Archive for May, 2005

More on older men and younger women, a long response to “Kate”

I got a very interesting e-mail last week from a young woman whom I’ll call "Kate" (not her real name):

I am 17 years old…and I googled "Older Men, Younger Women" because I am attracted to older men and I feel alone in my peer group (despite my many good friends and wonderful family). I was thankful to find your post. So many things you touched on are things that I feel. But I also felt abnormal and ridiculous for having the feelings I do. Although I am young, I suppose am one of those girls you described, "…those who appear outwardly fully adult may still be in need of our care and protection." I am in every way mature. I feel more comfortable with adults than I do with my own peers thus the need for more attention from the more mature male. Having said that, I want you to know, I am a good girl. I know right from wrong…and these attractions I have for older men always stay platonic—-mostly because I’m attracted to the men who are safe. But sometimes it pains me because I feel like I’m building such awesome relationships that when I become legal, or more eligible to date older men, they won’t see me like that. At that point, I get upset and I feel so rejected before anything even began. This usually happens in the school atmosphere because there are many male teachers. So many of them seem wonderful because of the teenage boy scum I go to school with. You touched on that too–the obvious attraction girls have because the older male is (hopefully) well spoken and has a wealth of knowledge and experience…verses the teenage male who is not any of those things.

I hope this e-mail makes sense…it’s so late and I am confused by my feelings. My mother knows how I feel about older men–and she said she expected it because I am so mature mentally, emotionally and yes…physically. I want to be seen and appreciated by men…and for the most part I am–and I have been for a long time. It is getting to the point, however, when I want things to progress and they just can’t. Then I don’t know how to behave and I just want to crawl out of the hole they call high school and just exist in this world without my age tattooed on my forehead.
Anyway, as much as your post made me feel slightly exposed, it was comforting because you seem to know the inner-working of the young female mind. So, thank you for that. And if you could extend some advice or something, I would appreciate it. I apologize if this is scatter brained…again, it’s late, and I’m a bit nervous e-mailing someone and pouring out all these intimate details—but I wouldn’t have done it if I thought couldn’t help me sort things out a bit.

I asked Kate if I could respond via a post, and I’m afraid I haven’t heard back from her.  Given that her e-mail contains nothing that could identify her, I’m going to assume it’s okay to respond publicly.

I just checked on Google, and this post is the #8 ranked site for the query "older men, younger women."  Who knew?

Kate’s e-mail really challenged me.  In that January post, I laid out what I believe is a fairly compelling argument for older men to avoid romantic and sexual relationships with much younger women.  I was fairly clear that I wasn’t worried about women in their thirties dating men in their fifties; I was more concerned about young women in their late teens and early twenties dating men eight or more years older than themselves. 

But yet, where does that caution leave the Kates of the world?  If I can take Kate at her word, she’s an unusually mature teenager.  She’s still got plenty of growing up to do, as even the most sophisticated of youth do, but she’s probably right when she says that she’s significantly ahead of many of her peers.  Obviously, she’s still a minor, and she recognizes that she’s not yet "legal".  But next year, when she’s 18?  What then?  If all older men scrupulously avoid dating young women Kate’s age, whom is Kate supposed to date who meets her intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and yes, physical needs? I don’t think all teenage boys are "scum", mind you.  (My men’s rights advocate critics might suspect that I harbor that conviction).  But I’m aware that many young women, like Kate, mature at a much faster rate than their male peers.  It’s going to be difficult for her to find a real equal among young men her age, and I’d be giving her unrealistic advice if I told her that there were large numbers of mature, sensible, emotionally grounded and wise 18 year-old men running around.  That doesn’t mean that such fellas don’t exist, just that they aren’t plentiful!

I think there’s a colossal difference between an 18 year-old woman dating, say, a 30-something man she met at church or through friends and dating a 30-something teacher.  Leaving aside the question of professional ethics (something that the teacher ought never leave aside), a relationship that begins with an obvious asymmetry in terms of direct power is, I think, almost always a profoundly unhealthy experience for both parties involved.   But if Kate (once she’s 18) wants to date an older man who has no direct responsibility for her academic development or emotional well-being, what then?  Does an age gap of ten, twelve, even twenty years or more inherently constitute an unhealthily asymmetrical relationship in terms of power?  Frankly, I think it depends entirely on the two people involved, simply because I know too well just how different  18 year-olds (and some 35 year-olds, for that matter) are from each other.  A hard and fast rule, as it were, simply won’t suffice.

Here’s a section of what I wrote in January:
If I were to flirt back, or if I were to date a student, I am convinced I would send a devastating message about  what older men "really" want.   Young women need older men in their lives who will respect and care about them, who aren’t their fathers or brothers but who aren’t prospective lovers, either.  They need to know that they bring more to the table than their sexuality.  They need to be seen as complete human beings.  Paradoxically, seeing young women as complete human beings means that in actions, words, and yes, even in thought, older men cannot see them as objects of sexual desire.  That doesn’t mean that we (older guys) shouldn’t acknowledge that younger women are sexual creatures.  But we must (and the burden is on us alone here, fellas) love them with radical unselfishness,and that requires that we ourselves always refrain from sexualizing them. 

