My second appearance on the Glenn Sacks show seemed to go a bit smoother than the first. (You can listen to the archived broadcast here.) Despite suffering from vertigo, Glenn was his usual pleasant self. (He had a column published in the LA Times yesterday on boys, schools, and the gender gap.)
Amy Alkon was a delight. She’s caustic, warm, and talks a mile a minute. While waiting for the show to begin, we sipped Cokes in the radio station lounge and engaged in some friendly sparring. She asked about Matilde, which made me very happy, and we had an extremely brief pre-show debate on sexual ethics.
As I wrote after my first appearance on Glenn’s show, the format of AM talk radio does not lend itself well to thoughtful discussion. (Which explains why I spend most of my time listening to NPR; I’m a "Talk of the Nation" junkie. Further evidence of my hopelessly blue-state, out-of-touch with the mainstream tendencies, I suppose.) The first time I was on the show, I had reams of notes filled with things I felt I had to say. This time, I brought nothing with me, and was a bit nonplussed when Amy pulled out sheets and sheets of paper, including copies of my posts on Choice 4 Men. Fortunately, I didn’t forget everything I wanted to say, and remembered to get my key points across as quickly as possible.
Much of the discussion focused on the issue of men’s choice and equal protection. I think Ampersand and Trish Wilson have done a fine job addressing the legal questions raised by the Choice 4 Men movement (check out some of the suggested links at their sites, as well as the comments sections.) I’m not a constitutional scholar, and defer to the wisdom of those more familiar with American jurisprudence than I. My attack on Choice 4 Men was on ethical and moral rather than legal grounds, and I feel more comfortable keeping the discussion in that particular arena.
Ultimately, Amy and I were arguing our positions out of two radically different world views. Amy believes that sex outside the context of a committed relationship can be good and healthy. She believes very strongly that both men and women can separate the desires of the body from the needs of the heart and the spirit, and (assuming adequate birth control is used), do so with physical and emotional impunity. As the listeners heard, both Amy and I regard each other as fundamentally unrealistic about human nature. When I made the point that at its very core, sexual intercourse is always a relational act that connects two people emotionally and spiritually (whether the parties involved are conscious of it or not), as well as physically, she asked, "What world are you living in"?
On the other hand, I think her conviction that most human beings can (and should) sever sexual activity from a concomitant responsibility for another human being is based on a poor understanding of human psychology. It’s a particularly destructive idea for young women. Our "culture of promiscuity" (a phrase she asked me to clarify) encourages young people to "hook up" without emotional expectations. The evidence is considerable that this is immensely damaging to the self-esteem of young women; particularly harmful is the notion (that I think Amy implicitly endorses) that young women can "learn to outgrow" what she regards as the culturally imposed connection between sexual activity and emotional connectedness. I am convinced that sexuality itself can never be successfully separated from commitment and connectedness, even if many of us manage to fool ourselves that it can.
Amy and I also disagreed on the question of whether Choice 4 Men’s agenda reflects the best interest of the child. She argued that biological fathers who don’t want to be involved in their child’s life ought not to be coerced into any involvement (even financial), as unwilling fathers invariably make poor fathers. I am certainly not suggesting that every man who unintentionally impregnates a woman ought to marry her. Even if he never sees his child, however, his financial support (voluntary or compulsory) will almost certainly improve his child’s life circumstances. But I also think that marrying for the sake of the child may have some positive benefits. As Judith Wallerstein points out in her terrific The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, children who were raised in high-conflict (unhappy) marriages "do better" statistically than children who were raised by single parents. (Obviously, children raised by two parents in a low-conflict marriage do best of all.) To my mind, there’s no question that forcing even unwilling fathers to be at least financially (and ideally, physically) involved in their children’s lives is demonstrably in those children’s best interests.
Anyhow, I feel "done" with this topic for a while.
Oh, one more thing. Glenn really annoyed me when he suggested, near the end of the show, that it was relatively easy for a "middle-aged" man like myself (37!) to advocate male sexual restraint. After all, he said, teenage boys have raging libidos that are much more difficult to control. Isn’t it unfair, he asked, for "older men" such as he and I (whose sex drives have presumably diminished) to demand that our younger brothers exercise the same kind of self-control that we are able to maintain? For the record, I completely reject the premise of the question, but I chose not to do so on the air. After all, nothing could be more pointless (and potentially embarrassing) than making a stirring declaration as to the enduring strength of my libido! How can I disprove his implication without blogging about matters far too personal for even this relatively candid forum? I suppose I’ll just have to accept not being able to respond to Glenn’s suggestion that my diminishing sex drive is responsible for my commitment to male self-restraint. But I’m a bit irked about that this morning.
