concerns coming from the Right often seem to be about young women having too much sex and not so much about the young men. (BTW, how is there anything wrong with being skeptical of "studies" funded by groups with an ideological agenda?)

The answer is to teach young adults how to decide what their values are and what types of relationships those values encompass and then how to make decisions that reflect healthy self-respect and healthy relationships within that value system. For a Christian, that would be faithfulness to that Christian's understanding of Biblical values.

Of course liberation always brings a danger that decisions made with newly-found freedom will be less than ideal, but perpetuating oppression isn't really a viable answer. While there may be a range of opinion, even within the Christian community, on what the ideal decisions are, (even the Amish allow their young people a year "in the world" to figure out whether they want to remain part of the Amish community), how much better is it that young women are choosing the path of their lives rather than being shamed or bullied into it.

How do we get them there? We give every girl a copy of Laid or Loved? The secrets Guys Wish You Knew About Being A Dream Girl Instead of a Just-In-His-Jeans Girl! or send them to surf around www.drjennforgirls.com

I disagree with the statement "But the thing is, despite what these books and articles are saying â€” sexually active young women are in fact not diseased, depressed drop outs. They are doing just fine.â€ Not the girls I talk too! They are confused, scared, ashamed, unhappy, anxious etc. Hooking up is not done with out an emotional price. I hear unhappy girls all the time!

Let's help them! And help our guys too!

Christian Lawyer,

I guess you and LawGirl are not the same person.

The message that women can play the sex game on the same terms as men absolutely is tired and false. It has been since my girlfriends and I first absorbed it in the late 1970s. It is a pseudo-feminist message.

I am certainly not suggesting a return to the stigmas and double standards of yore. Neither am I perpetuating oppression. There is freedom in self-control and self-respect.

I do agree with Valenti that some are simply concerned about women's independence, but she is no more balanced than those she criticizes. It is an irresponsible failure on her part to dismiss the connection between hyper-sexualized media, alchohol use, casual sex, STDs and sexual assault---as if these are unrelated issues.

Your suggestion in the second to last paragraph correlates with what the article ultimately suggests.

Why if you are so often irritated by the contents of this blog do you bother with it?

Christine,

I thought your post was very well argued and written and I appreciate it greatly. My wife recently left me and I have been researching divorce, remarriage, and what marriage should be. while my wife didn't leave for any physical benefits, she left for the emotional side with very significant thoughts of "early marriage as oppressive".

Andrew Vogel

What about teaching BOYS to keep it in their pants? That might help, too...

I like Christian Lawyer's commentary. It's good to read someone who can intelligently point out some of the problems with "evangelical" thinking.

As one who had strong beliefs about sex & marriage, and therefore married at barely 17 years of age, I think I can speak to this in a way that many do not have the practical experience to do. It is true, without a doubt, that the bible clearly teaches that premarital sex is a sin. It is also true that in the past it was common to marry at a much younger age. However, that does not mean we can or should encourage our 13 - 16 year old sons & daughters to get married (its actually illegal in most places, BTW) Having married young to someone totally unsuited for me, which resulted in divorce, I can unabashedly say that I would rather see my children in a stable physical relationship outside of marriage than marry before the age of 21. That is not to say that they should be promiscuous, nor that I teach them to "shack up," but I am also realistic. Frankly, there was a period of time in the bible where a man took a woman to his tent & they were considered married. Such marriages were usually arranged & divorce was not an option, nor were there a plethora of choices available. In today's world, people also mature socially at a much slower rate than in the past. It is a scientific fact that a man's brain is not fully mature until the avg age of 25 & a woman at about 22. The areas of the brain involved are those involving cognitive decision making abilities. It is simply impractical for us to believe that young people today will remain chaste until marriage nor should we encourage them to marry at ages that are impractical. It is fine to encourage abstinence: that is the best policy. But, let us also remember that the situation of the present is so radically different that we cannot set unreasonable goals, which frankly most of us couldn't fulfill ourselves & those that did lived to regret it. We should give the message that it is best to wait, but if you can't, make responsible choices & God loves you even when you fail (and you will, from time to time). What many would like to see would require a radical change in our culture on a scale that I don't see happening until the Lord comes back. As judgmental as we humans tend to be, I think we would be poor administrators of such a "social revolution" as would be required & we probably would not like the result with us in charge.

