Casual Sex in a College Town

As my own schedule has loosened up, I have come out from my corner of the library and made my way into the establishments of this city that cater to the more jovial side of human nature. For someone who is naturally reserved, and absolutely devoid of what his contemporaries often refer to as ‘game,’ my sojourn in these establishments has been both informative and disturbing. 

I usually enter these establishments to meet with a group of friends who play chess, but I am not unaware of the real purpose of their existence. I refer of course to the role of bars in enabling young people to negotiate decisions about sex. In using the terms “negotiate” and “decision,” I am really going too far. The process by which most students in this town decide to have sex does not seem to be a carefully thought out one that involves any sort of serious deliberative thinking. 

What, after all, are these things that we walk around in worth? Most of the undergraduate students I encounter treat their bodies as a means to pleasure. Certainly the body is such a means; sex after all is quite enjoyable. But I have always thought that the student body (no pun intended) must be more than a means to pleasure, it must be the instrument of a mind. 

The human body, so conceived, is a means of implementing the decisions of the mind, but so many students treat their bodies (and sex) as a means of escaping the mind. Witness the extent to which sexual escapism is paired with alcoholic escapism.  

I recently encountered a gentleman (to stretch the term) who referred to a woman passing by on the street as his “reserve parachute” by which he meant that if he was unable to secure another ‘fuck’ for the evening, he could always count on her. He would, no doubt, be devastated if he had to spend a night alone.  

Such an attitude toward the sexual function of the human body, on the part of men or women, is entirely wrong. I must hasten to add that men are not the only ones who take this attitude; I have often heard women conspiring to hookup with someone or celebrating their hookups after the fact.

And yet, the functions of the body are not a thing of shame. To revert to some kind of celibacy or abstinence is to deny the body one of its proper functions. But to leave the mind out of the workings of the body is to behave like an animal. 

A proper view of the body, and of sex, begins by viewing the actions of the body (including sex) as an expression of one’s values. When sex is understood in this manner, it is conceived to be a part of a relationship that is built on mutual trust and shared values – not a whimsical thing that one does to avoid being bored of an evening or a game one plays in order to see what one can ‘win.’

Perhaps then, someone would suggest, that one can simply enjoy casual sex in the interim until it will be more convenient to have an involved relationship. 

Leaving aside the question of whether you want to behave like a dignified human being or an elevated species of primate, one cannot continually abuse the mind-body relationship and expect there to be no consequences. 

The consequences are that as long as one is engaged in these casual encounters, one is not really learning anything about one’s mind or that of another person. During this period, the mind becomes stagnated while the individual learns something about their body, which could be learned in a proper context that involved the mind as well.

Let me briefly insert my complaint that so many women play along with this game.* There is nothing less attractive about an encounter to me than the idea of it being over with the next morning. How depressing! I want nothing to do with a single-episode TV show, but with a series that runs into its ninth season. Give me not a thirty second sample on iTunes but a symphony on vinyl. 

I don’t want to moralize too extensively, because I do understand that my personal mission is (in part) to educate minds not scold them, but I will add this small thing. This post grows out of my increasing frustration with the modern university, which I am realizing is not a place for students to develop their minds but is instead a place for them to enjoy their bodies.

If UA is like other universities, college graduates will be conditioned to do the following: 1) Scream their football motto 2) Consume copious amounts of alcohol and 3) To have value-free sex that means nothing in the long run. 

I do not want to live in a world with such people; it is my idea of hell.  I want to live in a world where people make intelligent decisions and where every mind is developed to its fullest capacity.

I really do pity the people who don’t understand that their minds and bodies should function together and engage in blind hedonism to escape the pain of loneliness.

But many more pretend to understand and call themselves ‘men’ and ‘women’ because they have managed to distance their mind’s preferences from their body’s desires and can avoid serious relationships while engaging in causal encounters. If you pretend to have evolved beyond the naïve state of thinking that sex is not meant to be a part of a relationship, you are not a man or a woman, but a boy or a girl, you are not progressing but regressing. Grow up please. 

*I don't want to suggest that women are playing along with a game made by men. All too often, everyone is quite willing, therefore I do not perceive this as a moment to point fingers at the patriarchy. My complaint is in regards to women because I am a heterosexual male of the species.

Compulsory Immunization Resurrects Philosophical Ghosts of the Past

I don’t write about my health, it seems like a very personal topic to me. But when I discovered that I would not be allowed to register for classes in the fall until I received “necessary” immunizations, I became irate.