She argued that biological fathers who don’t want to be involved in their child’s life ought not to be coerced into any involvement (even financial), as unwilling fathers invariably make poor fathers.
Did she clarify how being unwilling makes you a poor financial provider? I certainly see (and largely agree with) the claim that unwilling parents can be bad parents because the lack of motivation leads to poor quality parenting. But the beauty of money is that it’s pure quantity — a dollar is a dollar no matter how unenthusiastically you sign the check.
She didn’t get around to that, Stentor.
But the beauty of money is that it’s pure quantity — a dollar is a dollar no matter how unenthusiastically you sign the check.
I agree with you completely.
> Isn’t it unfair, he asked, for “older men” such as
> he and I (whose sex drives have presumably
> diminished) to demand that our younger brothers
> exercise the same kind of self-control that we are
> able to maintain?
ROFL…. he said that? I think I’ll have to try to listen to the show sometime today, if time allows. He apparently doesn’t know a lot about libido in middle-aged and older men. He’s buying into the myths.
I think my ideas about sexual relations are closer to Ms. Alkon’s than yours, but even so I believe “Choice for Men” is a bad idea. Why? Because, for many women, their nominal “choice” isn’t one.
If a woman who is personally pro-life (and known to be so) becomes pregnant, the father who chooses to “opt out” of parentage is doing so with the knowledge that he’s going to still be a biological parent even if his legal responsibilities are removed, and - at least in theory - he can “opt in” at a later time if he changes his mind. There’s very little reason not to “opt out” in such a scenario.
The pro-life mother, on the other hand, must choose between “selling out” her principles, undergoing a drastic change in her life, or giving a baby up for adoption (which I don’t believe is as easy a solution as it’s made out to be). Any of these decisions is permanent and has far more serious consequences for a potential child.
In an ideal (to me) world, where nobody would carry a pregnancy to term unless it was wanted by all parents (both legal and biological), “choice for men” might be an acceptable option for men who didn’t want to be legal parents but didn’t mind being biological ones. But in our world, it causes more problems than it solves.
I feel compelled to reiterate a comment a friend made on my blog when I talked about Fathers 4 Justice - any movement that wilfully ignores all decent grammatical conventions in such a way automatically loses all sympathy I may have had.
:-)
Isn’t it kind of funny to argue that young men are constitutionally incapable of exercising self-restraint and yet can be trusted in the responsible, mature use of birth control when having casual sex? I think it was Irving Kristol who said “Those who are casual about sex are unlikely to be fastidious about the details.”
Lee, that’s very good. I like that quote very much.
I don’t know. I still say that most of this debate seems like smokescreen from both sides.
On the choice4men side, I find that abortion as a choice for women is irrelevant to choice for men rooted simply in what I believe is the limit of a gov’t or another person over one’s body. Women do carry the child in their bodies so that choice will always be theirs — it ain’t going away.
But it’s the choices women have after the child is born that are relevant. That she can give up the child for adoption, choose to keep him, or abandon him to safe haven is clearly relevant. Men have no such choices.
On the feminist side of the issue what I find disingenuous is the claim that equal rights already exist and that the status quo is simply so that men will be held to responsibility.
In fact, that view only holds men to be legally financially accountable that the child is raised commensurate with the father’s standard of living. It has little to do with responsibility outside of that one legal fact.
“Glenn really annoyed me when he suggested, near the end of the show, that it was relatively easy for a “middle-aged” man like myself (37!) to advocate male sexual restraint. After all, he said, teenage boys have raging libidos that are much more difficult to control.”
So teenaged boys are governed by their hormones and don’t have the capacity to not engage in sexual activity? That’s an insulting view of both men and boys, insisting that they in effect think with their dicks (depending on the age of the dick). Interesting that such an insulting view of men and boys comes from a men’s advocate.
Hugo,
You did a fabulous job on the air! Your recovery after the point about the constitution was creative!!
