AS ONE of the few conservative Cavalier Daily columnists and open member of the -- ahem -- "God Squad," I guess I should have caught on earlier to Kelly King's Sept. 10 column, "It takes all kinds to be in the V-Club," especially due to all that time freed up in my schedule by not having sex. Luckily, other members of the Christian Army who were not so negligent, picked up on it pretty fast and alerted me to its existence. And I read it. And -- surprise, surprise -- I was none too pleased.
I have never been a big fan of any action performed without a productive end in sight. Nor have I any admiration -- or tolerance for that matter -- for disparaging people who are acting in ways that are harmful to no one. Put lack of clear purpose together with unnecessary insults and you have one mean-spirited, needless and potentially hurtful act. You also have King's column.
The first major problem with this column is a journalistic one. It fails to raise a question that can actually be construed as pertinent, and neglects to provide a constructive answer to the poor question it does present. Instead, it merely does the following two things: First, the question is raised as to why on earth anyone would want to remain a virgin when, "these [are] supposed to be our best years," and when we are "surrounded by so many toned, good looking young people." Right off the bat, one must question why this is relevant.
Due to the many health risks associated with sexual activity, King's column would make more sense if it were in favor of abstinence, but it is difficult to see how avoiding sex constitutes a "problem" that needs to be addressed. One must question why this is being discussed. Not to worry, though -- the true purpose of King's column becomes quickly evident as she proceeds to its second portion, in which she attempts to "answer" her question -- in other words, to condescendingly mock all individuals who make the decision to practice abstinence.
King seems to be unaware of the fact that she tarnishes her case for premarital sex in the first two paragraphs of her column when she references her motives for losing her virginity at age 16: peer pressure, curiosity and a fear that she would have to be "deflowered by some one-night stand" or -- gasp -- have to wait years before meeting the "right guy." Despite what proponents of the sexual revolution like to tell you, sex is a personal and emotional experience that has serious repercussions. Choosing to engage in this type of activity outside of marriage can be dangerous, and many girls are not aware of the power it has until it is too late. It is usually better to err on the side of caution, but it is a personal choice that each individual has to make. However, since no one can reasonably assert that abstinence can lead to psychological and physical problems, to so arrogantly attack people who choose this obviously safe -- and possibly very wise -- road is not only mean and unreasonable, but quite possibly short-sighted and foolish.
Speaking as a "card carrying member of the V-Club," let me explain a few things. Ours is a culture increasingly colored by the existentialist notion that what we see before us is all there is to be had. Coming from this perspective and considering only the short-term effects of our decisions, pre-marital sex seems like a good idea in that it provides physical pleasure. According to this logic, however, depending on what we value (time, money or experience) we should also all either quit school, put all our efforts toward making as much money as we can, or experiment with as many drugs as possible in order to chase after whatever worldly thing we most desire.
Sounds like a good idea in the short run, but reality tends to rear its ugly and unwelcome head in the long run. There we find STDs, pregnancy, emotional turmoil, poverty, a life spent procuring possessions one has no time to enjoy and addiction. Whether you take a secular or religious view, when you examine the facts, decision-making based on short-run payoffs is foolish and almost always harmful. In a purely sexual context, seeing the results of decision making based on instant personal gratification -- ridiculously high divorce and adultery rates and the misery caused by the breakups and failures of pre-marital sexual relationships -- has been enough to convince me that pre-marital sex just isn't worth the repercussions.
Without asking for this explanation, it may be easy to dismiss me as a member of "The God Squad," but in truth, the fact that Biblical teaching happens to line up with my observations serves to me merely as a confirmation of the validity of my views. Employing the short-run view of life, something King obviously fails to understand is that -- coincidentally -- Christian morality tends to work well in practice.
Finally, after patronizing virgins for a printed page and a half, King expects that a transparent two line disclaimer at the end of this blatantly aggressive column will compensate for her consistent pomposity. Not surprisingly, this is unconvincing. If King wants to throw the teachings of every major world religion on the subject of sexual morality out the window, that is her business, but one would hope that in the future that if she wishes to continue writing for a widely read college newspaper -- or even interacting with people in daily life -- that she might consider taking more seriously their notions of respect and common decency.
(Laura Parcells is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at lparcells@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