I have a lot of AMENs for this post, except that I, like a few of the other commenters, am a bit uncomfortable with the implication that women/girls are emotionally more fragile or need some kind of protection that is unique to their sex. I'm not sure that's true. I think there are plenty of girls doing "fine" with hooking up, just as boys are. But the point that it devalues both is important. If we build the argument on the fragility of girls, however, we're setting ourselves up for lots of girls to just say, "I can handle it just fine, so there's no problem." the stronger argument, which IS made, if a bit submerged, is that God calls for holiness in ALL his children.

Which is why I think linking hooking up to co-ed dorms is, well, wrong. Having boys and girls across the hall versus across the quad does not increase sexual activity. The idea that familiarity breeds, well, breeding, is not supportable. If anything, I think the friendships built through close and informal living DISCOURAGE casual sex. But I have no data to support it, just my own experience and sense of it. SO many things have changed in terms of male-female relationships since 1965, let's not lay things at the feet of co-ed dorms just because it rankles.

This is an important piece, however, and I hope we'll keep talking about it.

Good comments. Everything that could be said cannot be said in 600-800 words, which is why respectful discussion helps.

I am by no means advocating for teen marriage. I was married at 21, with a child in tow. I too understand the challenges. The pendulum of social pressure, I think, has swung too far in the other direction.

As to boys, I have raised two. The hook-up culture is no friend to them either. As noted in the conclusion of my post, ultimately they too want to love and be loved. They are no more or less fragile than girls, but girls have the babies and the abortions, etc. It's not an even playing field.

I'd love for this discussion to be about what we can do to help young people make good decisions. I'd love to hear from young adults about their struggles. I'd love to know how we older adults can support them better.

Christine -- Casual sexism, racism and homophobia have consequences, but if no one gets "irritated" at their appearance, they will keep twisting the minds of both perpetrators and recipients.

It's not necessary to attack "liberation" (as the sub-head does) to promote responsible decision-making. It's that completely unnecessary swipe at progress (that recognizes women's worth as full human beings) that is so astonishing (along with the fact there seem to be so many such articles at CT idealizing times/practices when women were less than fully equal). And, that's just as offensive to many women as it was offensive to African-Americans when Trent Lott idealized what life would have been like if Strom Thurmond's segregationist Dixiecrats had succeeded.

Feminists have not been advocating "women can play the sex game on the same terms as men" for a long time. Yes, the "Cosmo-Girl" attitude of some early feminists went well into excess, but that's certainly not what Jessica Valenti and younger feminists are advocating. Helen Gurley Brown, the original Cosmo Girl, is an octagenarian! Seriously, the discussion has moved on.

There was a great episode of Sex and the City over a decade ago that asked -- Can women have sex just like men? The answer was mostly that they could but, except for the irrepressible Samantha, they didn't really want to. They didn't blame their freedom -- they did not choose to be less "liberated" -- they chose to use the freedom they owned to make decisions that were right for them, and, as Valenti noted, such women are doing just fine.

"Yes, we can, but why would we want to" is exactly the conclusion my girlfriends and I reached in the late 1970s. We relished the freedoms we had, but if feminism taught us that (some) men's sexist views about women, and their "use" of women as sex objects, was flawed, why would we want to emulate the flaws, however fun it might be in the short term? (Not to mention it would also violate my personal beliefs about Biblical sexual ethics.) In other words, like LawGirl, I think other reasons exist to encourage people to have responsible sexual relationships (tho' the precise boundaries may be disputed). But, attacking "liberation" just doesn't get you anywhere productive.

Two things that can be done, but which have been obstructed by the Right, are to have safe and affordable access to comprehensive family-planning services and age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education that includes teaching self-respect, respect for partners, and how to make AND implement decisions that comport with your own values.

I agree with Christian Lawyer. We often want to link what we don't like with other issues to make them the same thing. But they rarely are.

Feminism is about recognizing all people (not only women) as having inherent worth (Imageo Dei is how Christians should be thinking about it). There is no Christian way to assert the opposite.

So, CL, this is a balanced statement from Valenti's speech transcript?