I still stand by that.  But I wrote those words not just as a man in his late thirties, but as a teacher and a youth worker.  I see teenagers and young adults through the eyes of my profession and my avocation.  I’ve known for years that I was called to work with young people, and as a result, I value my role as a mentor and (sometimes) a "father figure".  In my work as a professor and church group leader, it’s absolutely vital that I never, ever, sexualize the young women with whom I work.  It’s essential that I keep firm boundaries in place, the kind that allow young people to trust me.

But in my customary enthusiasm, I took a code of ethics that applies to me personally (and one I had to grow into) and offered it up as a standard for all "older men."  Obviously, most men my age don’t do the work I do.  Most men in their thirties and forties don’t spend both their days (and often, their nights and weekends) with teenagers and young adults to whom they aren’t related.  And I’m not sure it’s reasonable to ask all men to refrain from exploring romantic relationships with women who are significantly younger.  And Kate’s letter reminds me that it’s even more unreasonable to ask all young women (provided they are legally adults) only to date men who are no more than five years older than themselves.

I’ve seen many, many disastrous relationships between young women and much older men.  But to be honest, I’ve also seen a few such relationships that were marvelous, sparkling, honest, mutually rewarding, and long-lasting.  I think such relationships are uncommon, often because so many of the older men who do date much younger women are struggling with their own issues, issues that an older woman would challenge them to confront but a younger girl might not recognize.  And of course, more than a few young women do have unresolved issues with their fathers that they seek to play out in a relationship with an older man.

But these are generalities that do not apply in every instance, as Kate (and others) have reminded me in the months since my post on the subject.  So, to conclude this long post, here’s the best advice I can give to Kate:

I understand that it’s not easy to be where you are, caught between adolescence and adulthood.  17 is rarely easy for the bright, the gifted, the mature, the one who isn’t thrilled by all that high school society has to offer!  It’s natural and normal to want to be seen and appreciated by men, and to be appreciated for all that you have to give.  Please know that your teachers, if they love their profession and genuinely care about you, ought not only not act on any feelings they may develop for you, they ought not even make you aware of them.  That’s not about infantilizing you, it’s about honoring the very special

trust that ought to exist between a teaching professional who loves teens and the students who rely upon him.

But Kate, I do think it’s possible that in the years to come, you will find older men to date who aren’t in a position of responsibilty towards you.  Honestly, you’re right:  all things considered, men who are a decade or more your senior will likely be able to offer you things that your male peers cannot.  You’re not wrong to want those things, and I don’t think that all older men will be "bad" for wanting to give them to you.  Yes, I’ve seen a few — a very few but a few — healthy, loving, supportive relationships between young women just about your age and men substantially older.  Such relationships are rare, but not unheard of. 

Kate, I don’t know you.  But I can tell you I’ve known a few young women who’ve said things very similar to what you’ve said.   And I know that in the end, what many of them really wanted from older men was not a sexual or romantic relationship, but validation and recognition and attention.  In our highly sexualized culture, however, they couldn’t believe that a man would really love them and care for them unconditionally unless they could offer him something sexual or romantic in return.  They shortchanged themselves, and sadly, they found older men who reinforced the notion that their sexuality was the most valuable thing they had to offer.  I don’t know if that’s what’s going on with you.

Adults always tell teens to be patient, and teens get tired of hearing it.  But if I can give you a piece of advice, it is to be patient just a while longer.  Let whatever boundaries you have in place that have served you well stay in place just a little bit longer.  Keep those boundaries in place especially with the men who have a sworn (even sacred) responsibility to care for you as your teachers and mentors.  There’s nothing wrong with wanting.  But there’s much to be gained by waiting, just a little longer, before "taking the next step" with anyone, especially someone considerably older than yourself.  Once you become a legal adult, and (perhaps) are in college, you will begin to meet many different men who will be unlike those you knew in high school.  You might even find someone closer to your age who does share your interests and your passions.  Stranger things have happened.

I wish I had a magic bullet to make this growing up process easier for you.  I know it’s frustrating and confusing as hell.  But it’s my hope that the older men in your life today will continue to be loving, wise guides through that process, and at your age, that’s all that they ought to be.

Please take care.

Hurrah for Antonio

The first post of the day is simply a quick rejoicing in the election of Antonio Villaraigosa as the new mayor of Los Angeles.  Even living in Pasadena, I think of myself as, in some sense, an Angeleno, and I follow the "big city’s" politics closely.   I’ve been a fan of his for many years, since he first (as a junior state assemblyman) pushed a bill through the legislature guaranteeing the rights of mothers to breastfeed in public.  (His oldest daughter was a student in my women’s history class at the time, and she made darned sure we all knew about her father’s passionate pro-feminism).  I’ve also been enchanted by his name, a blend of his given surname (Villar) and his wife’s (Raigosa).  It’s a rare man, particularly from the mean streets of East Los Angeles, who would have the courage to create a new name with his spouse. 

Above all, Antonio Villaraigosa has a reputation as a devoted supporter of both public and private-sector organized labor, and that bodes well for the future of the working and middle classes in Los Angeles.

Power and Orgasms, two links

First off, two excellent links:

Amp at Alas, A Blog has a terrific post up on sexual attraction and power; he’s got 111 comments (as of this morning), many of them very thoughtful indeed.