I think that people like Amy Alkon who promote and condone casual sex are at the root of this problem. She’s saying that casual sex is inevitable, that it’s unrealistic to have sex with caring partners. I think that she is the one who is living in another planet! It’s women like ‘her’ that get pregnant with men they don’t know, and then expect financial support. She is promoting a culture of sexual promiscuity which is in essence, the source of the problem she is tring to prevent. ( I’m really sorry that I was not able to get on the air and smack it to her!) I don’t know how she has the audacity to talk about her promiscuity as if it was some sort of prize!
……Don’t worry Hugo, you’re normal, it’s okay to want to have more than just sex. It’s okay to be more than just an animal and roll in the sack with some stranger just to have an orgasm.__This life has to be about more than just momentary pleasures, it has to be about much more than that; otherwise, we are just animals!!
craichead,
Perhaps you’d like the philosophy I was raised with. Please keep in mind that this is the philosophy of my mother’s family, which is predominantly female. (Grandpa & siblings: 4F/2M; Grandma & siblings: 1F/3M; Mom and siblings: 2F/1M; my generation: 5F/2M; my children’s generation: 12F/5M, including 2 step-daughters and 2 step-sons.)
“Sex belongs within the confines of marriage. If you choose to have sex before marriage and get pregnant, there will be NO abortions and NO adoptions. You WILL care for your child. If you’re still in school, you will also finish school. If you need help supporting yourself and your child while you finish school and get on your feet, the family will help you, but it is YOUR responsibility to finish school, make a living, and take care of your child.”
If a male in my family decided to “opt-out,” he’d
have to deal with all the rest of the family.
Hugo,
I thought Amy was very condescending with the “what planet are you from” comments. Man, if that was me in there, I’d have requested a more mature level of discourse — your restraint (on that one and other points) was admirable.
I, too, bristle at Amy’s contention that folks are gonna do it no matter what and so therefore we have to base all our arguments/discussion on that as a starting point. I’m with you: let’s challenge the assumption that casual sex is a given. I, for one, am not ready to give up on that point. Abstinence IS a real choice, not a laughable one. I, for one, intend to teach my daughter as best I can that when you lay down you are in essence granting approval to the natural process, even if you take steps to prevent it. Thinking like an engineer, you have to have an answer to the question “What if it doesn’t work as intended?”
I know teenagers don’t think like that, never have, never will, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to avoid sounding old-fashioned.
The best argument that we should all respect nature is that NOT respecting nature has done nothing but hurt people. There are no good solutions, none that result in everyone being happy or unhurt, when you disrespect nature and disrespect God’s love and the force of creation.
Bottom line for me on this subject: choice for men is restricted to the choice to take it out or not, period. If young men today can’t get it through their thick skulls how much playing with fire can hurt their lives, then perhaps a hard lesson is indeed what they need. They want “fairness”; I say forget fairness. Grow up and protect yourself instead. And if that means no nookie then tough.
I just finished listening to the show, and I agree more with Amy Alkon, but I disagree with a lot of what she says. She was definitely right about what she said about abstinence-only education, and how kids are having sex anyway. However, single mother homes are not necessarily “broken,” as Alkon had said. The highest rate of single mother homes today is amongst women over 30, who have established their careers, and want children but have not yet found a man they want to marry. Those women have the financial capability of raising a child.
I’m glad Sacks admitted that many men consider birth control a “woman’s problem.” At least he’s out with it. Choice4Men also seems to view birth control as a “woman’s problem.”
I personally think that single women are better off forgoing child support than try to collect it from a disinterested and uninvolved man who is likely to be hostile to a child support order. If both unmarried parents decide on their own to work together to raise the child, whether or not they choose to marry, I don’t see a reason to stop them. It’s the disinterested dads I’m talking about. Too many times I’ve heard about single women who were left alone by disinterested men who had impregnated them — until they filed for child support. He retaliates by either filing for custody or visitation. She creates a lot of her own problems in filing for child support under these circumstances. I also don’t believe that an unwed father has a right to demand five years down the road visitation to a child he learned was his only recently. Welfare reform has created a lot of child support problems between unwed mothers and fathers. I don’t think states should track down previously uninvolved and disinterested men solely to get child support out of them to reimburse the state.
I think the main reason there are more out-of-wedlock births is because people marry later. In the 1950s, there were more teen births than there are now, mainly because those teens were married. Some had married while they were a few weeks pregnant. The teen birth rate now is actually lower than it was in the 1950s, primarily because of the availability of birth control and proper sex education.
