Few things characterize the mythical "good old days" of the past like sexual prudishness. Even when our parents were in college in the 1960s and '70s, dorms were largely segregated by gender, colleges employed "dorm mothers" to enforce often arbitrary social norms and the very conception they had of sex was far removed from ours today. The "free love" movement and sexual permissiveness of hippy culture was anything but representative of the norm in that bygone era; more often than not, strict codes of sexual taboo were very much the status quo. It's indisputable that much has changed since those days, but many of the underlying conceptions we have about sex, and the harms they bring to bear on society, have not. Lately, we've seen admirable efforts by individuals and organizations on Grounds to fundamentally change how we think about sex, women and men in our society. While most of these efforts have predictably scandalized a few of the reactionary conservative elements on Grounds, our community will undoubtedly benefit from a fresh re-thinking of sex.
The Cavalier Daily's new sex columnists reported being met with mostly congratulations and strong, if, for some, guilty interest. Nonetheless, the fact that both columnists reported receiving several harassing e-mails accusing them of being "sluts" and some epithets too inappropriate to printe here only demonstrates how much work has yet to be done. One column, Gretchen Zimmerman's "Welcome to the G-Spot," was even linked to the anonymous popular Web journal Fark.com and attributed to "Some UVA Slut," with the description "Innocent girl has sex. Becomes slut. Goes to college and embraces the double standard." As a result, Zimmerman has been bombarded with incredibly offensive and even threatening messages from around the Internet.
Is it any wonder that women today feel that they're unfairly penalized by our society's view of sex? When we do not discuss sex openly and rationally, we are left to accept conceptions of sexual behavior in which men's sexual indiscretions are met with winks, knowing glances and chuckles, while women are labeled "sluts" or "whores" for even suggesting the possibility that they, too, might actually enjoy sexual expression. Our community's double standard for accepting male sexuality over women's is so overwhelmingly obvious that enumerating examples hardly seems necessary. No one takes issue with advertising a fictional Bob Dole appearance on Grounds by associating him with Viagra, or with the inclusion of that "male performance enhancing" drug in medical insurance plans. But the mere suggestion that women, too, should have affordable, accessible ways to avoid pregnancy -- like "the pill" or emergency contraception -- ignites a firestorm of controversy about the degradation of sexual morality and its effect on children.
When Virginia General Assembly Delegate Bob Marshall, whose comments often border on misogyny, describes women who use emergency contraception as "loose" and "love canals" for "frat house playboys," those erstwhile defenders of sexual morality here on Grounds shrug their shoulders -- often in agreement! When organizations here urge students who are sexually active -- and, by the way, we're the overwhelming majority -- to do so safely and thoughtfully, conservatives howl that encouraging healthy sexual practices violates the sanctity of some silly and antiquated fantasyland they have in which all women -- and not, in reality, men -- remain virgins until marriage.
Young men and women have always had sex, and they've usually done it before they were married. The difference is that today, we are at last becoming grudgingly willing to allow women to state that they, too, enjoy sex -- and that there's nothing wrong with that. In that bygone era conservatives pine for, and still in many respects today, society's sexual mores restricted and condemned women far more than men. Knowledge and use of condoms and birth control pills were considered signs that a girl was "slutty" or an easy lay. "Nice girls" were expected to refrain from sex (although if they refused, they were considered "frigid"). Men, on the other hand, were -- and are -- more or less free to move from girl to girl with impunity and even braggadocio.
Conservatives will no doubt counter that they condemn these activities too. Unfortunately, neither their rhetoric nor their support for sexual equality supports this claim. Conservatives are still the ones loudly objecting to parity in medical insurance coverage, educating teenagers about safe sex and how to avoid pregnancy and STDs if they choose to have sex. Conservatives on Grounds, like those in the General Assembly and in Congress, apparently still live in a different world from the rest of us, in which sexually active women, gays and lesbians are morally condemnable -- but the good ol' boy who got lucky last night deserves a slap on the back. If these folks feel their objections aren't being taken seriously by the community, all the better.
Blair Reeves's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at breeves@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