I wish I had had access to this post from Lauren on the female orgasm to use in the very friendly debate I — and others — had with Camassia over sexuality and reproductivity.  Lauren’s post was inspired by a new book by Dr. Elisabeth Lloyd  of Indiana Bloomington: The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution.  Lloyd’s book (reviewed in today’s New York Times) suggests that we’ve been wrong to believe that the female orgasm has an evolutionary or reproductive function.  (She apparently demolishes all the old theories, such as the one that suggests that orgasmic contractions help propel sperm towards the egg.) The Times review:

(Dr. Lloyd believes) female orgasms are simply artifacts - a byproduct of the parallel development of male and female embryos in the first eight or nine weeks of life.

In that early period, the nerve and tissue pathways are laid down for various reflexes, including the orgasm, Dr. Lloyd said. As development progresses, male hormones saturate the embryo, and sexuality is defined.

In boys, the penis develops, along with the potential to have orgasms and ejaculate, while "females get the nerve pathways for orgasm by initially having the same body plan."

Nipples in men are similarly vestigial, Dr. Lloyd pointed out.

While nipples in woman serve a purpose, male nipples appear to be simply left over from the initial stage of embryonic development.

The female orgasm, she said, "is for fun."

I’ll have to read the whole thing, but as someone who is always uncomfortable with using "arguments from design" in discussions about sexual ethics, Dr. Lloyd’s book sounds promising. 

But now that she’s got me thinking about it, those who reject evolution and embrace design have some ’splainin to do about the male nipple.  And frankly, I could do without my nipples.  I had them pierced for many years, and though the piercings came out more than five years ago, my nipples are still scarred.  I enjoyed shocking people with them, but can’t say they gave me much delight, especially as a marathoner. I can’t tell you how often I’ve had bloody nipples on long runs.  Thank God for these.

Men and numbness

In my men and masculinity class, we’re making our way through Robert Bly’s maddening, difficult, and challenging Iron John.  Though the book is not nearly as celebrated as it was in the early 1990s (when it became an essential text of at least one wing of the men’s movement), it still is a useful introduction to thinking about men and "men’s work" on psychological, cultural, and spiritual levels.

It’s difficult, with a class that is heavily female, to keep the discussions about Bly from taking on an Oprah-esque quality.  As we read through Bly’s account of the various stages of male growth, it’s important that both male and female students feel comfortable sharing their own responses (and their own stories) that are triggered by the readings.  Where it gets problematic is when some want to use Bly — or the class — as a forum for relationship advice. I admit that I play a part in that (sometimes, I have talk-show host fantasies), and sometimes, I think allowing the class to discuss romantic relationships is an ideal way to help them connect the material to their own lives.

In my favorite chapter of Iron John which we talked about today (chapter four, for those who know the book), Bly talks about the phenomenon of "numbness":

In high school, a girl might ask "Do you love me?"  I couldn’t answer.  If I asked her the same question, she might reply "Well, I respect you, and I admire you, and I’m fond of you, and I’m even interested in you, but I don’t love you.  Apparently when she looked into her chest, she saw a whole spectrum of affections, a whole procession of feelings, and she could easily tell them all apart.  If I looked into my chest, I saw nothing at all.  I had then either to remain silent or fake it.

Some women feel hurt when a man will not "express his feelings", and they conclude that he is holding back, or "telling them something" by such withholding; but it’s more likely that when such a man asks a question of his chest, he gets no answer at all.

When I first read Bly, more than a decade ago, those two paragraphs made me shudder with emotion and recognition.  "My God", I thought, "that’s me.  I thought I was the only one."  Throughout my teen years and beyond, up until very recently, I struggled with that same numbness.  Like Bly, when asked how I felt (as opposed to being asked what I thought or what I wanted), I would either "remain silent or fake it."  Given my generally extroverted personality, I became skilled at faking it.  I learned what other folks, especially the women in my life, wanted me to be feeling — and so I reported what I hoped was appropriate.  (This explains why I got married so often, actually.  I may not have always known what I was feeling, but I was very attracted to the certainty of the women who became my wives.  They knew how they felt about me, and I let that be enough.)

I write about this because I’ve seen so many of my male students (and the boys I work with in youth group) respond as I did, with the "My God, I thought I was the only one."  It’s not that we’re all icy sociopaths, far from it.  It’s that I — and so many of the men I’ve known — grew up lacking any authentic kind of emotional vocabulary for their inner terrain.  As Bly puts it:

My head was fiery and full of blood, and my genitals were fiery and curious too.  The area in between was the problem.

I’ve read that sentence aloud in a lot of groups, and seen many a flash of recognition pass over the face of many a young man (and, to be fair, a few young women too, though that recognition is usually, not always, for the men in their lives.)   I know full well it hasn’t been all men’s experience; many younger guys I know claim (perhaps rightly) that they are as in touch with their emotions as any woman.  But they are few, a privileged few at that, and I’m convinced that exploring this numbness is one of the most vital roles of the men’s movement.

It was other men, not women, who helped me to overcome this "numbness" and to begin the hard work of stopping the habit of "faking it."  I have found that even now, it’s with other men that I do my best work of finding out what I really feel.  That defensive numbness that began before I can remember began to wear off when I began to hang out more and more with other men who had done the work of learning to feel.  And because I was so good at telling the women in my life what I thought they wanted to hear about my feelings, I needed to learn to first tell the truth to men who would not be wounded or upset when they learned what was really going on inside of me.