I agree with Amy Alkon that sex is a part of life. You don’t have to be married to have great sex. I know that’s one point where Hugo and I would disagree. I don’t agree with Hugo that men are accepting the responsibility of pregnancy if they choose to have sex with a woman. Likewise, a woman isn’t necessarily accepting the responsibility of pregnancy if she chooses to have sex with a man. I’m married, but I don’t want any more children, but that does not stop me from having sex. I like sex for its own sake. Hopefully, both men and women engaged in a sexual relationship are using contraception. I think that a single woman is better off without the involvement of a disinterested an uninvolved man should she become pregnant by him and choose to have the child. That means doing without child support, because of the problems I’ve already mentioned. Why would a woman want to deal with a man who is not interested in her or her child? She’s better off without him.
I didn’t think Amy Alkon was caustic at all. I also didn’t think she talked a mile a minute. I talk like a Gatlin gun, so maybe she just talks slower than me.
I’m in favor of sex within relationships, but I am not foolish enough to think that in the world I live in, that’s the only way in which sex happens. Given the reality that people do have casual sex, and that some of those people do get pregnant, it seems like it’s worth asking the question, “What are appropriate social and legal policies to deal with the situation we find ourselves in?”
Social policy that assumes that sex only happens within caring relationships has about as much chance of working as abstinence-only education that can’t lower the rates of STD infection because it leaves children thinking that oral and anal sex aren’t “real sex”.
Regardless of my personal preferences, people are going to have sex without whatever trappings seem appropriate to me, and some of that sex is going to include intercourse, and sometimes, intercourse is going to lead to pregnancy, even between casual lovers. The question at hand, then, is not “how could we manage choice for both men and women if all sex was in the context of caring, committed relationships?” but “what the heck do we do now?”
I want what’s best for the children, regardless. And I don’t think it’s accurate to say that money is neutral. There is lots of evidence to suggest that a father who is required to pay child support against his will is more likely to engage in punitive custody battles, and other tactics to convince the mother to “go away”.
In my perfect world, everyone is rational, and everyone puts the best interest of the child first. In my real world, that’s simply not true. What the answer is, I do not know, but I am sure that trying to build social policy around the way we individually happen to live makes no sense. We have to build social policy around what is.
We can/should/ought to be also trying to change the world, perhaps. But the children whose fathers don’t want them are not going to stop being born while we do that.
Scarbo: “I say forget fairness.”
Yes, Scarbo, you obviously do say this: you, Hugo, and a lot of other people here! You are just the most direct about it thus far.
Caitriona: Your family has a tradition of taking responsibility for their own actions, which is quite admirable. You were addressing craichead’s post about equal choices after birth, when the “my body, my choice” argument no longer physically holds true. Are you saying that such responsibility as this should be legislated to be mandatory, because your kin believe it to be right? Of course, it already IS legislated for males.
Stanton,
I don’t believe in one group of people legislating their own particular “morality” upon other groups of people. I DO believe in education and in ministering to others.
This page says it better than I can:
Guidelines on Abortion (General Conference Mennonite Church, 1980)
From Section 5 of the page:
“We believe that the demands of discipleship are to be accepted voluntarily, not imposed legally upon everyone regardless of conviction. The New Testament church, as well as the church the three centuries before Constantine, was interested in working out what is morally responsible behavior for Christians. The Anabaptists of the sixteenth century rediscovered the importance of identifying a Christian moral stance that was distinguishable from the behavior of society as a whole.
“Therefore, though we stress the importance of respect for the life of the fetus and though most of us can support abortion only under the most exceptional of circumstances, we do not believe that this position should be imposed upon the society in general. Because of the diversity of moral conviction in the civil community, we realize that what the law permits is not necessarily Christian moral behavior.
“We believe, however, that the church should witness to society concerning the sanctity of the fetus.
“We also believe that the church should be concerned that legislation not coerce people to act against their convictions and that it conform to standards of justice.”
Caitriona, I’ve always loved the Mennonite position on abortion with its willingness to acknowledge the tensions, even the irreconcialibles, that surround the issue.
Trish, when I said Amy was caustic and talked fast, I was referring to her “one on one” outside the radio environment. Caustic, by the way, was intended as a compliment — her humor is biting but not at all unkind.
This blog is amazing. If a man wants involvement with his children, it is because he is a control freak and wants to punish the mother. But if he does not want involvement, he is an irresponsible jerk.
Hugo, you are so nice. I thought Amy Alkon was unprofessional with some of her comments but I realize the forum isn’t meant to promote a polite, respectful kind of discussion/debate.