"So really, all of this writing and talking about hooking up is about a lot more than just wanting young people to have less sex, or to date more. This is about a return to traditional gender roles - a world where women go to college not to get an education, but to find a husband; a world where women don't really like sex but just do it to have babies. A world where women have no reproductive choices."

Do you really think that everyone who is interested in the sexual health of young people is anti-woman?

I find that difficult to take seriously.

Thank you for this post, Christine. As a Christian young woman, I find myself very much affected by the ramifications of the "hook-up culture," though I would not consider myself part of it. Having recently graduated from a Christian college, I saw another side effect of the hook-up culture; most students weren't going around "hooking up," but they weren't dating, either. Like those quoted in the NPR article, many people rejected the traditional dating model as outdated or even ironic, but without the option of hooking up, the only thing left was a super-serious fast-track-to-marriage relationship, which many of us did not necessarily want. We generally had what I would consider a healthy view of sex but it's getting there that's the problem!

It sounds like when you get down to it you and Christian Lawyer are pretty much coming to the same conclusions. I see nothing in the original post post that advocates shaming or bullying women back into harmful sexual norms. It seems to me that 'sexual liberation' in this case means something wholly different from the type of liberation we ought to be pursuing. I don't think anyone here would argue that men should be, as the SATC girls put it, "having sex like men" either. If we're coming at this from a biblical perspective, sex is something special and ought to be treated as such by BOTH parties involved. This post just deals with the female side because this is, after all, a blog for discussing women's issues.

Laura,

Thank you!

"It's getting there that's the problem."

This is what I wanted to talk about, and what I've seen my sons struggle with.

I was thinking last night that chastity is a lifelong discipline for the Christian. For many, marriage doesn't solve the problem. It involves a lot of suffering, and I'm not primarily thinking of abuse, but of unmet needs, incompatability, illness, etc.

I've been fortunate to have a satisfying marriage, but illness and grief have taken a toll recently. So, I empathize anew with others who suffer in this area.

What helps you manage the unmet desires and why do you think intimacy scares young people?

Christine -- I don't agree with Valenti about everything either, but when she talks about "all of this writing and talking" she's talking about "Almost all of the books and reports written about hook-up culture are done by writers and researchers with ties to conservative or anti-feminist organizations - some are even outright funded by them." She's not talking, as you assert, about "everyone who is interested in the sexual health of young people."

So, with that correction about who Valenti is talking about, yes, I mostly agree with her. In fact, I think it's undeniable that most all of what comes out of the evangelical movement on this has the effect (even if proponents don't intend it that way) of being "anti-women." (Complementarianism, the Purity movement, the Quiverful Movement, the Courtship Movement, the Virgin Lips Movement ...)

Donna Freitas has serious criticism, along with the praise you quote, for Evangelical colleges' response to the hook up culture. The Publishers Weekly review at Christianbook.com, the site you link to, says "Of particular interest is [Freitas's] gender analysis of evangelical purity concepts, which expect young women to be chaste but passive as they wait for Prince Charming." Another Editorial Review there reports Freitas found that "while the shared identity and common values found on evangelical campuses are indeed keys to a healthy college experience, the purity ideal at such colleges is severe. The Christian fairy tale common to these schools creates deep anxiety, particularly for women, who feel they have somehow failed if they donâ€™t find a mate and get their â€œring by springâ€ (by the time they graduate)."

So, almost 30 years after I graduated from college, the MRS degree that some women on my campus talked about seeking has morphed into "a ring by spring." How is that, and the guilt and anxiety among young women reported to go with it, not a push to return to (or stay stuck in) the repression of days gone by? If that's really what's going on at Evangelical colleges, which would be tragically appalling, then it demonstrates that Valenti's quote is pretty much right on target.

Sexism, like racism, is harmful to both the victims and the perpetrators. But we can't fix it if we refuse to even acknowledge the problem.

Christian Lawyer,

Well, I guess then that's where we disagree. I think our hyper-sexualized culture is far more oppressive than evangelical and fundamentalist attempts to deal with it, however clumsy some of them might be.

You also seem to confuse evangelicalism with fundamentalism. Even so ...

I happen to have a good portion of extended family in the quiver-full movement. I don't share their convictions, but they don't seem any less content with their lives than anyone else I know. The women have plenty of power. Don't let the complementarian label fool you.

