Sex On Campus
Well, this week was the annual Sex Out Loud “fair” hosted by the University of Illinios student organization, Feminist Majority. In response, three student organizations in association with St. John’s Catholic Newman Center brought in Dawn Eden as I had previously mentioned.
There was a very good turn out for Dawn’s talk the night before the SOL fair. We probably had around 100 students in attendance. The response was generally very positive to her talk and based upon the sales of her book it seems, very well received. One student even made the comment that she felt blessed to have been able to hear Dawn’s witness and her description of the joy she found in living a chaste life.
Wednesday morning, Dawn and the students headed over to the student union for the fair. Apparently the chaste birds are also the early birds as they were the first to arrive and got their choice of tables. Whether this was the reason or not, their table turned out to be the most popular. They had copies of Steve Kellmeyer’s book “Sex and the Sacred City” on CD, chastity pamphlets one of the students made up, Dawn’s books of course, cupcakes, and in addition, Dawn had brought with her about 100 miraculous medals. She gave them all away.
Moved by the grace of the medals no doubt, Dawn led the students in a spiritual assault on the Planned Parenthood table. They offered each of the PP workers a medal as a “Peace” offering. I’m sure the PP folks did not recognize the significance of the term “peace” in the context of covenant peace or that they were being quietly evangelized. The workers accepted them. I told Dawn at dinner last night, that I expect one day to read a conversion story about how someone gave her a miraculous medal at a sex fair one day… Hopefully, Dawn will have more to say on her blog.
It was interesting to read some of the reporting on the “fair.” The front page story of today’s issue of the student newspaper, the Daily Illini, focused on the students’ chastity table (though the pictures they ran along with it showed the infantile displays of feminine genitalia at the fair). It is interesting to note some of the comments from those who object to the message of chastity. The former president of Feminist Majority had this to say:
Kristen Rains, University alumna, former president of the Feminist Majority and former Daily Illini employee, said she thinks abstinence-only education is repressive because it is typically only directed toward women. “Personally, I didn’t want to admit them,” Rains said about the pro-abstinence group. “I feel like abstinence only is anti-women, anti-feminist.”
I don’t quite follow her logic. Besides her mistaken impression that chastity means simply abstinence from sex, it is not clear to me that even if her dubious opinion about its typical orientation toward women is correct, how it could possibly be “anti-women, anti-feminist.” Perhaps she explained this to the reporter but it did not make it into print? Who knows.
There was another article in today’s Daily Illini reacting to an op-ed piece by Part-Time Pundit John Bambenek, who plugged Dawn’s talk and the chastity table at the fair. This young lady’s thinking is even less lucid. I cannot tell what the author is really intending to say. Perhaps this is due to a quick deadline? I dunno. However, I wonder about the editorial standards at the DI for even allowing this to be published.
Here are some quotes perhaps you can help me with:
Although Bambenek briefly touches on adultery, he discusses it in terms of an emotional consequence, but, especially if you were having “natural” sex, there are potential physical consequences as well.
Unless a couple is trying to procreate, the use of condoms as a means of not only pregnancy prevention, but protection from life-altering STDs is strongly recommended by most medical associations.
Huh? I suppose the second paragraph is intended to support the first but since I cannot figure out what either of them is trying to say, I can only guess at a relationship. Here are a few more:
Also false is the contention that the degree of a person’s “sexual freedom” is in any way tied to their emotional growth.
The “sexual empowerment of women” through the advent of contraceptives was not intended to destroy the romantic relationship.
A promiscuous person is as capable of loving (emotionally and spiritually) as a chaste one.
Furthermore, no one has the right to force their views of how a relationship “should be” upon your access to information. Sex Out Loud acknowledges that there are many types of sexuality, including chastity.
Information will be available on each of these choices. Sex Out Loud IS a sexual health fair; what it is NOT is an attempt to control the behaviors of others.
Now I know that in print, stealing extra words is nearly impossible, but there still seems to be no logical argument here, just the spraying of personal feelings in stream of consciousness fashion. Is this article emblematic of the “rigorous” thinking of those who support cultural hedonism? Me thinks that it may indeed…
.jpg)
Now that the the Chief issue is decided, I’m glad I can ignore the DI and its (mostly) worthless student op-eds.