With the boys in my youth group, my goal is an explicit one — helping those who are numb to be less so by providing a safe, (occasionally) all-male environment in which to talk openly.  It’s a slow process, but an immensely rewarding one.  With my college students, it’s not as prescriptive.  But I am trying to introduce them to the various goals of men’s work, and overcoming numbness surely ranks as one of the big ones.

I’ll be 38 on Sunday.  Even after years of "men’s work" and therapy and small groups and journaling and retreats and oodles of prayer, I still struggle with numbness.  Even with my fiancee now, I sometimes feel bereft of an adequate emotional vocabulary.  But I know enough now to know that those around me are not wrong for wanting me to share my genuine emotions, and I’m not a bad person because my truest feelings often seem so elusive.  As Bly says,

Some of that numbness is gone now.  I can answer questions about my feelings, and I can see people down there with different colored robes, walking around, and I can tell one from the other.

But there are still more down there whom I’ve not yet seen.

Confirmation report

It’s a busy Monday morning and I’m finally back in the office — fighting an oncoming cold to boot.  I’m also still suffering from the after-effects of a long run on Friday, done in the hills near my family’s home on Mission Peak. I ran too late in the morning (after it had gotten quite warm), and went through all my water too quickly.  I ran the last hour or so with no water at all in eighty-degree temperatures, and felt quite poorly at the end.  My muscles are still sore as a result — inadequate hydration means a much longer recovery time.  All is still on track, Lord willing, for the San Diego marathon on June 5.

Saturday morning, Bishop Jon Bruno confirmed about a dozen of our "Seekers" kids at All Saints Pasadena.  The good bishop had had his foot amputated in late March, but is making excellent progress.  He’s not able to stand for long periods yet, and so he gave his sermon — and confirmed our youth — while sitting on his splendid bronze stool.  (The seat of the stool is from the tractor that the young Jon Bruno used to drive on his grandfather’s farm.)

Jon gathered with the confirmands, their faith partners, clergy, and youth workers before the service.  He told the kids a bit about what the service of confirmation would be like, and invited them to ask last-minute questions. He also talked at length about what he believes confirmation to be.  Jon told us that he sees confirmation not only as a commissioning for life of Christian service (which it is), but also for a life of seeing Christ in other people, particularly in the faces of those with whom one disagrees. 

It was similar to what he told us last year, only with a considerable addition.  Since he confirmed our Seekers Class of 2004, Bishop Bruno has presided at a same-sex blessing (becoming the first bishop in the Anglican Communion to do so) and witnessed the subsequent attempted break-away of three conservative parishes within the diocese of Los Angeles.  To put it mildly, since he last spoke to our youth, Jon has not only lost a foot, he’s made a lot more enemies.  The bishop spoke plainly of his own struggle to always see Christ in the face of those with whom he disagrees; he referred in particular to the priests of the break-away parishes and those in the larger church who are backing their actions.  He reminded our kids that standing up for inclusion, which he called (I hope rightly) standing up for Christ, has a cost. Confirmation, he said, is the mature acceptance of the reality that struggling for God’s justice may come at a high price to you personally.   The teens listened raptly.  (Parenthetically, it’s a staple of youth work in liberal and conservative churches alike to emphasize the essentially counter-cultural nature of a life of faith. It’s interesting, isn’t it, how absolutely everyone in this great fight over same-sex unions and inclusion perceives themselves as fighting for the rights of an oppressed minority, and doing so in the face of misunderstanding, anger, and retribution!)

One of our adult faith partners asked Jon about his recent decision to refrain from blessing more same-sex unions.  (I know that a number of folks here at All Saints were quite disappointed in that decision).  The bishop explained that he still believed in the validity of such blessings, and that he would continue to urge diocesan clergy to bless same-sex unions when pastorally appropriate.  But he himself would refrain, he said, for the foreseeable future, as an act of penance.  Bishop Bruno explained that he’s holding back as penance for the divisions within the church (not that he’s taking blame for causing those divisions!)   Jon also spoke of the importance of reaching out as a bishop to conservative Episcopalians, and to traditionalist Christians of other denominations; he believes that continuing to bless same-sex unions might be an unnecessary obstacle to fruitful encounters with our brothers and sisters on the right.  He stressed again that he did not regret having blessed such a union, and that he hoped for the day when such unions would be accepted by both church and state without question or discussion. Until then, Jon wants to journey hopefully with those on all sides of the issue, recognizing that his personal decision not to bless any more unions will be something of a disappointment to the most ardent supporters of full inclusion.

It was a great service.  I loved watching the emotion on the faces of my kids as Jon laid his massive hands on their heads. But oh, sometimes, I wince at the modern hymns we sing!  We sang two of my favorite tunes on Saturday; Azmon and Hyfrydol, but not with the traditional "O, For a Thousand Tongues to Sing" and "Alleluia, Sing to Jesus" respectively.  (I adore both).  Instead, we get rather hopeless modern lyrics. I can’t find what we sang to Azmon at the moment, but here’s a link to the text of our closing hymn sung to Hyfrydol compared to the original.  The first two verses of Ruth Duck’s version:

1. As a fire is meant for burning
with a bright and warming flame,
so the church is meant for mission,
giving glory to God’s name. 
Not to preach our creeds or customs,
but to build a bridge of care,
we join hands across the nations,
finding neighbors everywhere.