I’m still on the fence with this issue. While I believe in equality and fairness and would not wish for a man to enter into fatherhood against his will, the “opt out” solution seems to create an unfair situation for the woman. What a luxury it must be for a man to have decided before the act of sex has even started that once it is over, he bears no responsibility for a baby that might result from it. If fatherhood is never a possibility for him, it seems to remove his motivation to prevent an unwanted pregnancy from happening in the first place. I believe that responsibilty should be equally shared.
teg: Sometimes, it appears that males can do no right in the eyes of some, doesn’t it?
Trish: My son, Joshua, was a very irresponsible teen. He was dealing with a lot of anger from his early childhood, wherein he was abandoned by his mother, among other things. He was sixteen when his girlfriend had their baby. He quit school and left town - a long story. But… a couple of years after the law caught up to him, when he had been paying child support for a while, he returned home (to Minnesota) at 23, to get to know who this boy is.
Now Josh is 32, married to a different woman with whom he has three daughters, and he also has custody of his fifteen-year-old son, Jordan. Josh is a good man, and he adores his family. He is also still paying arrearages of child support. How much do you think his former girlfriend pays to support their child? (Right!! What a system!)
So you think Jordan should not have the right to be with his Dad now?
(Irrelevant note: Josh is in Iraq now, having been in the Guard for several years. His wife, Jennifer, has MS, and is one of my most admired women ever.)
Stanton, I appreciate how that situation sounds. I do think your son should have been held responsible for some portion of the care of his son as a small child (out of curiosity–do you think he shouldn’t have been?), but the situation as you describe it doesn’t sound like a particularly good deal.
When it comes to policy analysis, though, I think it’s a pretty big mistake to evaluate policy solely or primarily from the perspective of the worst case outcome of such a policy. Policy can never be flexible enough to provide fair outcomes in every conceivable situation–it can be more and less flexible, of course (and there are often tradeoffs with greater flexibility). And I’d certainly be open to ideas to how to make the regime fairer and at the same time make sure children are as provided for as before. The problem is, I see very little real concern for the second half of that equation from groups like Choice4men and their supporters.
Hugo, too busy to listen to the show today, but I’ll get to it soon. Glad to hear it went well.
djw: The truth is, Josh probably would never have responded and taken responsibility as a father without the enforcement of child support. Meeting that boy, and seeing how much he looked like his Dad, had a lot to do with Josh growing up, IMHO. I do not disagree with the principle of child support.
And you are also correct that there are no easy answers. In fact, I would say that there are few RIGHT answers, when it comes to the law. It’s all tradeoffs, where every benefit has its cost. All too often, it appears to me, people focus on the benefit they desire, without the considering the cost in full. I believe that the Choice4Men people are guilty of this, (even though I have symapthy for some of their complaints). Libertarians and Socialists do the same, though the Socialists have seen two centuries of failure in country after country and STILL those benefits look too good to worry about costs.
I think that culturally, we’re at a weird place that makes it very, very hard for young women. We are expected by many people to hook up without any expectations, without developing strong emotional connections. And we are expected by many other people to, at the very least, only have sex within the context of committed and loving relationships.
I do think that the current culture of promiscuity often turns out really bad, emotionally, for young women. But is that because of something innate and biological, or is it because the culture says that you should only have sex with people you love? I don’t really know. It’s possible that, in a less schizophrenic culture, we could have casual sex unproblematically. (From an emotional standpoint, not necessarily an ethical one).
From my perspective, it would be pretty great if I didn’t consider sex as a relational act that spiritually connects people, especially in the current culture. I mean, Amy’s kind of right with the “real world” comment. If you live on a large, liberal college campus, where are you going to find a date if you don’t believe in casual sex but don’t want to date the evangelicals who think ‘feminism’ is a dirty word?
It’s way easier to change your own attitude and (try to) look on sex as a casual thing than to be at odds with the culture.
You’re right, Emily, it is easier. But that’s why those of us who are a bit older (in academia or punditocracy or anywhere else) have an obligation to offer every possible shred of support we can to those very same young women who are trying to live at odds with the culture.
“Glenn really annoyed me when he suggested, near the end of the show, that it was relatively easy for a “middle-aged” man like myself (37!) to advocate male sexual restraint.”
Well, there is also the not-unrelated matter of how Hugo used to have sex with his own students (no ethical problems there, eh?)