Good for Dawn and the Newmanites! They’re bright lights on a campus that can, at times, appear very dark.
Comment by Josh Miller — March 15, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
So those blocked quotes there actually follow one another in the editorial? I’m as confused as you are - especially on the first quote there. I’m not impressed by the response of SOL to Dawn’s table. Knee-jerk reactions like that rarely get my respect.
Comment by Wondertwin — March 15, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Josh - thanks!
Wonder - there is a link to both of the articles. I think that you are correct in terms of knee jerk reactions. This is not unusual for especially young people. What is particularly sad is the student newspaper which is supposed to be preparing students to be journalists prints such nonsensical garbage.
Comment by David — March 16, 2007 @ 7:25 am
Thanks, David. In the way of links to articles… this editorial appeared in the University of Notre Dame’s paper, the Observer the other day. I thought you might be interested.
Comment by Wondertwin — March 16, 2007 @ 10:00 am
I drove down from Chicago for the talk and was very impressed with both Dawn’s talk and the Newman Center. I am glad to hear that the SOL table was a success the next day.
Comment by mary martha — March 16, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Wonder - thanks! the Observer article is very much worth the post.
Mary Martha - Thanks for the note. I will pass your comments on to Dawn.
Comment by David — March 16, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
I actually suspect that hype over female genitalia has the ultimate end than it is trying to accomplish.
The purpose, I think, is to make people “face” it (the anatomy of the woman), in order to eliminate shame, and then this will eliminate hatred/objectification of women (via the love of genitals). At least this is the argument behind The Vagina Monologues.
But how can focusing on one part of the woman’s body be the best way to stop the objectification of women?
Comment by corita — March 16, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Corita,
John Paul the Great has an excellent analysis of shame in his theology of the body catecheses. Shame has the important purpose of hiding those aspects of the body in which sexual value is most invested and cause each sex to objectify the other person. As with the rest of these events, the purveyors of the ridiculous are oblivious to the reality of the fallen human person. They actually work at cross purposes to their stated intentions.
However, another possibility is that they are simply unwilling to acknowledge that there are negative consequences for certain actions and proceed to make Quixote-like demands that their desires be accepted without any attendant consequences.
Comment by David — March 16, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Yes, I did read the part about shame in ToB. It fascinated me because I was always someone who had few inhibitions. Then, after some serious soul-searching and prayer, I had a “paring back” of my lifestyle. Soon, during my courtship with my now-husband, I found myself overwhelmed with an unfamiliar modesty– it touched all parts of my speech, thoughts, and actions. I think that there was a spiritual growth there, something like what JPII was trying to get at — although “shame” is such a laden word that it might not be very useful in some discussions without further qualification. I myself have some hesitancy about the way dear beloved JP talks about it; “shame” strikes me as a society’s encoding of a natural-law type phenomenon of behavior, the basis of which is something that is not shame, but a recognition of (as he well puts it) the proper relationship of people, in their physicality, to one another’s dignity. (I am not sure I explained that well; it is the first time I ever tried to epress that thught.)
Anyway, these types of events (as too with Vagina Monologues), I think, make a cause-effect connection between fear and shame over the female body, and hatred of women/violence against them. But that is too easy. For example, it raises the question: which causes which? The vast potential for sin, and its numerous effects on the world, makes this too difficult to give a blanket answer.
Perhaps, as you say, some people are demanding unequivocal acceptance of their desires. Perhaps this is due to the perverse way, I think, in which we human beings try to drown out our consciences with an even louder clamor of our increased sin!
Comment by corita — March 17, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
The article mentioned by David is from the same person who sent me a candidate survey (I’m running for school board) from the Coalition for Comprehensive Sex Education, an outgrowth of Planned Parenthood.
Her original letter was 600 words long (300 word limit) but even that letter didn’t make that much sense. What the bigger letter did show was that it was a hit piece designed to attack my campaign. (See my response to their survey here).
Basically, because I don’t think all children should be forced through comprehensive sex ed at age 6 even over the objection of parents, I’m really trying to control women’s bodies. Go figure. Just thought the connection between the letter writer and the campaign for thorough training in sexual technique was interesting.
Comment by John Bambenek — March 18, 2007 @ 6:26 pm