Pederson writes, “As students treat sex increasingly casually, committed and faithful relationships … fall by the wayside.” This seems untrue: A recent New York Times article described that while many believe sexual promiscuity is on the rise, the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey of 2007 found that the percent of high school students who have had sex is actually down from 1991. The average age of an individual at marriage has steadily increased as adolescence is extended and as more time is spent in school. In our age group, the monogamous relationship has replaced marriage as the dominant type of intimate relationship. This does not mean that people cherish marriage less.
Pederson writes that, “along with other members of the Anscombe society, [he] disagrees with the false ideals of such a [hookup] culture.” So what? Why should we care? Pederson tells us that it’s Anscombe’s goal to “inform Princeton students that ‘free sex’ is never free.” Presumably, we should care what Pederson and Anscombe think because they have some evidence that we do not. To this end, Pederson enumerates the many negative consequences of “free sex.” Let’s examine them.
Throughout his article, Pederson elides “hooking up” with premarital sex. This is a mistake. While it is not our project in this article to say that one type of sex is kosher while another is not, it is clear that there is a difference between the “hook up” and sex in a committed but non-married relationship which Pederson neglects to notice.
He notes the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Undoubtedly there is a risk of disease whenever people have sex, and the risk of infection is roughly proportional to the number of partners. But the risk of transmitting an STI between two faithful partners in a monogamous relationship is the same as the risk between two married people. Even so, everything has risks, including driving, taking a graduate seminar and asking a girl to marry you. It does not follow that people should not marry or take graduate seminars. Smart, informed Princeton students make decisions aware of the risks. Does Pederson presume to say that he has some special knowledge about STIs that the average Princeton students does not?
He asserts that “free sex” inevitably causes damage to one’s emotional, psychological and moral wellbeing.” Keep in mind that “free sex” to Pederson is any sex outside of marriage. Is it true that devoted, long term couples who have non-marital sex are emotionally, psychologically or morally worse off than those who do not? Is there any evidence that people who hook up are worse off, on average? We think not.
Furthermore, Pederson blatantly misuses scientific arguments. He writes that “sex bonds partners through the release of hormones such as oxytocin.” He uses this claim to suggest that it is impossible to have “sex free of consequences”. It is well known that many hormones are involved in the human sexual response cycle. However, the only non-speculative scientific evidence that we could find suggesting that oxytocin “bonds partners” comes from studies on the prairie vole, a small rodent. Focusing on inconclusive studies of one animal with behaviors that we wish to see in ourselves — while ignoring an array of animals who exhibit no monogamous behavior — is a strong sign of bad science. Humans release hormones in the course of many tasks they perform with other humans. Biology is incredibly complex, and it is challenging to see why the release of hormones associated with the human sexual act should be singled out from all other acts.
Pederson’s basic claim is that only through sex in marriage can “the two become one flesh through the gift of their very selves” and that sex, “removed from that context, is ultimately empty.” The only way this claim is justified is by an appeal to religion, which Pederson strives to avoid. If Pederson’s secular arguments fail — and we believe they do — then only those compelled by religious arguments ought to be compelled by his conclusion. If there is a religious argument to be made, then it should be made explicitly. Pederson should not shroud it in secular language.
We respect Pederson’s decision to be abstinent. But his sweeping claims about the emptiness and selfishness of non-marital relationships are unjustified. Princeton students are too smart to be swayed by moralizing arguments that only criticize others instead of examining the facts.
Ian Brasg and Sam Fox Krauss are juniors in the chemistry and philosophy departments, respectively. They can be reached individually at ibrasg@princeton.edu and samfox@princeton.edu.
Want to be a 'Prince' columnist? Visit www.dailyprincetonian.com/join/opinion by Feb. 20 for an application.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