2. We are learners; we are teachers;
we are pilgrims on the way.
We are seekers; we are givers;
we are vessels made of clay.
By our gentle loving actions, we would show that Christ is light.
in a humble, listening spirit, we would live to God’s delight.

Maybe I’ve got too much testosterone, or I’ve still got an evangelical side to me, but that just makes me wince.  And the "not to preach our creeds" bit doesn’t sit well with me either.  Oh well.  It’s a terrific tune, and Jon Bruno can still belt it out, even on one foot.

Thursday Short Poem: Castillo’s “Impossible”

I first came across the work of Ana Castillo in college, in a course on Latina writers.  I loved her from the start.  I don’t know that she’s a great poet — but she gets to me, in the best of ways, and this is one of hers that I’ve liked for a long, long time.

I Ask the Impossible

I ask the impossible: love me forever.
Love me when all desire is gone.
Love me with the single mindedness of a monk.
When the world in its entirety,
and all that you hold sacred advise you
against it: love me still more.
When rage fills you and has no name: love me.
When each step from your door to our job tires you–
love me; and from job to home again, love me, love me.
Love me when you’re bored–
when every woman you see is more beautiful than the last,
or more pathetic, love me as you always have:
not as admirer or judge, but with
the compassion you save for yourself
in your solitude.
Love me as you relish your loneliness,
the anticipation of your death,
mysteries of the flesh, as it tears and mends.
Love me as your most treasured childhood memory–
and if there is none to recall–
imagine one, place me there with you.
Love me withered as you loved me new.
Love me as if I were forever–
and I, will make the impossible
a simple act,
by loving you, loving you as I do

I especially like this line:

not as admirer or judge, but with
the compassion you save for yourself
in your solitude…

That’s right on.

I’ll be away…

…from the blog until Monday, May 16.    Please visit some of my links, or weigh in on a post or two here.

I will have a Thursday Short Poem up tomorrow.

Filters, and sorting through the “triangle of desires”

Update on this earlier story: bowing to protest, the administration has removed all the filters on faculty computers.  We can now access any site we want without hindrance.  We have been told, however, that the administration will continue to monitor our computer use.  Will we be asked to justify our visits to certain sites?  Who knows.  Still, it’s a minor victory for faculty rights.

We had a good discussion this morning in women’s history about something that for years I’ve been calling the "triangle of desires."  We’ve been talking about changing sexual behavior in the 1920s and 30s as a result of cultural and technological innovations like the automobile, the movies, and the greater availability of contraception.  Using my favorite text, Joan Brumberg’s The Body Project, we’ve been talking about the ways in which young women in the 1920s — and today — struggle with conflicting and contradictory messages about their sexuality.  Brumberg uses the diary of a woman she calls "Yvonne Blue"; Yvonne wrote at length about her adolescent sexual experiences in the late 20s and early 30s:

Despite her honesty with herself about the pleasures of petting, Yvonne was not totally at ease with her emerging sexuality.  Although petting was commonplace among adolescents of her age and class, she still worried about her reputation, because she knew that she had a lower opinion of other girls whenever she found out about their sexual exploits…  Because Victorian notions of propriety still had some resonance for her, Yvonne felt the need to clarify in her diary just how far she had gone.  "I’m still technically a ‘nice girl’", she wrote, but she vacillated between feeling guilty and happy about the experiences she had.  "Once in awhile I feel slightly ashamed of myself for indulging in the greatest American sport but something must be the matter with me because while I think it’s wrong I really, really can’t feel that it is". (Emphasis in original).

Yvonne wrote that in 1930.  Three quarters of a century later, I saw more than a few young women nodding their heads in vigorous agreement when I asked whether Yvonne’s words could have been written by young women today.  Several of them admitted that like Yvonne, they too had a "lower opinion of other girls" who had "gone too far".   Others admitted that like Yvonne, they felt both shame and pleasure together, and often had difficulty reconciling the two.

The phrase "triangle of desires" describes, I think, the experience of many young people, especially women, when it comes to sexual decision-making.  Triangles have three points.  Young women, in Yvonne’s era and now, may often struggle with three different sets of desires making different demands upon them. For one, they’ve got the desires of their male partner (presuming heterosexuality) with which to contend.  In a culture where we expect young women to set the limits of sexual activity, many girls are trying very hard to manage and control the desires of their boyfriends.  At the same time, these young women have their own very real desires, both sexual and emotional.  Those wants and needs may, or may not, be in synch with the fellows with whom they are sharing a bed — or a back seat. And of course she’s also internalized the third point on the triangle, the desires of what I call "the them": her parents, her church, her peers and so forth.   Trying to enjoy oneself when one has all of these conflicting messages racing through one’s head can be, I suggest, immensely difficult!

I am not saying that all young women experience this "triangulation of desires."  I’m also not suggesting that young men don’t experience something at least somewhat similar.  But I do think that in a culture that, since the 1920s at least, has suggested that the ideal women is both "sexy" and "virginal", both a "nice girl" and "exciting", a cruel double bind has left countless young women struggling with feeling overwhelmed and ashamed.   Is it any wonder that a great many young women, both in the 1920s and now, report that alcohol plays a vital role in sexual decision making?  When the backseat (or the bedroom) is crowded with so many different and competing voices, all making impossible and contradictory demands, a certain level of intoxication can provide a welcome and blessed — if only temporary — relief.

Though I talked about this with my students today in terms of the shifting moral landscape of the 1920s, I’m going to work this in to some future discussions with my kids at youth group.  I want them to acknowledge that an ethic that simply emphasizes "doing what you want" isn’t very helpful when so many of us carry within us these competing and conflicting longings.  I realize that though I am not prepared to argue for abstinence (yet), I’m prepared to say that my kids, both boys and girls, deserve to experience sex without being overwhelmed by various and contradictory voices vying for their attention.  They deserve to have sexual experiences where both parties are fully present (meaning not intoxicated) and where they aren’t haunted by the spectres of disapproving grandmothers or pastors or classmates. 

One of my married students pointed out today that even as a married woman having married sex, she still sometimes felt guilty, still wondering what her grandmother would think!   The stories I’ve heard over the years suggest that her experience is very, very common.  (Gosh, the expression on the faces of some of the girls whom I know to be advocating abstinence when they heard her share that — priceless!)  It’s important to remember that waiting till marriage is not a magic bullet that destroys sexual guilt and shame and self-doubt; our psyches don’t recover easily from the traditional message of "sex is dirty, save it for someone you love"!"  The abstinence-only crowd doesn’t explain that postponing sex in many cases simply postpones (rather than eradicates) these feelings of shame and inadequacy.

That’s not a defense of promiscuity, either.  What we continue to need is more dialogue, among women, among men, and between the sexes, about issues of desire and responsibility.  We need to do a better job of making young men stewards of their own sexuality, just as we need to do a better job of allowing young women to experience their sexuality without shame.

Is this what I’m supposed to be doing in a college classroom?  In a youth group?  Judging by the responses I get, and the interest it generates, I suspect it is.  I surely hope so.  But Christ almighty, sometimes it feels like a hell of a lot of responsibility.  Then again, I volunteered with enthusiasm.

I’ve rambled enough.  I’m off.

Boycotts and petitions

I’ve followed (with a modest amount of interest) the story of the British Association of University Teachers decision to boycott Israeli universities (and Israeli scholars) in protest against their government’s treatment of the Palestinians.

I am not a supporter of the current government of Israel or its policies.  I am, however, appalled by the notion that Israel (out of all of the nations of the world) has acted with unique wickedness.  If the British left really had the courage of its convictions, they would surely want to boycott most American universities, given the Bush Administration’s record in Iraq?  What about universities throughout the Islamic world?  What about Russian universities, given Chechnya?  It’s not a defense of Israel to say that the Israeli government is not the "worst" in the world; why single out the world’s one Jewish state for boycott?

I like this little op-ed from Israeli scholar Yediot Aharonot: Why Us?  Recognizing Israel’s appalling treatment of the Palestinians, Aharonot acknowledges that Israeli academics have not gone far enough in speaking out against their government:

Perhaps it would be more worthwhile for the Israeli Academy to direct its anger (at the boycott) at the government and demand that it finally put a stop to this wall.

Agreed. But in the meantime, non-Israeli academics need to draw a distinction between the actions of a rogue government and the right of its scholars to participate in the world-wide intellectual community.  In this blog, I defended Jacques Pluss; in that same spirit of knee-jerk liberalism, I oppose this boycott.

Ralph Luker at Cliopatria notes that an on-line petition opposing the boycott has been created by Jeff Weintraub at Penn.  This morning, I was signer #262.  The petition simply recapitulates the stance of the American Association of University Professors:

Delegates to a recent meeting of the British Association of University Teachers (AUT) approved resolutions that damage academic freedom. The resolutions call on all members of AUT to "refrain from participation in any form of academic and cultural cooperation, collaboration, or joint projects" with two universities in Israel, Haifa University and Bar Ilan University. Excluded from the ban are "conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state’s colonial and racist policies," an exclusion which, because it requires compliance with a political or ideological test in order for an academic relationship to continue, deepens the injury to academic freedom rather than mitigates it.

These resolutions have been met with strong condemnation and calls for repeal within the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The American Association of University Professors joins in condemning these resolutions and in calling for their repeal. Since its founding in 1915, the AAUP has been committed to preserving and advancing the free exchange of ideas among academics irrespective of governmental policies and however unpalatable those policies may be viewed. We reject proposals that curtail the freedom of teachers and researchers to engage in work with academic colleagues, and we reaffirm the paramount importance of the freest possible international movement of scholars and ideas. The AAUP urges the AUT to support the right of all in the academic community to communicate freely with other academics on matters of professional interest.

The highlighted bit is mine; it’s what I found most egregious about the AUT’s stance.  Mind you, I do think academic unions should take political stands. I do think universities have a right, even an obligation, to take moral positions on global issues.  But as the son of two college professors, the brother of another, raised in the academic world my whole life, I’ve always fancied the idea of professors as "stateless intellectuals".  We have politics, we have passports, but we also have the international, borderless, life of the mind.  We are — or ought to be — equally at home at academic conferences in Berlin and Bogota, Cape Town and Calgary, Tuscaloosa and Tel Aviv, Phnom Penh and Pasadena.  And when we meet each other, write to each other, argue with each other, we ought to see each other as individual scholars rather than representatives of the states in which we hold citizenship and whose policies we may or may not endorse.

Is that a woefully elitist vision?  I suspect my friends who support the AUT would say so. 

Please consider signing the petition.  As I did so, I prayed for the people of Israel, for the Palestinian people, and for all those (including the wonderful CPTers) who are struggling to make peace.

Questions and answers

Last Wednesday night in youth group, we did something we always do as part of our sex ed curriculum.  We split up the boys and the girls, sending them off with their same-sex youth leaders for some honest conversation.  This is one of my favorite exercises, particularly because it’s something that we do all too rarely.

Like many high school youth groups, we have more girls than boys.  It’s not a huge disparity; the ratio is perhaps 3:2.  However, when it comes to talking honestly about sex in a mixed setting, our girls usually prove much more confident.  For example, two weeks ago I asked them to "describe desire"; each kid was asked to write down a few thoughts about what it feels like to really want, and then share that with the group.  It’s a high risk, high reward assignment.  This time, it went particularly well.  We had a dozen girls sharing remarkably honestly, even eloquently.  Only one boy chimed in, somewhat reluctantly.  Perhaps it’s fear of ridicule, perhaps it’s a discomfort with verbalizing intense feeling, but whatever the case, our boys stayed quiet. 

Things went better when the guys were alone together. We were able to laugh and joke a bit and then get down to some work.  I always ask them to do the following:

1.  Come up with three things that they — as a group — wish girls knew about boys.

2.  Come up with three questions that they would like to have the girls — as a group — answer about women.

I love the first part of this.  Invariably, the same topics come up year after year.  And year after year, I hear teenage men say, often with great passion, that they hate being stereotyped as obsessed with sex.  This year was no exception; one boy said "Yes, we think about sex.  A lot.  But girls think that’s all we care about, and they’re wrong."  All the other boys nodded.  This led to a brief, but remarkably honest and valuable discussion about the hurt that they felt when they were labeled as "horndogs" uninterested in feelings and actual relationships.  The boys acknowledge, this year’s group in particular, that their own behavior can play a role in reinforcing the stereotype.  But they wanted very much for the girls to hear, and to believe, that they are motivated by more than the libido.

The boys also talked about body image; they want the girls to know that guys also get insecure about their looks.  We talked about how hard it is for guys to talk to each other about this.  We can’t very well say to another man "Dude, do I look fat?"  (Except as part of a very self-conscious parody of either women or gay men.)  My boys on Wednesday night really wanted the girls to hear that despite their silence on the subject, those insecurities were present and very real.

The questions were good as well.  One in particular shows up often, and did this year again:  "Why", the boys asked, "do girls want us to listen to them but not try and help?"  Even among teens, we see that classic problem.  Maybe it’s just the guys I tend to end up working with, but most of them are kind-hearted fellas who, when they hear a problem, want to fix it.  They are discovering that their female friends and lovers don’t always want their problems "fixed"; they simply want to be heard and acknowledged.  That’s as frustrating at 17 as it is at 37, and Lord, how I wish I could always suppress that desire to simply "fix the problem and move on."   

This Wednesday, the boys and girls answer each other’s questions.

CPT and missing the Mennonites

My thoughts aren’t sufficiently organized this morning for a real post.  Perhaps I’ll be able to work one up this afternoon.  So, some odds and ends:

Caitriona mentioned something I ought to have blogged about before: Christian Peacemaker Teams’ Adopt-A-Detainee program.   Founded in the aftermath of last year’s Abu Ghraib scandal, AAD seems at least somewhat similar to Amnesty International:

CPT’s Adopt-a-Detainee Campaign matches individual detainees with congregations, mosques, synagogues, or peace groups who organize their members to write letters on the detainees’ behalf to U.S. legislators and one or all of the following: a U.S. military official, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and Iraq’s Prime Minister.

I’m a big fan of CPT, especially their work in Colombia (from whence my fiancee’s family hails, and where we’ve spent part of each of the last two summers).  Here’s a press release from CPT condemning US military involvement in the illegal sale of arms to paramilitaries.   I’ve mentioned my own brief and awkward encounter with military contractors in Colombia before.

I often find myself missing the Mennonites.  I spent a year and a half with Pasadena Mennonite Church before returning to the Episcopal fold last summer.  (See this post as well.)   I loved the ingenuousness and the simplicity of the Mennonite community here in Pasadena; I loved the Anabaptist commitment to non-violence and community.  These were people who did a superb job of refusing to choose between a passionate faith in Christ and social justice. 

Camassia, interestingly enough, seems to have come to PMC just as I was leaving.   The debate that she and I are having both here and at her blog over the proper place of sexuality in God’s kingdom reflects many of my own differences with the Mennonites, and explains some of the reasons why I ultimately felt so much more at home at a liberal Episcopal church.

You know, I love being welcomed unconditionally.  But sometimes, I miss being "pushed" beyond my comfort zone by my fellow Christians.  We "do" welcoming very well at All Saints.  We aren’t quite so good at the pushing.