The purity movement can be problematic if and when it idolizes/idealizes virginity and leads to inordinate guilt. I'll give yout that.

Courtship. My cousins did it. They're fine. Sorry to disappoint.

Your attacks on conservative women are really insulting. At least Valenti concedes that getting married and having babies is a legitimate choice. Your perpspective is every bit as narrow as the one you denounce.

I don't mind a good debate, but what I do mind is an anonymous commenter hijacking thread after thread with insults to the women who write for this blog.

Why don't you tell us something about yourself. What kind of a lawyer are you? Where do you live? Are you married? Do you have children? If so, have you been through the teen/young adults years yet with them? Why do you identify yourself as Christian Lawyer? It says, "I know how to win an argument." Is it designed to intimidate or just a statement of pride in your profession?

Christine, I appreciate your comments about the distinction between evangelicalism and fundamentalism - and that being "conservative" doesn't necessarily mean you're not a feminist.

It's one thing to be forced or brain-washed into thinking it's bad to you kiss someone before marriage, have a career while also raising children, etc... (clearly those are both very good things - although they, i suppose, could be bad, as could anything that's done with bad motivations)

However, some women - after considering their options - decide to live this way, and I don't think this is any sort of set-back to the feminist movement. I am a woman in my early 20s, raised by a college-educated mother, who very well could've had a career outside the home from the time I was born, but instead chose to stay home when my brother and I were little. Now, as an adult, I would consider myself a fairly socially liberal feminist, and I have my mom to thank for a lot of that! While I do want to get married some day, I don't feel any intense guilt or anxiety about having graduated from college without getting my "MRS degree" (although I never heard that term in college, anyway). This is not to say that there is one "right" way for women to have relationships, deal with raising children, etc... only to say that just because a woman chooses a "conservative" route does not mean they're just as liberated as a woman who fulfills the role of the samantha jones (if you will).

Christine, you have nailed Christian Lawyer. She is just a bomb thrower who flies around Christianity Today blogs looking for a fight. Your posts are much more reasonable and productive.

Christine, I think your last comment was way over the top. Yes, Christian Lawyer disagrees with you, but she did not start the flaming, you did. You are definitely the one, especially as the author of the post, that is out of bounds here. Christian lawyer has been here quite a while and if you read the blogs frequently then you can get a fairly good idea of where people are coming from. If you don't want disagreement stop posting. I think she is bringing up some legitimate concerns that you are not addressing.

Thanks, Adam S.

Christine, I wrote entirely about the policy issues raised by your article and nothing about you personally. If you're not willing to be challenged on substance, why do you write?

That some quiverfull folks are happy, and some courtships work out, does not mean the philosophy is any less demeaning to women. After all, some slaves found periods of happiness and showed fruits of the Spirit as well, but they weren't any less enslaved because of it. And, if some women have a sort of power among complementarians, it's of the "behind every good man, there's a good woman" type. Benign misogyny, like benign tyranny, is still misogyny (or tyranny) nonetheless.

If fundamentalists are not to be considered part of evangelicalism, why are there so many posts at CT covering them as if they were? I don't see CT covering Sojourners, or anyone else at the other end of the evangelical spectrum from the fundamentalists, with much other than snarky scorn.

I used "Christian Lawyer" the first time I commented at CT because the post to which I responded concerned a legal issue and the only "Christian" position on it. I offered an alternative as a "Christian Lawyer." Do you object when men post under names such as "Pastor Steve" or "Dr. Bill"? I still use it because I think that's what netiquette calls for so people can, as Adam S. suggests, get some idea of where a commenter is coming from over time. I remain anonymous because it would not be fair to burden my clients with the consequences of my words even if I would be happy to say them publicly.

That you as a professional woman might be intimidated by another professional woman's use of her profession in a pen-name is mind-boggling and certainly not my intent. A professional man would never be so unsure of his worth as to be intimidated like that by another professional man. That you feel that way, I have to say, sadly supports my point about the invidious harm done to women who internalize the notion of female powerlessness inherent in a sexist world-view.