Who, after all, should be able to decide if immunizations are necessary? Apparently, the University of Alabama thinks itself competent to make that judgment for me.

In a conversation with a senior official at the student Health Center, I was advised that the immunizations required by the University are “fairly common” and that our policy is not unlike the policies of other institutions around the country.

Roughly ninety years ago, the University was in lockstep with the world in requiring “mentally deficient” people to undergo sterilization. And nurses and doctors, like the ones I spoke to when I was coercively injected, were saying “we’re just doing what they tell us to.”

Now, there is a big difference between forced immunization and forced sterilization. Immunization is probably a lot more beneficial to the individual than sterilization is. But both practices are rooted in the same philosophical premises:  1) That a bureaucrat knows what’s best for an individual’s health and 2) That it is justifiable to force someone to undergo medical treatment for the sake of society.

When I spoke with the health official at the Student Health Center, she repeatedly stressed that the immunizations were for the “safety of you” and the “safety of those around you.”

Shouldn’t I be allowed to decide what is safe for me and you what is safe for you? The second issue is not so simple.

When should society be allowed to compel people to receive treatment for the benefit of society? I contend that there is no justification, even in times of emergency, for the use of force (or even coercive tactics) to compel an individual to undergo treatment.

Some of you will say, “but immunization is good for you and others around you.” No doubt that is true, but forcing (or coercing) someone to undergo treatment is inherently wrong. When society begins making decisions about individual people’s health, they are in essence forcing the individual’s conscience, forcing an individual to declare (whether they agree or not) that they need the treatment.

An individual is the only unit of justice or happiness. To declare that justice is being done for society or the overall happiness of society is being improved by forcing someone to undergo treatment is to say that it is the overall happiness that matters more, the overall amount of justice that is important.

When we begin to make such claims, it becomes justice for the dominant public that becomes important, the happiness of the dominant public that matters most. The individual who disagrees does not matter, their concerns can be marginalized in the name of ‘social justice’ or ‘overall happiness.’ 

And in the end, no one is happy and no one receives justice when the happiness of the individual and justice for the individual is not considered.  

When I asked about an exemption based on conscience, I was told I would have to have a “clergy person” write a letter. As an atheist, I found it incredibly demeaning that my conscience should be more or less declared invalid because I do not have a religious leader. This doesn’t just affect me, there are plenty of people out there who are clergy-less, some religions do not even have formal clergy.    

The medical official at the student health center was not prepared to comment on this issue.

All I ask of people in power is that they consider the philosophical basis for their policies. I’m fine getting immunized, I might have gone in willingly in any case. I am not fine with being forced to. And the claim that “those around me” are benefiting does not justify my oppression by dominant norms.

Today, I am not proud to be a student at the University of Alabama. We should have policies that encourage, not coerce, students to become immunized; we should be sensitive to alternate belief systems; and above all we should not use the same justifications for fairly routine immunizations that were once used to forcibly sterilize minorities on this campus.

Margeret Thatcher: A Legacy for All People

The politically liberal, Marxist, essentialist feminists out there are about as eager to jump on the corpse of the late Baroness Thatcher as vultures on a recently dead animal. It is claimed that the late Baroness did nothing to represent the collective interests of women; that she reduced the size of the welfare state and somehow harmed women in the process (See the Guardian article below).

I have a bit of news: there is no such thing as the collective interests of women. There is no characteristic of the feminine gender which renders women less capable of supplying their own needs than men.

Only the most disgusting ideological essentialism says that women are inherently weak and need the state to protect them, thus justifying state aid to raise them above the squalor of poverty.

Women have volition. They can choose how to act and behave as rational actors who defend their own self-interest in the free market. The fact that one is born a woman does not determine one’s status in life and does not make one automatically deserving of the aid of the community.

It is often said that the feminist movement(s) have a choice between attempting to elevate domestic work to the same status as labor outside the home or arguing that women should be allowed to leave the domestic realm and engage in non-domestic labor.

For those who want to elevate domestic labor and all of the other essentialized qualities of women to the same status as work outside the home, Margaret Thatcher is a bad example of a feminist.

A woman who had children and yet bridged the gap between being a mother and a politician doesn’t make for a great example of the oppressed woman that the Marxist feminists are looking for.

