About As Fair and Balanced As Fox News

Did anyone else see the New York Times Magazine article yesterday about Ivy League abstinence clubs? There are so, so many things wrong with it, but my main complaint is that the author, Randall Patterson, did not fairly lay out both sides of the argument. Lena Chen is not a good representative of people who have sex before marriage, yet she was one of the only counter-examples cited.

Here’s the gist of the article: student organizations endorsing abstinence until marriage (or, in the case of homosexuals, just abstinence) have sprung up on campuses across the country. The article focuses on True Love Revolution, the iteration of this phenomenon at Harvard. Headed by Janie Fredell, TLR not only promotes “chastity” (Fredell has called oral sex “disgusting and disrespectful” but doesn’t think it’s sex; I beg to differ, as does Dan Savage–check out the second question), but encourages other students to engage in the lifestyle as well. And by “encourage,” I mean they sent messages to all the women at Harvard one Valentine’s Day saying “Why Wait? Because You’re Worth It.” Only when it was pointed out to them that this suggests women who don’t wait are worth less did they send them out to men as well. People can abstain from sex all they want, as far as I’m concerned, whether for religious, personal, or circumstantial reasons. But they should not force their private practices on other people, just as I do not flaunt my vegetarianism when I am around meat eaters. It’s a personal, private choice. Both the students quoted and Patterson fail to recognize the value of choosing to have sex–and when to have sex.

It almost needs not be said that a plethora of studies have indicated that abstinence-only sex education has negative effects. This Patterson cites in the article. Fredell says abstinence makes her a stronger woman, but for others, sex can have the same effect. It’s not even acknowledged in the article that engagement in premarital sex is not equivalent to promiscuity.

Marriage does not equal sexual happiness: there are scores of couples who have terrible sex, or no sex at all. And sometimes the most random and spontaneous acts of sex can be the most wonderful. It is doubtful, however, that this argument would sway Fredell or her colleagues to be more tolerant of those of us who choose not to abstain. It is not sexual satisfaction they are rooting for, but, rather, some kind of religious and physical piety that, honestly, cannot be equated with the antiquated notion of chastity.

Sex itself can be a deeply spiritual experience. I think it is the closest to nirvana many of us will ever get, or to any notion of “God.” On top of that, it has multitudinous health benefits. When sex is practiced safely and healthily for both the mind and body, it acts as a positive force for everyone. Perhaps Janie and her friends shouldn’t knock it until they try it.