I’ve got a post about this article (young, hip virgins! w00t!) brewing, as well as an initial review of the book I recently started (Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation
It feels kind of weird, being here. During my junior and senior year of high school, I spent what seemed like half my life in this place. Studying, hanging out with friends, getting caught up in teenage drama - it was the place for all of that. Jenny, Niki, and I spent untold hours in the cafe, harassing our friends who worked there. We also learned lots of excellent synonyms for “loose woman,” thanks to the plethora of thesauri. Mandi and I were asked on more than one occasion by middle-aged women sitting near us to either change our topic of conversation or move away from them. Charlie cruised this place like the clubs none of us could get into at age 17. And so on and so forth.
If I may employ some hyberbole… it was one of the only places in this godforsaken town where I felt at home. (Except for those times when there was teenage drama going on, of course.)
You wanted “lots of entries about sex”, so I’ll go ahead and oblige with one. (Note: going forward, you may have to allow for a liberal interpretation of the word “lots.”)
Spring of my senior year of high school, I was (as per usual) studying in the B&N cafe one night, and there was this guy sitting at the next table… somehow we struck up a conversation. Sucks that I can’t remember exactly how. I think it was over something really obscure, though. Like British politics in the 17th century or some shit. Anyway, we talked for quite some time, until the place closed; then we exchanged email addresses (nerd alert!) and went our separate ways.
As it turns out, he was 24 (I, of course, was at the tender age of 18) and in the Army. Ooh, scandalous! One night I went over to his place (yes, on the base) to watch a movie. Afterwards, as I got up to leave, he tried to be all smooth by saying he’d “never kissed anyone in BDUs” - referring to the camoflague Army jacket that I wore.
-I feel that this is getting long and boring. So, cut to the chase: turns out that, in addition to being very intelligent, he was also a self-proclaimed born-again Christian. (Although I don’t think he ever used the term “born-again”; but I can’t remember what he did use, so there you go.) What did this mean? Well, it meant that every time after we’d have sex, he’d lecture me about why it was wrong and why that’s not what God wants, blah blah blah etc. etc. That got old real fast. Also amusing was the fact that even though we clearly shouldn’t be doing it, it wasn’t as bad as it could be, because he made sure to steer clear of the dreaded penis-vagina penetration, which is what sends you straight to hell. 69 is wrong, sure, but it isn’t really sex. Right? Riiiiight.
I think he lasted for about two months. A very sporadic arrangement, to be sure. I finally got sick of the lectures and exploded one night into a long rant about how if it was so goddamn wrong then why can’t he keep his hands out of my pants? It’s “wrong” but he’s not saying no to any blowjobs, right? Yet somehow I was more morally culpable than him. Never figured that one out.
Fuck it! Who has time for that shit? Not me. Fucking hypocrites. (Ha! Pun! Whooooo…)
I wish I could file my blog posts under more than one category. This would go under “Personal” and “Sex.” But I can’t, so I must pick just one. Gah.
READ ME: Disclaimer
23 Responses to "Sex, Books, and the Brooding High School Girl"
First: cant wait to hear about that book! I have wanted to read it!!
Second: Hypocrites. What can I say? I think they will forever be around and the best solution is simply to fuck with ‘em. They aren’t worth anything more than that.
Ah… Army Guy. I remember him well. I don’t know who he thought he was kidding, other than himself.
Hypocrites. What can I say? I think they will forever be around and the best solution is simply to fuck with ‘em. They aren’t worth anything more than that.
Yet if he had stood firmly by his religious and moral convictions and had actually refrained from having sex until he was married, then he would be a “prude.” The only way Army Guy could “win” would be if he simply adopted the “extramarital sex is good” ethos for himself and then lived by it (which he was already doing hypocritically before).
In other words, it sometimes seems a bit insincere to compalin about ‘hypocrisy’ when you wouldn’t really be happy if the ‘hypocrite’ lived what he believed, either. If I say I believe in Christian morality and I actually live like I believe it, then I’m one of those sexually-repressed nutcases who thinks women are inferior (and probably kicks puppies). Boo, hiss, throw rocks. But if, on the other hand, I say that I believe in Christian morality but then do things that my morality tells me not to do, I am a dreaded “hypocrite” and I am “worth” nothing more than being toyed with.
But all of that aside, who isn’t a hypocrite on some level? Is there anyone out there whose behavior is always perfectly consistent with their stated beliefs?
If Amber feels she got something from Army Guy for a time, and if he felt he was getting something from her, and then eventually they went their separate ways, then why can’t that be the simple end of it? Why does the story have to be retold in such a way as to mock poor Army Guy? Why does Army Guy have to be despised in retrospect for his own inner torment?
Poor Army Guy, poor Army Guy! Come on now. He’s not despised for his “inner torment” - but rather for the immature way in which he decided to take it all out on me instead of dealing with his own perceived shortcomings. In his mind it was wrong to have sex; but he did it anyway. So don’t lecture me because of that! He’s the one who broke his own convictions, he should deal with it himself and blame himself if he’s going to blame anyone.