Christian Lawyer:

You seem to possess special powers of divination. Specifically, which parts of scripture to disregard, and which parts to accept. Could you enlighten us less educated rubes as to how one goes about discerning this?
BTW, almost everyone has an agenda, and a POV. Pre-marital sex is proscribed, and that really isn't debatable. Unless one knows which verses to disregard...

CL,

You repeatedly accused me of sexism. That's an insult. It's personal. It's laughable. It is my nature to defend the underdog. In dealing with you, that underdog is the traditional woman.

You don't simply argue substance. Your valid points are regularly wrapped in flaming rhetoric---in this case about misogyny and now slavery. You are actually comparing my seven cousins who've chosen a certain kind of life for themselves to slaves and slave-holders. That's absurd.

As to your final point, I've never been opressed a day in my life, either internally or externally. Nor am I intimidated. You're obfuscating re. my questions about who you are. I ask these questions because it is frustrating to argue with a phantom whose tone is consistently antagonistic.

Having said all that, my conviction is that mutual respect transcends form. Yes, ideas have consequences, but I've seen feminist ideas twisted into abuse as often as traditional ones, by both men and women. I've seen them work beautifully as well. So, honestly, I'm not all that interested in those arguments.

CL and Adam S., I'm sorry to offend.

Before we go round and round in another circle, let me add this. I have in the past and will continue to argue against what I believe is an abheration of feminism and that is Jessica Valenti's message that hooking up is good for women. It's not good for women, for men, for families or for society.

Christine, you claim I "repeatedly accused [you] of sexism." If challenging a policy proposal (or the effects of a policy proposal) = personal attack, how would journalists ever properly challenge a government official? It's really not all about you personally.

It's also not about your cousins, personally, either. I didn't call them "slaves and slaveholders." You offered what you asserted was support for the theory that quiverfull and courtship theology wasn't anti-women, as I had asserted. The proffered "support" was that the quiverfull and courtship folks were happy. My point was that "happiness" could not logically prove the worth of the quiverfull/courtship theology because there are many folks who exhibit happiness (or fruits of the spirit as someone else argued) who still live under political or cultural or religious systems that are anti-women or anti-(pick a racial or ethnic group). Again, challenging the logic of the proof offered to support a theory is simply how a debate properly works, not a personal attack on the proponent.

You might try reading a little about how Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill got on, or how prosecutors and defense lawyers can still be friends even after the zealous advocacy they owe their clients.

I don't think Valenti offers the views you ascribe to her and I believe the antidotes offered in your article are worse than whatever Valenti actually proposes. At least under her view women are free to choose to live their lives conservatively (as I have chosen). Under the programs described by Feitas at the evangelical colleges, "chaste but passive" isn't really any type of freedom that I recognize.

Christine, I am not offended. But I agree, you are taking things personally when they are not intended personally. ChristianLawyer is trying to bring up points and you are trying to make them personal. Maybe the commenting on this post needs to end because clearly there isn't a lot of listening going on. While you have a right to believe as you do, so do others. I claim roots in Evangelicalism, although didn't really claim the title until I went to divinity school at University of Chicago. There Evangelical was usually understood as fundamentalist but I spent time taking on the title to try and bring some alternative understanding of real world Evangelicals. But if I got upset everytime someone made a disparaging remark about evangelicals, the religious right or fundamentalists (or tried to defend all of the actions of others that claimed those titles) I would not have had time to learn anything.

We need to understand that disagreeing does not make the other any less Christian. And disagreement does not necessarily have to end in agreement. Cordial conversations should be the point of these boards. We want to understand different view points. If you think that only people that have the same view as you do should post then the best way to accomplish that is just have closed comments. That is a legitimate way to run a blog. Many good blogs shut down comments so there isn't too much disagreement. But if you want different opinions on an issue then we need to learn how to disagree well and start with the highest opinion on the other, not the lowest. I really don't mean to preach and I know I don't keep that standard all the time. But my hope is that Christian would describe not only the content, but the style of disagreement.

Adam S.,

I agree with you. This discussion long ago ceased to be useful. I disagree with your analysis as to why that is.

I wish you both well.