Debate continues

Home from church, getting ready to go for a ride and a lift, but did want to draw your attention to a debate that Camassia and I are continuing at her place.   It’s on the same darned subject we’ve been on these past few days.  Read first this, then this

I’m challenged, in a good way, and am sticking to my rhetorical guns as best I can, trying to stay open to the possibility that I may be using explicitly Christian language to justify a very un-biblical position. To paraphrase Cromwell, it’s best to always think it possible, in the bowels of Christ, that one may be wrong.

Ignoring a rodent warning in the name of love

As a lover of all things rodent, I note with some concern the news about the apparent link between contact with small furry creatures and serious cases of salmonella poisoning:

Furry "pocket pets" like hamsters, mice and rats have sickened up to 30 people in at least 10 states with dangerous multidrug-resistant bacteria, health officials are warning.

It is the first known outbreak of salmonella illness tied to such pets and reveals a previously unknown public health risk, officials said in a report released Thursday.

Many of the victims were children; six were hospitalized for vomiting, fever and severe diarrhea. Some passed the illness to others. The germ they had was resistant to five drugs spanning several classes of antibiotics.

The articles I’ve found online mention gerbils, hamsters, rats, ferrets, and rabbits.  Not  chinchillas, but of course, chins are less common as household pets.  What’s particularly awful is one of the recommendations the Centers for Disease Control has issued:

Owners should not kiss their pets or hold them close to their mouths…

Yeah, right.  I suppose what I’m doing in this picture is now out!  Matilde gives the sweetest and gentlest kisses, and I’d gladly risk anything for them.  I even broke my "no blogging on the weekend" rule to make that clear to everyone.  She’s asleep at the moment, but tonight, just before her dust bath, she’ll get lots of kisses.

Election musings

I spent an hour yesterday afternoon watching C-SPAN’s feed of live BBC coverage of the UK general election.  I was generally pleased by the results.  I’m glad that Labour was returned to power with a diminished majority, especially if that majority was interpreted as a consequence of Prime Minister Blair’s decision to join in the Iraq invasion two years ago.  I’m happy the Liberal Democrats did well, and happy that though the Conservatives gained seats, they did not substantially improve on their percentage of the vote. The improved showing of the Greens was also happy news.

Though he’s a windbag and a scoundrel, I’m pleased with George Galloway’s win for the Respect Party.  All healthy political systems need self-important demagogues who, despite their liabilities, will regularly and emphatically speak truth to power.   (It’s why I’m so fond of Maxine Waters.)  I loved the transcript of the interview the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman did with Galloway; it’s clear that it was the former who was genuinely rude.

As I’ve mentioned before, my brother, sisters, and I all hold dual US/UK citizenship.  My brother and one sister live in England; my other sister and I are in California.  Though I am not eligible to vote in Britain, I follow its politics closely.  Comparing last night’s result to November’s great disappointment, I am struck once again by how much further to the left the UK remains compared to America.   I’d be lying if I said I weren’t envious.

I’m not interested, at least not in the foreseeable future, in joining my brother and sister in becoming an expat in the UK.  I’m deeply American in my thinking, and I have a deep attachment to California’s climate.  As much as I love England, all of that intense green-ness seems unnatural to me.  I like my natural beauty to come in muted tones, browns and grays and subtle greens.  I love mountains, too, and what pass for mountains in England are what folks here in the San Gabriels would refer to as speed-bumps.  But for all its myriad shortcomings, the ruling Labour party retains at least a sense of responsibility for the poor and an appreciation for diverse lifestyles — something that I see sorely lacking in the dominant party in my own country.

But they don’t have tenure in English universities, and that is a bit of a bother.  I think I’ll stay here in the smog, the heat, the congestion and fight the good fight (as I tell myself that I do) just a bit longer.

Former student report…

One of my favorite former students made the paper: Tara Craig, who took my Gay and Lesbian History class here at PCC in spring 2002.  She’s a terrific songwriter and performer (I have one of her demo cds lying about somewhere), and if we had to put her in a niche, she sings acoustic indie folk.  The article talks about her identity as a lesbian evangelical.  Though she may not be out to her family yet, she’s out to the online press, so I thought I’d give her and her music a plug.

She sent out a note to her mailing list along with the link, correcting the tone of the article and apologizing for the fact that the article mentions a gay and lesbian course at Fullerton College rather than PCC (hey, I’m miffed):

I have mixed feelings about the article.  I am excited
of course, but also feel a bit misrepresented.  It was
made to look as if I am in turmoil over my sexuality.
This is not true.  In the interview I was asked if I
was "sure" that God was okay with homosexuality I told
her that sometimes I still doubt, but that I know
God’s grace is enough (or something like that).
Anyway I am a bit unhappy that the article ends with
this topic and presents me as struggling with the
issue.  I definitely learned to be more careful in
interview situations.  Chalk one up to experience.
There is also a mistake in the article.  The gay and
lesbian history class was at Pasadena City College not
Fullerton JC. 

Keep those corrections in mind as you read it.  The gay Christian pastor she heard speak was my wonderful friend Jerrell Walls of Christ Chapel of North Hollywood.  I’m pleased and proud that in some small way, my class provided her with an environment to take a major step towards discovering her identity as both a gay woman and a beloved daughter of Christ.

If you can ever make it down Long Beach way, check her out.