GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Of Snark and Sex

by

Sometimes there’s wisdom in snark.

Yesterday, Pajamas linked me to this post by Amy Alkon which, at one point, had me laughing so loud a nosey nearby neighbor might have questioned my sanity. This Angelena comments on a New York Times Magazine piece about “a Harvard girl with her legs crossed so tight, it’s a wonder she doesn’t pop veins.” (Sometimes, I wonder if Amy’s style influences our own Vera Charles–or vice versa.)

While I may have more sympathy for this co-ed who has sworn off premarital sex (having myself once made and kept a vow of celibacy for several seasons), I think Amy makes a great point when she contends that the general theme of the piece, that being “obsessed with not having sex” is worse that being obsessed with sex. I don’t entirely agree with her here, thinking both obsessions are equally bad.

The idea is to find the proper balance, that ancient Greek concept of moderation and harmony.

Anyway, Amy takes down a sanctimonious student and makes a great point about sex. Her post is well worth reading — and pondering. Perhaps, that celibate co-ed will find a harmonious notion of sexuality when she weds. After all, she’s still young.

Finally, don’t let my celebration of Amy’s snark suggest that I discount the value of celibacy. I tried it once–and it offered me a broader perspective on gay culture and relationships. While I do recommend celibacy for a period of time, I don’t consider it a reasonable lifestyle choice.

Comments

  3. I have some respect for someone who can remain celibate in today’s sex-emphasized society. However, in my experience, the reasons for celibacy are usually more than the Puritanical ideals that those who practice it espouse. Oh well, whatever makes her happy.

    Some of the comments to the article are priceless.

  4. "While I do recommend celibacy for a period of time, I don’t consider it a reasonable lifestyle choice."

    Ah, but your opinion of a celibate’s lifestyle is no more important than any heterosexual’s opinion of yours, is it?

  5. David at #4 has the wisest comment in this thread, so far.

    GPW, no offense, but you’ve written one of your hard-to-follow-as-you-argue-with-yourself pieces.  Let’s break it down piece by piece.

    First, let’s take Fredell.  Notice how the argument – of our sex-obsessed culture; of Amy Alkon’s – is structured against her.  Her desire for virginity-until-marriage is framed as an obsession with "not having sex" – an obsession with a negative.  And obsession-with-a-negative, I agree, is always itself negative and laugh-worthy.

    But that’s not what Fredell’s desire is.  "Not having sex" is, as you point out, *celibacy*.  And celibacy is not virginity.  They’re two different things.

    Virginity, especially in females, is the simple and positive desire to wait until conditions are appropriate and right for sex.  Waiting for the best person and conditions is doing something, and is an act of self-assertion.  Fredell says as much.  It’s her detractors who mis-frame her desire as an obsession with *not* doing something.

    So, from the beginning, Fredell has been framed.  Fredell has been stuffed and tagged with a position that actually isn’t hers.  That mistake, or act of unfairness, corrupts all the discussion (including Alkon’s) which follows.

    You suffer from the same cheap tactic from GP lefties so much, GPW, that I should think you would have recognized it being done to Fredell.

    For whatever reasons, Alkon is clearly threatened by Fredell and desperate to put her down.  Again, Alkon mis-frames Fredell as "denying herself" or obsessed with something negative.  As Alkon would say, "Oh, hurl."

    Alkon asks, "Is it really wise to pledge to spend the rest of your life with somebody without finding out first whether you’re sexually compatible?"  Well… not if it’s going to be with Amy Alkon, obviously.  But there are other people and other human value systems.

    Next, let’s take your view.  You fluctuate between heartily approving of Alkon, and trying to leaven so it people won’t think you’re just heartily approving of Alkon.  So, your real view is difficult to discern.  But you end up saying, "The idea is to find the proper balance, that ancient Greek concept of moderation and harmony."

    No, it isn’t.  The idea is to decide what is important to YOU (i.e., to oneself) in life, and then live that out, whether it fits someone else’s idea of "moderate" or not.

    If something is wrong or unhealthy, in your judgment – i.e., poisonous – then no, you don’t find "moderation and harmony" with it.  You cut it out of your life.  Alternatively, you may decide or realize that it isn’t really poison.  But only you can, or should, make that decision for yourself.  Or Fredell, for herself.

    Long story short – Alkon displays a shocking degree of sanctimony and a pathetic desperation to take down another human being.  Alkon’s post is worth pondering, from the standpoint of what it teaches about how *not* to be in life.  It is an example of a sex-obsessed person needing to lash out – mostly in unfair, cheap and ugly ways – at another person who happens not to share her obsession.

  7. It is sadly ironic that women will complain about our society’s tendency to make women into mere sex objects…..and then blast someone who refuses to be made that, who insists that men get to know her for who she is and not just how easily she screws.