I was glad to see a post on this topic; I heard the NPR story also and thought it would be worth discussing. I was especially struck by how some of the people interviewed found it more uncomfortable to discuss emotional intimacy or being in love than their sexual activity, that they found emotional intimacy to be a more intimidating prospect. Somehow in giving a more prominent place to sexuality, our culture seems to have diminished its worth. Satisfying our bodies outside of the context of relationship may meet some needs, but is not likely to help us be whole people. It may be a little like the difference between taking a vitamin or eating a nutrition bar on the run versus preparing and enjoying a meal with others. By separating sexuality from relationship, we risk demeaning both sexes by discouraging them from fully expressing their God-given humanity.

I posted here early on, and then didn't have time to get back to the discussion. Looks like I missed a doozy.

I had to re-read Christine's article several times before I could see the points which seem to have prompted Christian Lawyer's first post. My original post was a reaction to what I see as a tremendous failing in the religious community: the failure to provide a "real world" perspective on sexuality. Too much "it's a sin," and not enough "it can feel great but comes with potential for significant harm." I wasn't focused on the deeper themes.

I think that it is unfortunate that the thrust of the original article and the discussion focused on women. To me, the very real physical and emotional dangers of casual sex apply both to men and women. The social stigmas attached to male sexual interaction have also changed, but that wasn't really addressed. Perhaps you didn't mean to, Christine, but by not questioning the impact on the young men and their respective sexual liberation, I think that you invited the questions that CL asked.

In the article, Christine critiqued Valenti by saying:

For her, promoting abstinence automatically invalidates a source, as if some of us havenâ€™t been down this road ourselves. She views solutions like early marriage as oppressive, and instead of questioning evolving cultural norms, pushes ahead with the tired message of female sexual liberation.

I don't see the idea of women's liberation -- whether that liberation be legal, religious, economic, physical, or sexual -- to be tired. And, considering the energy put into the posts here, I'm doubtful that anyone who has posted here really does either.

As a Christian journalist, I found the posts quite helpful in illustrating how easily discussion can be derailed as soon as one starts arguing from emotion rather than logic. I am amazed that a journalist with a forum as large as a Christianity Today-sponsored blog would be unable to logically engage someone who has a differing view, even if that person is a lawyer (i.e., someone who argues for a living). Frankly, the most interesting reading on these blogs are the posts--and CL's are always well-stated enough to merit thoughtful, rather than merely emotional, challenge. I would feel emboldened by a person who was irritated enough by the content of my blog to "bother with it."

This is the first time I've read here. I didn't think the discussion at all lost its usefulness. I was surprised, however, that the blog post author took differing viewpoints so personally.

ChristianLawyer, you rock!

This is a blog for women. Please accept my gratitude for reading what an old manâ€¦has seen for 79 years.

>>We need to have more of an understanding about how young people living in such a sexually charged culture can resist the pressure to do so!>>

It is known as marriage.

A woman can do what she wants to her own body. When that want is done with two bodies...results have consequences..which must be lived with for the rest of the lives of the person..the two persons..and all who are forced to suffer the consequences of their doing what one wants.
God created man and woman...to procreate and live as a family as the scriptures present. Anything other than that is against His marriage plan.

The consequencesâ€¦.are for a lifetime. God loves the sinner. He condemns the sin. He forgive the sinnersâ€¦and says.. go thy way and sin no more.
Repeated sinâ€¦is not given his permissionâ€¦
There are those who will say â€¦..that is old stuff. Yes, however, the truth IS OLD STUFF and does not change.
What people accept may change. That does not make it acceptable to God. (There is that word again.) You will pardon me to think and to do with my own body and soulâ€¦as I choose. I thought that had been the way it is saidâ€¦.adding one wordâ€¦which is as much of my body as life.

All of these actions are old stuffâ€¦and have been going on for centuries. That does not change the truth of the Bible.

Ignore the Bibleâ€¦.and God says, â€œI will know you not before my Father. He will spew you out of his mouth.

This I believe. One cannot choose, pick, which verses which they object to and tear them out of the Bible. Nor can they change the names of sin to make it socially accepted.

There are many who would go back and choose not to do or repeat that which they must live withâ€¦the consequences.

The consequencesâ€¦.right or wrongâ€¦.live on. Look around youâ€¦and see the consequences of the wrong doings of people, nations..and the world.
I use my own name because I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

Hermenuetics

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

The Downside of Hooking Up

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

The Downside of Hooking Up

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives