]]>
The experiment had a rather unusual setup. It took place on two different footbridges which spanned a river at different points. One was a suspension bridge over a canyon, made of boards and cables, which wobbled easily and had low handrails. This bridge was meant to create a feeling of anxiety and unease in the participants. The control condition was the second bridge, which was much lower, wider, and sturdier.
As male passersby walked off the bridge, they were asked by a female interviewer (described in the paper as "attractive") to fill out a questionnaire. When the men had finished, the interviewer then gave them her number so that if they wanted, they could call her to talk more about the experiment. The number of phone calls that the interviewer subsequently received was supposed to indicate the level of attraction experienced by the participants.
The results were that the men who were interviewed on the suspension bridge were at least twice as likely to follow up and call the interviewer as compared to the control group (the "safe" bridge). The researchers hypothesized that the more dangerous bridge created a state of fright and physiological arousal in the passersby. This arousal consisted of increased heart rate and blood pressure, elevated levels of adrenaline, and so on, which is not unlike the state caused by physical attraction. Thus, after the passersby had encountered the female interviewer, they were likely to attribute the cause of their aroused state to the attractiveness of the interviewer, rather than the thrill of crossing the suspension bridge.
The study was far from perfect, as the researchers admitted, but the results lent credence to the idea that we are not always the best judges of our own emotions. At this point it is not well understood what, if anything, we can do to make the process of identifying our emotions less fallible. One prediction you might want to keep in mind: feeling nervous about a first date with someone could actually make you feel more attracted to that person.
Please consider attending to show your support for the Center, especially by voting at the end of the debate! It's vital to show that the Center has support from the student body and that we see the Center as an important issue.
Hope to see you all there! For more information, check out the Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=218893135920
]]>
]]>
Before I begin, it seems prudent to preface my remarks with a rejection of the common dismissal of Augustine as “insufficiently life-affirming”- a repressed individual whose archaic views on sexuality ought to be dismissed without further inspection. Augustine’s views on sexuality is not that it is inherently problematic, and it is crucial to acknowledge that his distancing himself from the Manicheans indicates his disavowal of the rejection of the corrupt body in favor of the soul. (Further arguments for this position are made clear in Books 11 and 14 of the City of God- Augustine’s views that God will return in a body, and that sins of the flesh can be committed even by those who lack bodies, at least, seem to indicate that we should be wary of reducing Augustine to this position.)
The focus of Meilander’s argument was an analogy made between food and sex. It will be first valuable to spell out the exact analogy. For Augustine, the natural order is that food serves the good of health. That is to say, eating is a necessity, albeit a sweet one. The good of an activity is distinguished from its attendant pleasure, and as such Augustine suggests it is wrong to seek the pleasure instead of the good. Analogously, Augustine views the good of sex (what he sees as solely procreation, a view that may be problematic) as separate from its pleasure. A disordering of one’s loves, then, occurs when the pleasure of sex (or of eating) is pursued for its own right.
Meilander’s critique of Augustine is that he fails to see another good in eating, and also, in sex. He argues that in eating, there is another good- the good of enjoying meals in the company of others. Meilander argues that it is okay to eat out of hunger, or go to a meal just for company, and that each of these two purposes, satisfying hunger and pursuing community , need not be served each time one has food. When applied to sex, Meilander notices a different good that Augustine misses: union between husband and wife. He analogizes that as there are two distinct goods of sex, each one need not be served in every sex act.
While Meilander’s modification of these additional goods is convincing, there are some important distinctions that ought to be made. With regards to eating, pursuing community is not derivable from the very putting of food in one’s mouth. This ambiguity with regards to the word “eat” thereby leads to a disanalogy. While one may go to a meal just for company, one may not achieve the good of company by the simple fact of ingesting food. As such, when addressing the domain of sex, we see a difference: both sexually intimate union and procreation can occur through sex and only through sex (bracketing conversations that may arise as related to in vitro fertilization, which do not appear on Augustine’s radar, and as such ought to be put aside for the current conversation). This difference appears to change the status of the position Meilander has in mind. The two purposes (community and nourishment) are separable with regards to eating, while the two purposes (union and procreati
on) are not separable with regards to sex.
]]>
GNH raises other concerns, a few of which are raised in the Daily Princetonian Editorial Board's dissent:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/10/26/24265/
]]>
]]>
So the next time you catch yourself daydreaming about your beloved, you might as well take advantage of your state of mind. Crack open your laptop, and get started on that writing assignment due tomorrow - the creative energy won't stay around forever.
Gay Rights Marchers Press Cause in Washington
]]>
An Introduction to the Center: A Conversation with Faculty and Students from Joel Alicea on Vimeo.
]]>Brandon McGinley '10, the president of Anscombe and a leader of the movement to establish a center, said the group hopess "to make the University social and sexual culture more conducive to students."
"[The Center would help] by rectifying the current double standard by which the University implicitly gives its seal of approval to a more libertarian view of sexuality," he said.
McGinley is also a columnist for The Daily Princetonian.
He said that Anscombe members had discussed the possibility of the creation of a center "for a while" and began to consider it in earnest in spring 2008. A group of supporters of the center has been in constant contact with the administration since then while developing a proposal, McGinley added.
This week, the group launched its publicity campaign by handing out fliers across campus and hanging posters that said, "It's time for the Center for Abstinence and Chastity." Both sets of advertisements promote a series of events this week endorsing the center. The Anscombe Society paid for the posters, though not all advocates for the center are officially affiliated with the society.
Monday morning, Anscombe also posted a petition supporting the center on its website. McGinley said that 116 people have signed so far. The petition also includes a question asking signers whether they would consider donating to the cause, and McGinley said 58 people expressed interest. After signing the initial petition online, supporters are given the option of sending a form letter to President Tilghman and Provost Christopher Eisgruber '83 endorsing the center's creation.
Politics professor Robert George, who said he supports the proposal, added that he believes it will be approved in the future. "I think the strength of the idea will eventually carry it through, so I'm confident," he said. "But I'm subscribing to that old wisdom, 'If you predict the place, don't predict the time. If you predict the time, don't predict the place.' "
In an e-mail sent in response to the petition signers, Tilghman wrote, "The question of whether the University would sponsor the establishment of a 'Center for Abstinence and Chastity' was raised with several members of the University administration last year, and each of us provided the same response, which was a firm 'no.' "
Tilghman explained that she recognized the difficulties some students may face pursuing chaste lifestyles, but said she did not think there was ample reason for a chastity center to be established. "I understand that it is sometimes difficult to stand up for what you believe when you are in the minority, but the fact that you are greeted with opposing points of view when you do so is not sufficient grounds for the University to establish a center," she said.
Still, McGinley said his group maintains that since the University has centers to support groups like women and members of the LGBT community, the implementation of the Center for Abstinence and Chastity would be natural.
"The professional service and the professional support that many students feel comfortable receiving from the University are not available to those who have moral commitments in the realm of sexuality that are looked on, at best, suspiciously by administrative arms and definitely by the student body at large," he said.
Tilghman, however, said this assessment of the University's already-established centers was incorrect. "There are a number of problems with this argument," she said in the e-mail. "First it implies that the Women's and LGBT Centers are there to support a non-chaste or non-abstinent lifestyle, which is not the case, and would be considered offensive by both centers."
George said he thought that conversation about the center had been healthy so far. "It always takes time, but an essential ingredient is students going forward with advocating the idea, and I think what is really terrific about the students who are advocating this idea is they're not doing street theater or demonstrations," he said. "What they're doing is giving reasons and making arguments."
Debate on Campus
The issue has initiated heated debate on campus in recent years, especially in the pages of several campus publications.
In the last two years, McGinley and Joel Alicea '10, Anscombe's administrative chair and a supporter of the center, have written multiple columns in the 'Prince' advocating for the center. McGinley said the vitriolic reactions to Alicea's most recent column have been largely unsurprising, as "a change in culture affects everybody, [and] the reaction, of course, is primarily negative."
Some students have questioned whether there is really a need for such a center on Princeton's campus. In the fall 2009 issue of Princeton Progressive Nation, James Coan '09 criticized the notion of a "hookup culture", noting that University Health Services data does not support the claim that Princeton has a "dominant sexual ethos on campus." The latter phrase comes from a February 'Prince' column by Anscombe member David Pederson '12 and has become a key talking point in the debate.
Coan noted, "Only 23.8 [percent] of students reported having two or more sexual partners ... in the past year, and a plurality, 43 [percent], reported having zero."
"After leading the COMBO II survey this past spring, I have found that students who respond to surveys represent the student body as a whole fairly well -- nothing that would push the number who engage in casual sex with multiple partners near 50 [percent], making it a dominant culture," he concluded.
Going into high gear
The group has planned one event per day this week in an effort to raise awareness about the movement.
George and politics professor John Londregan '88, who wrote a piece together for the March 4, 2009, issue of Princeton Alumni Weekly advocating the establishment of a chastity center, kicked off the week by hosting the first event, an open-form talk introducing the concept of the center.
On Wednesday, University of Virginia sociology professor W. Bradford Wilcox GS '01 presented a talk titled, "Wedded Bliss: What Makes for Marital Success in Contemporary America."
Anscombe is paying for the week's events, which have cost between $1,500 and $2,000, McGinley said. He added that he expects the Projects Board to agree to reimburse Anscombe for the event expenses, though he had not proposed this to the board as of Wednesday.
You can read the full article after the jump.
www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/10/13/24113/
]]>From personal experience, I knew that chaste and abstinent students can feel alienated by a campus culture that embraces casual sex and disdains the view that sex is about more than stimulating nerve endings. I saw how a University center could provide institutional support to such students. But it took me a little longer to understand that the center would have reverberations throughout campus life. While there are many other arguments in favor of creating a center, I think this particular reason is often overlooked. Yet it is precisely because the center would benefit all students that its creation is imperative.
Upon closer inspection, the notion that the center would impact all students is rather obvious. After all, the ambitions of University centers have always been greater than simply providing resources to their constituencies. The Davis International Center, for instance, was created not only to serve international students but also to advocate for their interests on campus. Through lectures, social gatherings and other events, University centers try to change perceptions and bring about a more welcoming environment. It is in the nature of a University center, then, to reach beyond the students it seeks to support and try to effect change in the broader campus culture.
Such would be the case with a Center for Abstinence and Chastity. The center would provide educational resources, host lectures and engage the campus community in a variety of other ways to make Princeton a friendlier place for chastity and abstinence. This change in campus culture would ease the social pressure to have sex and create a viable social alternative to a culture that puts sex on par with a handshake. Certainly abstinent and chaste students would benefit from this more hospitable environment, but so would students who are considering chastity or abstinence but are undecided on the subject. Even students who reject abstinence and chastity but value the freedom to make a decision about sex unencumbered by social pressures would reap the rewards of this center. Since the center would present an alternative to an ethos that expects students to engage in casual sex, it would create breathing space within the campus culture for students to more freely decide their sexual futures.
Beyond its cultural impact with regard to sex, the center would also provide students with an educational opportunity that they might value for its own sake. As an academic community interested in all points of view and in a healthy exchange of ideas, Princeton would benefit from a center presenting arguments in favor of chastity and abstinence. The center would offer scholarly literature on the medical and sociological implications of sex, and it could illuminate the importance of marriage and the various perspectives on how to achieve a successful marriage. In short, the center would open a range of academic opportunities for students of all viewpoints and encourage a vigorous and fair debate about sexual ethics on campus.
Every day this week, the Anscombe Society will sponsor a lecture that will examine different aspects of campus culture and help show why it’s time to establish a Center for Abstinence and Chastity at Princeton. I would invite all students to attend whatever events they can with an open mind and give careful consideration to the reasons for a center. Much more must be said to win the argument in favor of creating a center, and throughout this semester Anscombe will continue to make the case. But it will be for naught if skeptical students are unwilling to reexamine their views and approach the issue in good faith.
Almost two years ago, I considered the argument for a Center for Abstinence and Chastity to be dubious. I am sure that many of you reading this will have the same initial reaction I had at the time. But if you join us in this conversation, I hope you will come away as I did after months of reflection about the center: convinced of its necessity, committed to its creation and willing to work toward the establishment of a center that will touch the lives of students for generations to come.
Joel Alicea is a politics major from Plaistow, N.H. He can be reached at jalicea@princeton.edu.