The primary issue at hand is not the existence of this blog. This blog exercises the same freedom of speech and thought as the Anscombe Society and similarly deserves its place in the forum of intellectual diversity here at Princeton. In fact, the author's frankness and openness on this topic indicate her level of honesty, but her oversimplification of what she calls the "sexual politics" of Princeton distorts her portrait of this campus and the critical sex-related topics she brings up in her first blog entry.
We take issue primarily with the author's remark that her writing will, in some ways, "battle with those who spread the lie that by choosing to do what I want with my body, I am immoral, disrespecting myself, disrespecting my future husband, or ruining my ability to truly love someone." The use of the word "lie" implies willful deception, suggesting that students on campus who advocate for chastity know the truth to be otherwise and nevertheless maliciously mislead others. This is far from an accurate depiction of the reasons for pro-chastity advocacy - students who promote this view do so because they believe that their eminently reasonable point of view represents the lifestyle best suited to individual human flourishing and the continued wellbeing of human society.
Perhaps it is important to discuss the reasons for the view that sex is good only within the framework of marriage. The author fails to entirely acknowledge the reasons for the differentiation between "casual sex and meaningful sex" and does not take into account the view that engaging in premarital sex instrumentalizes the body and treats it as a means of pursuing mere pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure, when dissociated from the pursuit of other intrinsic human goods such as full marital communion, treats the body as a mere instrument and disrespects the fundamental worth of human beings.
One might ask whether affection alone, then, is sufficient to legitimize sexual activity. What about a couple in a committed, monogamous relationship? Why should sex be appropriate only for the married? Because it does not include a marital commitment, premarital sexual activity still involves a holding back of the self, an unloving reservation in the very act that ought to express and embody complete union. When complete bodily union is wrenched from comprehensive commitment to someone in every respect - including the temporal - then the beloved is, as it were, pulled apart. When one engages someone's body without committing to the whole person, one treats this person's body as separable from the complete self - literally, as depersonalized. Moreover, the unreserved commitment of marriage is the context in which sex becomes the renewal of a full interpersonal communion that respects and integrates the spouses' physical bodies with their fundamental selves. Marriage is the best environment for rearing the possible fruit and fulfillment of that very union - children. Two spouses' complete interpersonal commitment becomes so real that, nine months later, it requires a name.
But the "Sex and the Street" blogger considers none of this. Choosing not to have premarital sex is not - as the author says of her own earlier views - merely a way to maintain a "holier-than-thou" attitude; it is a way to treat the body, the entire self, as well as others with the dignity deserving of a member of the human family. Later, she adds the perfectly trivial truth that "sex won't make someone love you or not love you." This is a complete misunderstanding of the pro-chastity position, as it is not an issue of whether a given activity will contribute to the development of some feeling. Instead, we hold the position that sexual ethics coupled with the actualization of sex as a marital good are crucial to the flourishing of the human person and to true love, which involves willing the partner's objective good. As for her claim that "not having sex will not make your relationship truer or longer lasting," the facts disagree: Premarital cohabitation is heavily correlated to higher divorce rates.
Advocating saving sex for marriage is not spreading a malicious lie, nor does it assert that chastity will create or destroy love between a couple. Rather, it is a way to honor the inherent dignity of the human person and a way to find a much more fulfilling relationship.
Shivani Radhakrishnan is the vice president of the Anscombe Society. She can be reached at sradhakr@princeton.edu.
Read More
A ‘climate apocalypse’ is all but inevitable. Why aren’t we planning for it?
Alexander MargulisNot only must every Princeton student think about what sort of life they can — or should — build in the context of an ever-warming world, but also that the climate activists on campus who intend to spur this sort of thinking often end up discouraging it.
Not only must every Princeton student think about what sort of life they can — or should — build in the context of an ever-warming world, but also that the climate activists on campus who intend to spur this sort of thinking often end up discouraging it.
Princeton, don’t budge on Title IX
Charlie YaleTrump’s changes to Title IX signal more dire attacks on education are to come in the future. Princeton has a responsibility to do everything it can to prevent them.
Trump’s changes to Title IX signal more dire attacks on education are to come in the future. Princeton has a responsibility to do everything it can to prevent them.
In case you haven’t noticed, the target is already on our back
Isaac BarsoumIf I could say anything to the University about this, here is what it would be: when there is a target on your back, you do not stand still and wait for the arrow to strike. You put on a bulletproof vest, hunker down into a foxhole, and fire back.
If I could say anything to the University about this, here is what it would be: when there is a target on your back, you do not stand still and wait for the arrow to strike. You put on a bulletproof vest, hunker down into a foxhole, and fire back.