Emily,
How do you feel after having casual sex with someone? Do you feel good about yourself? You might feel physically great after having an orgasm with a casual partner, but how do you feel emotionally? (And by the way, single people can have great sex. You don’t have to be married to have sex. But, you should be in love, or really in tune with the person.)I don’t know about you, but I can’t have sex with someone unless I’m attracted physically, emotionally and spiritually to them.__ Is giving in to physical pleasure, just for the pleasure of it, more important than your self respect?
Emily, don’t give in to this insane notion that nobody will date you unless you have sex with them. If they don’t like you enough to take the time to get to know you, you don’t need them!!
“If you live on a large, liberal college campus, where are you going to find a date if you don’t believe in casual sex but don’t want to date the evangelicals who think ‘feminism’ is a dirty word?”
Oh my God, Emily, please tell me there are other choices than that. Otherwise, I don’t how I’ll sleep at night when my daughter goes away to college in a few years.
“”If you live on a large, liberal college campus, where are you going to find a date if you don’t believe in casual sex but don’t want to date the evangelicals who think ‘feminism’ is a dirty word?”"
Where the hell were you when I was going to college? :-(
Well, I’m the opposite of a lot of people, then, because EVEN IF I WERE MARRIED I wouldn’t be having a whole lot of sex. It’s waaaaaay down on the list of priorities.
That’s what I thought… back in my 20’s. ;-)
You know, on any large college campus, liberal or not, there are a lot of divergent views and different people. It’s not a choice between frat boys and born-agains or you’re SOL.
I am more on the Amy side of the spectrum, but I have to say that she really shows her “Look! I’m young and single!” attitude in a big way. No-strings sex sounds great until your partner falls in love with you, or you with them; or until the double-redundant birth control fails. And then there’s the old issue of sexual freedom being used to take away women’s right to refuse sex.
So you think Jordan should not have the right to be with his Dad now?
If Jordan was born in a state where abandonment stripped the father of the right to contest an adoption, then I think your son should be on his knees thanking God that Jordan’s mother did not give him up for adoption. Because otherwise, screwing off for two years might very well have prevented Jordan from having any right to be with his Dad.
Oh, and Hugo–I suspect Glenn was just trying to get your goat. As you say, it’s not as though there was any ‘right’ answer you could have given whatsoever; it’s a “have you stopped beating your wife” kind of question.
I’d like to say I expect better from Mr. Sacks, but I really expect very little from people who make fag jokes.
I’ve always thought the “libido peak at 17-22″ thing was like the “baseball players peak at 27-28″ thing. As a statistical abstraction, it’s true, but that’s no reason to be particularly surprised if Bret Boone peaks at 33-34, and Adrian Beltre peaks at 24-25, or whatever.
I’d like to say I expect better from Mr. Sacks, but I really expect very little from people who make fag jokes.
The same amount that I expect from supposed lawyers who refer to opposing counsel as “Bitch.”
Mark
Admittedly, I got by undergrad degree a few years ago, but I don’t think this dichotomy between perople engaging in casual “hook-up” sex and evangelical Christians exists, except possibly in I Am Charlotte Simmons.
Obviously, people should try to find partners whose views about sexuality are compatible with their own, and if one’s views are very divergent from the mainstream that’s going to limit the number of compatible partners (just like any other criteron would). What would be especially nice is if, while doing this, people didn’t treat those with different views on sexuality from theirs as morally inferior.
Frat boys and evangelicals both have visible communities and meeting/mating rituals, though. You can go to a meatmarket bar/party, or to a campus Christian fellowship meeting, and expect that most people there will share the same views on sex.
As far as I know, the “in betweens” are stuck trying to find each other in class, or marching band, or etc. - places where your views on sex and feminism aren’t part of your public profile.
Mythago: You are certainly right about my son possibly losing out. In fact, if the choice to “opt out” had been available to him when the child was born, he probably would have taken that route, never realizing what he lost. That choice WAS available to his girlfriend, and she chose to keep their child. Both Josh and Jordan are glad things worked out as they did.
Given all of this, I still say that the post-partum choices should be equal, after compensation for the prenatal bio differences. If a mother has the right to opt out at that point with no strings, then the father must also. Mothers who choose to opt out will have to deal with the emotional repercussions, as will the fathers.
I believe, from experience, that parenting is by far the most rewarding work a human can do. I believe that missing the opportunity to do this job, whether one is male or female, is a tragedy. I believe that there are very few parents who, after raising a child to adulthood, could look that child in the eye and say that they regret having to do that job.
Nevertheless - if child abandonment is to be allowed (post-partum), it must be allowed to both parties, or else we allow for rule by biases and preferences. Our goal, I believe, is to eliminate these, not entrench them.
Mythago, just out of curiosity, when did Glenn make a fag joke? I have never heard that from him…
yami: Right, but that also means that most of the people looking to meet partners in neutral territory (classes, clubs, etc.) are going to be “in-betweens,” since the fratboys and evangelicals will probably stick to the places where they’re less likely to have compatibility issues with any given potential partner. And since many of the in-betweens probably don’t have strong feelings about the casual sex issue either way, it’s not going to be that hard for any given in-betweener to find, if not someone who shares their identical values, at least someone who’s willing to compromise to a point where both partners are satisfied. (Besides, I’m still convinced that most people find dates through their extended group of friends rather than among groups of random strangers, which makes it even more likely that one will find a compatible partner, because one tends to select friends with generally similar worldviews.)
I’m in college now, and though my perspective may not be as informed as some other college students’ might be because I don’t live in the dorms, I’ve really never noticed conflicting values about sexuality being a particularly big issue in any of my friends’ relationships. In fact, it almost seems as if there’s a mostly unspoken agreement among most of the people I know to forgo, if not all sexual activity, at least intercourse; they’re very aware of the threat of unwanted pregnancy and are doing all they can to avoid it. And we’re hardly conservative Christians, so yeah, there’s hope for those who find the extreme options unpalatable.
Um.
I am hideously bad at engaging in debate. Particularly when sick, tired, overworked. I apologize. I should know better than to start things and not respond.
-Please don’t judge me for having casual sex when all I said was that it was hard to navigate the current culture, sexually. As it happens, I’m a 22-year-old virgin. But does anyone really want to say that on the internet!?
-I do think that the situation is probably not as bad, for most people, as I made it out to be. I agree with yami’s comment that being in an in-between place rules out bars and very evangelical student groups, but you can still meet people through hobbies, in class, etc. It’s frustrating that my social environments are (a) 90% female classes, and (b) interests/hobbies that trend VERY liberal sexually, but I am an exception and not a rule.
-In some ways I feel that the pressure to have sex isn’t from guys, but from the general consensus that sexual conservatism was something invented in order to keep women down, and you’re buying into the patriarchy if you agree with it. There are days when I suspect it’s true. This is why I like Hugo’s blog so much–it offers evidence that a pro-feminist position and a relatively conservative position on sexuality are compatible.
I’m not *that* far out of college, but I went to male-dominated nerd school so the dating scene was… different. Anyway, I didn’t mean to imply that in-betweeners can’t meet people, merely that they’re in a dating scene where one’s other opinions predominate, so it’s harder to pre-screen on that particular criterion.
“-Please don’t judge me for having casual sex when all I said was that it was hard to navigate the current culture, sexually. As it happens, I’m a 22-year-old virgin. But does anyone really want to say that on the internet!?”
Maybe, especially since I’m a THIRTY-two year old virgin (and a dude)…so it’s not as unusual as you think.
I believe, from experience, that parenting is by far the most rewarding work a human can do. I believe that missing the opportunity to do this job, whether one is male or female, is a tragedy.
See now, having a child for me would be a tragedy, a way to have all the possibilites laid out before me snuffed out of existence. But I certainly think other people enjoy having children. Why do we have to characterize other people’s choices as “tragedies” and imply that conforming is the only route to happiness?
Hugo, you yourself said (in response to a comment I made about how MRA types seem bewilderingly homophobic) that, on your first appearance on his show, Glenn had made a snide comment about gay men in response to something you’d said.
the general consensus that sexual conservatism was something invented in order to keep women down, and you’re buying into the patriarchy if you agree with it
There have always been men who pushed this argument, by the way. “You’re not uptight, babe, are you?” was around in the 1960s. Regardless, it’s not the behavior, but the reason. Being a virgin because you choose to be and are happy with it is far different than being a virgin because sex is something men do to women.
For those considering having casual sex because it is seen as “down with patriarchal sexual conservatism” and the done thing in your general environs, let me just say that on reading Emily and bmmg’s statements about being virgins, I felt a strong twinge of regret for my sexual behavior in high school and college. I have been married for three years now, and it is only in the context of working to shift my concept of hot sex from “drunken hook-up with one of the guys in the band” to “being with someone you love but also know about their bathroom habits” (no small picnic, that), that I am beginning to understand how damaging my earlier behavior was to my own sense of self and empowerment and sexual identity. It’s like the virgin-whore dichotomy was inside my own head! Hard to get as frisky on your honeymoon when the idea of married sex makes you think of 50s couples in separate beds. I’m having to work really hard on integrating the sober, married part of me with the sexual part of me and although I am getting there, through the use of all sorts of stereotypical things, like lingerie and baths and little games, I wouldn’t wish this process on anyone else.
The whole getting drunk to lose my inhibitions thing wasn’t great for my self-esteem either and almost developed into a serious alcohol problem until I got it under control. So although I thought when I was younger how “lame” I would be if I didn’t treat sex like a casual fun thing with no strings attached (I used to tell people it was like tennis, a fun way to spend a couple hours and get your endorphin levels up), I really wish I hadn’t been afraid to at least try being “lame” for a little while. Who knows, I might have liked it and avoided some future problems to boot.
I recently sent a Press Release to Amy Alkon who writes a
syndicated column called “Advice Goddess” and got a
diatribe about our company on her website.
Here are some of her nasty comments. For complete text
see AdviceGoddess.com at
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2005/03/a_fittin
g_busin_1.html
The following statements you made about me and our
company, Sew Beautiful, (www.sew-beautiful.us) on
your Blog are libelous and they are false. You have no
basis for making these remarks.
Amy wrote..
“I especially love your argument that your customers like
it. I’m sure the guy who gets a stolen TV really cheaply
from a fence is thrilled as well.
“DOES Chanel really know what you’re doing? I doubt it.”
“I’m loath to believe anything you say”
“…there’s much you’re doing that’s illegal”
“Your rationalization of it is absolutely disgusting”
“Clearly, you are utterly unconcerned with much but
making a profit.”
“Your business practices make me retch, and your
disrespect for others’ creative work and intellectual
property is creepy.”
“Hey, there were lots of Nazis in WWII. Doesn’t make it
right to murder Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies.
“Everybody’s doing it” doesn’t make it moral. What’s so
disturbing is the energy you put into defending your
taking the work of others and profiting from it. All of the
above knockoff artists sicken me. It’s wrong to profit from
work that is not yours — whether or not there’s some hole
in the fence of the law that permits you to sneak through
and do it.”
“Cat Fight†Now Playing
I recently sent a Press Release to Amy Alkon who writes a
syndicated column called “Advice Goddess” and got a
diatribe about our company on her website. The statements are false.
Here are some of her nasty comments. For complete text see
AdviceGoddess.com.
So I have published an amusing Blog about her at
http://www.sew-beautiful.us/concreep
Amy…The following statements you made about me and our
company, Sew Beautiful, http://www.sew-beautiful.us on
your Blog are libelous and they are false. You have no basis
for making these remarks. Here are Amy’s remarks…
“I especially love your argument that your customers like it.
I’m sure the guy who gets a stolen TV really cheaply from a
fence is thrilled as well.
“DOES Chanel really know what you’re doing? I doubt it.”
“I’m loath to believe anything you say”
“…there’s much you’re doing that’s illegal”
“Your rationalization of it is absolutely disgusting”
“Clearly, you are utterly unconcerned with much but
making a profit.”
“Your business practices make me retch, and your
disrespect for others’ creative work and intellectual property
is creepy.”
“Hey, there were lots of Nazis in WWII. Doesn’t make it right to murder Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies.
“Everybody’s doing it” doesn’t make it moral. What’s so
disturbing is the energy you put into defending your taking
the work of others and profiting from it. All of the above
knockoff artists sicken me. It’s wrong to profit from work
that is not yours — whether or not there’s some hole in the
fence of the law that permits you to sneak through and do it.”
Amy
I am sorry we have had such a negative
correspondence about my site. I am really a good person
who wanted to help people who had trouble taking their
medications. My sister-in-law has Parkinson’s. It all started
with our PILL PROOF kit and just expanded from there. I
was in a bad car accident and was unable to work for 10
years from a back injury. My doctor said I should start an
internet business so I would be able to work around my
injury. I never thought I would have so many businesses. I
am truly blessed and mean no bad will towards you.
Jane Langdon
http://www.sew-beautiful.us/concreep
http://www.sew-beautiful.us/yournetstores
Complete Text
http://www.advicegoddess.com/goddessblog.html
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1376