Hey. People are free to make their own decisions about sex (and anything else). That doesn’t mean I have to agree with those decisions.
Well, I’m sure Army Guy learned something from the experience, though if I know 24-year-old guys (oh look, I’m 24 now), it may have just made him more confused about his faith.
At the risk of sounding like all of the Baptist preachers, the problem with this guy (and many others) is the moral relativism I’m assuming allowed him to continue with the sex. “Sure, I know it’s wrong, but it feels so good, almost like I have to do it.”
Just like “Sure, the bible condemns drunkenness, but come on, how can I go to college and not drink? I’m just going to ignore that part until I’m a little older.”
Xon, I see where you’re coming from on the “prude” hypothetical, but in the end, this is a discussion about this guy, because obviously, Amber’s not going to get laid by a prude. (Oops, Amber, is “laid by” too man-centric? Should it be “mutually-exchanged equality-gasms”?)
I don’t think it’s that insincere. It would only be insincere if Amber actually tried to fuck this guy-who-lives-what-he-believes, and then still complained. But we know that Amber finds such Christians to be boring and unfuckable, so she is (in my opinion) free to complain about the ones who do try to fuck her who then go on to complain about the moral implications, which she clearly finds untrue or inapplicable.
Now I can definitely cut the guy some slack for relating his concerns to Amber. Amber, I think you’d agree that people should be completely upfront about any sexual hang-ups they have, whether they be religious, contractual, or allergy-related. But if he was trying to make you the more culpable one, as you implied, that’s a pretty dick thing to do, and not exactly the best way to show his appreciation for teh secks.
To clarify a bit, I believe that from the perspective Amber approaches sex, it’s rude for a partner to attempt to drag her into the framework of his religion’s teachings on the subject, when that’s clearly not what the sex is about for her. If Amber had been a Good Christian Girl, that might have been a discussion she would have appreciated, regardless of the hypocrisy. But from what I assume, Army Guy knew what Amber’s approach to sex was, and bogged down the sexual relationship with continuous moral condemnation of their actions. Amber’s point here is that she didn’t wish to continue a relationship with such undertones, because that’s not what sex is about to her, and Army Guy knew it.
(Yes, yes, I know, Xon… Who’s being morally relativist now?? I am!)
“Laid by” is just fine, Garrett. But, touché. ;)
I know you’re no misogynist. That’s why you’re allowed to use such terms! Hell, I use ‘em myself.
More later. Must “work” now.
Awesome. ‘Cause, you see, I use “mailman”, “chairman”, “stewardess”, “mankind” (which is ok since it comes from the words “mank” and “ind”), “man”, “he” (as a gender-neutral pronoun). If anyone has a problem with these, let him stand up and be heard!
But all of that aside, who isn’t a hypocrite on some level? Is there anyone out there whose behavior is always perfectly consistent with their stated beliefs?
So, does the fact that no one’s ideals jibe with their actions mean that everyone who’s hypocrisy effects others gets a free pass?
That’s like saying that it doesn’t matter which politician you vote for as they’re all corrupt, it’s a cheap cop-out and what ignorant people do when faced with a real decision.
And, for the record, everyone is a hypocrite, but not all hypocrisy is equal.
Sometimes, Xon, I don’t think you read as well as you seem to think you do:
If Amber feels she got something from Army Guy for a time, and if he felt he was getting something from her, and then eventually they went their separate ways, then why can’t that be the simple end of it?
Because instead of just 69ing her and leaving, he had to instead lecture her about how wrong what they had just done was and then, go and do it again. That’s just sad.
Why does the story have to be retold in such a way as to mock poor Army Guy?
Because he can’t seem to come to terms with his actions and his ideals, but instead of keeping this to himself he has to take it out on Amber, as if she’s the cause of his problems. Typical woman-hating man, his is the noble path but always succumbing to temptation that those whorish daughters of eve.
Why does Army Guy have to be despised in retrospect for his own inner torment?
He’s not despised for his inner torment, he’s despised for taking his inner torment out on Amber while simultaneously doing nothing to relieve it.
Xon, if you believed that imbibing alcohol was a grave sin (I don’t know if you do, I’m just hypothesizing), but continuously went out to parties, got wasted, had a great time and then spent your hungover saturdays lecturing to people about the evils of alcohol, you’d be a contemptuous fuck. If you don’t approve of something, don’t do it, and if you can’t stop yourself from doing it, don’t blame others for your shortcomings.
Honestly, I thought you’d understand this perfectly. This is what the over-emphsization of Abstinence does to people, if you ask me, it creates untennable ideals and fails to address the desires that are inherent in all of us…Without the tools for dealing with the later, the former are nearly impossible to achieve.
At the risk of sounding like all of the Baptist preachers, the problem with this guy (and many others) is the moral relativism I’m assuming allowed him to continue with the sex. “Sure, I know it’s wrong, but it feels so good, almost like I have to do it.”
Wrong. Try again, sparky. The problem here is this guy has clearly been given tools to deal with his spiritual issues, but has failed either to receive or properly utilise tools for dealing with his desires.
The problem here, like I addressed to Xon, is the Abstinence-only education this guy most likely received (I’m hypothesizing here, bear with me). He seems to have some pretty fucked up ideas about sex and is trying to jibe his sprituality with his bodily desires. That doesn’t negate one or the other, but it does put him in a conundrum that he obviously wasn’t capable of dealing with, as he felt the need to take it out on the girl with whom he was indulging his desires. Moral relativism is merely a boogeyman here, and has little to do with the point at hand which is, primarily, that this guy was obviously not capable of getting his actions to line up with his ideals. I just hope he took a good hard look at what he was and what he thought he should be and tried to rectify the obvious disconnect.
Sadly, I’ll bet he just married the first “good christian girl” he came across and is rather disappointed at his choice. That’s total bullshit, by the way, I know as much about this doofus as y’all do.
Awesome. ‘Cause, you see, I use “mailman”, “chairman”, “stewardess”, “mankind” (which is ok since it comes from the words “mank” and “ind”), “man”, “he” (as a gender-neutral pronoun). If anyone has a problem with these, let him stand up and be heard!
I do. But then, I’m a man-hating feminist…
As for stewardess, I would personally advise you not to say that within earshot of a flight attendent as in this post 9/11 world, you might be a little surprised to know they power they wield…
Well, we’re both speculating here, but what about the situation makes you think Army Guy didn’t have some kind of moral equivocation that allowed him to deal with the desires, albeit temporarily, by changing his standards a little? Maybe I used the wrong term (relativism), but it seems like this guy was (is?) really good at changing the terms of the arrangement in any way besides actually changing his behavior, to feel better about it.
That’s just it– often, this disparity leads to moral relativism. I was just supposing that this was the case, but you’re right. Relativism isn’t the culprit here.
Good points re: abstinence, btw.
Oops! Amber, can you close my blockquote and italics tags before the last line, pleeease?
Done. Oh and FYI Garrett, the <blockquote> element is styled to automatically be rendered in italics.
Lots of new comments… I better catch up.
And you may know this, but the <blockquote> tag breaks your auto-preview widget…
What?
No, I didn’t know that.
But I never use IE, so I guess I don’t know a lot of things.
Definitely. But it’s like you said: If he had expressed his concerns ahead of time, then that would be that. But, not only did he not mention any religious beliefs ahead of time, but afterwards he lectured me on why I shouldn’t be having premarital sex. No, I shit you not.
Sometimes I do wonder what happened to him. Well, but not for too long.
And honestly, he didn’t seem too convicted of his religious beliefs. Half-hearted at best. It was almost like by lecturing me, he was trying to convince himself.
Equality-gasms.
Fuck, that’s funny.
“It was almost like by lecturing me, he was trying to convince himself.”
Exactly, which is why the right way to criticize “abstinence-only” sex education is not to note its failures (more teens are performing sexual acts and becoming infected) or its lack of realism (people are going to have sex anyway), but rather to note that it succeeds too well: it creates the separation of intercourse from the totality of sexual relating so that everything up to intercourse is permissible (anal, oral, frottage, manual, &tc, it can be “dangerous”, but only insofar as it leads to intercourse. As Amber said, for him it wasn’t “really” sex.). Army Guy’s moral lecturing served to reinforce the division between sex and the permissible for himself.
Whether this means there is a right kind of abstinence-only education is a question worth asking. Afterall, what if we do have the tools to “deal” with our inherent desires (What about, though, the people for whom there are no inherent desires for sex?), then is abstinence a possibility to achieve (’nearly impossible’, but not definitely)?
Or, are we just assuming that people who go out on dates, who hang with people of the other sex, will kiss, will hug, will touch? Are we talking about temptation, or are we talking about normality? There are unspoken assumptions in criticizing how abstinence fails, and in how it might succeed. I am not sure, though, if Army Guy is a good indicator of which assumptions are operating, in that we’re ignoring the curiosity of his intelligence, the politics of 17th century Britannia, this the mutuality of being nerds. It’s not simply abstinence, it’s also being in Barnes & Noble, being a soldier, and this erotic appeal of kissing anyone in BDUs: in dealing with what everyone knows is the obscene truth of military command, hierarchy, and what is best left undiscussed, unasked, untold. Just as it operates silently here, and now.
Well, that is what was so weird. (What, it gets even weirder with this guy? Yes, it does!) During the act itself (I hate that phrase, “the act”) he didn’t have a problem with “everything but.” He was all about it, in fact. If I remember correctly, I even asked a couple of times whether he wanted to fuck, and he said no.
But then afterwards, it was like he suddenly regretted everything he had done. That is when he started in with the lectures. That is when it was suddenly just as wrong as intercourse, even though before when he was Mr. Horny McHormones, it was just fine.
I think the Rolling Stone virgin article mentioned something about shame. Or maybe it’s the book I’m reading. Anyway, scary stuff. That’ll fuck you up. Clearly the shame was weighing heavily on him. And unnecessarily so, in my not so humble opinion.
I guess we could say he wanted his apple and to eat it, too.
ZING!