It is equally true that Thatcher is not the historical norm. In her day, many women with children found it very difficult to have a life outside the home while also raising children. If anything, that should make Thatcher a great example, a heroine of sorts for women who do have children.

If Thatcher did not want to be recognized as a woman, but for the policies she implemented, all the better. That suggests that she did not view her gender as a significant marker of her identity and we would all be the better for living in a world where everyone felt that way about their gender.

In any case, it is wrong to villainize Thatcher as anti-feminist because she believed in free market principles. One does not have to support a ‘feminist ethic of care’ in order to believe that one should not be discriminated against on the basis of one's gender.

  

In fact, I would argue that it is far more productive to look at women as essentially equal and capable of representing themselves in a free market place than it is to coddle them with state subsidies to help them overcome the supposed barriers imposed by gender.

One can be a libertarian feminist; it’s just not in style these days in an academy dominated by the fragments of Marxist and Frankfurt-style political thinking.

And I have to add as a student of communication that if ever you thought there was such a thing as the “feminine style” of communicating; that women somehow communicate differently (perhaps more kind and understanding?) than men. Or if you think that women cannot wield power in a ‘manly’ way, then please purge your essentialist mind and watch this video. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVt_1ByddUQ

Rest in Peace Baroness Thatcher, may your spirit chastise those members of your own gender who haven’t the sense to realize your contribution to their own liberation.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-no-feminist

A much better article that describes Thatcher in more sympathetic terms:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/08/margaret-thatcher-feminist_n_3036864.html

Accusations of Racism in the Academy

When you accuse someone of racism, you are making a very bold claim about the character of the person you allege to be a racist. But we do not treat it as a bold claim any longer, racism is not taken seriously. The claim itself is usually made flippantly.

It is not made flippantly in the office or the public sphere, where there are entities that mediate that claim and subject it to critical analysis. It is made flippantly in the classroom. When one student accuses another of “exercising white privilege” in an argument or using “hegemonic white logic/rationality” they are fundamentally making the claim that the accused individual is a racist.

As a person who is frequently accused of  this kind of so-called racism, I must candidly say that I take it very personally. It takes me aback every time because when I contribute an argument to a classroom discussion, I anticipate that my colleagues will respond using reason (which permits them to disagree with me) but instead, what I receive is essentially an attack on my character.

I believe that rational analysis of an issue is a method of inquiry open to all of us, white or black, male or female and to have such an attack made on me (almost weekly in one class) forces me into a position to do one of two things: I can accept the accusation in silence or fight it.

The truth is, I am only in a position to do the former. I know how to argue that reason is not white or how to explain that you should judge my arguments based on their merits not on their “whiteness” but the form of class discussion does not permit me to defend myself.

My colleagues are either ignorant of the claim being made against me, or are otherwise prepared to accept it. When it comes to accusations of racism, we are not prepared to engage in deliberation concerning the charge.

My colleagues seem to want a quick judgment, a snap assessment of the situation. And I am white (or at least that is the color of my skin) so I must be invested in the power structure of privilege, therefore, I must be a racist who is using privilege and hegemonic rationality to dominate the world.

The charge attaches to me because I am white, as it could against any white person. That ought to be a comment on the validity of the charge but it isn’t these days. In reasoned debate we say that such charges do not “bite” i.e. they are not linked to anything that the accused has actually done or said.

When such charges are made, they shut down my contribution to discussion as I am forced to consider if there is anything actually racist about my position (because I abhor racism, and would never want to exercise a privilege I had not earned). Indeed they are a conversation stopper for all reasonable people who might disagree because they too fear that the academic polis will convict them of its most heinous crime: racism.

Thus, I am left to merely accept the charges lain against me because the Athenians are not prepared to hear my plea but are ready to rhetorically lynch me on the spot, and short of taking the hemlock of silence I do not know how to deal with them.

I am tempted to say to race and gender studies what Aristotle said to Athens when it was prepared to lynch him “I will not permit this [discipline] to commit a second sin against [rational discourse]” and leave off applying my ideas to race and gender permanently. But that seems to be the coward’s way out, so rhetorically lynch me as you will, you will not make me leave the classroom. 

Maybe one day I will become so accustomed to being accused of racism that I snap back faster. And to those ivory tower academics who think we have access to some privileged process of analysis, consider whether our classrooms treat accusations of racism as stringently as the oft decried mass media do.   

*Everything I have written also applies to accusations of sexism, racism is just the charge du jour.