College Sex - Philosophy for Everyone: Philosophers With Benefits (6 page)

It was hard to abstain when there was a lot of alcohol and drug use almost every day of college. I have to admit there were some close calls due to a blurred conscience at times. I feel that I probably upset or frustrated a few guys because they had their hopes up about getting laid. Many guys, who are out to get laid, actually do expect to get laid. Not having sex showed me which guys are true friends and which are only out to get laid. Since pro- miscuous sex is so easy, there is so much of it, sex is devalued.

As a result of her experiment, Chen learned the following about herself (and transferred colleges):

I do not want sex to be cheap. Sex should have physical and emotional worth. In the past, when I have engaged in meaningless sex, I would be left feeling emotionally unsatisfied. This would leave me feeling cheap, which lowered my sense of self-worth. In relationships or hook-ups where there was consensual feelings or attachments and love, I would feel like I was worth the guy’s time and wait (to have sex). When a person I want to have sexual relations with waits to do it with me (and not other people while he is waiting), I feel special to that person.

Hooking Up Closer Up

Hooking up is simple, consensual sex with no romantic involvement. It is not prostitution, not only because money is not involved. (Some females do hook up in exchange for “a good time out” or other gifts, especially if the male is wealthy.) Prostitution has unsavory connotations, unlike hooking up. Hooking up does involve the satisfaction of sexual desire, but since either party can initiate the “date” neither can be identified as the prostitute or the John. Neither looks down on the other as being in a lower moral class, at least in theory. Insofar as males hook up, yet want eventually to be in a relationship with a female who does not hook up, there is still a double standard that affects male attitudes about female hook ups, even as they enjoy their sexual freedom and satisfactions. The male who hooks up a lot is envied by other males and given “props.” Females will often think he is a pig or player and secretly desire sex with him. When a female hooks up with several males, other males will think that she is an easy lay, slut, or they might like to “ride the neighborhood bicycle.” Other females will think she is a slut or infested with STDs and secretly be jealous of her. Both males and females enjoy the spectacle of the “walk of shame,” when, before classes start in the morning, females are seen sneaking back to their dorm rooms, disheveled and wearing male clothing.
3

While hooking up has an appeal of being edgy – “There’s a sort of thrill when it’s someone you don’t know”
4
– in practice it seems more subdued. In theory, hooking up is just for sexual pleasure; emotions, intimacy, spontaneity, and commitment are deliberately marginalized and not expressed. From a survey of 43 female students, one student wrote:

When I was involved in my hook-up relationship, I would never call him up for a sober booty call. It was always when I was drunk and wanted sex.This is also how I knew there was no emotional attachment because I wasn’t even interested in hanging out with the guy unless I had been drinking. He wasn’t really my type. He just wasn’t someone that I wanted to be in a relationship with. We didn’t have a lot in common.
5

Almost all of the women surveyed said that alcohol was their gasoline for hooking-up sex.
6
As one recounted, “I was drunk. It’s almost like a free pass.” And:

Alcohol has a huge impact on my sexual activities. If I drink enough I have no moral rules with myself anymore.The next day I can wake up and make it okay by just saying, “I was drunk. It’s a sign of liberation.”
7

Being drunk or pretending to be drunk allows these females to disclaim responsibility or, more radically, to pretend afterwards that sex did not happen. Drugs are used by males to seduce and enhance their experi- ence. Hooking up also has its disappointments, as the following account indicates:

The hook-up guy never, ever, asked me how it was for me. He always quit after he finished, and there was rarely foreplay.You could tell it was strictly sex. My boyfriend always asks how it was for me; he is always worried that he is not doing it good enough.
8

In spite of disappointments, hooking up is assumed to be a valuable phase in which females and males can experiment and enjoy sexual expe- riences as a prelude or interruption in more typical romantic relation- ships. However, for some people, sex, like any human activity, has unforeseen harmful consequences.

Problems and Socratic Experimentation

One of the authors (Hole) teaches a course titled “The Philosophy of Love and Sex.” As part of the course, students conduct an experiment to engage in a meaningful change, definitely one of their own choosing.
9
The first format item for the Socratic experiment is to “briefly describe a change you are willing to make and evaluate what you are currently doing about it.” Below are two sample experiments and their results.

EXAMPLE 1

I have realized an unhealthy and self-destructive pattern in my love life that is directly related to alcohol. I seem to attract or get myself into one unstable and unhealthy relationship after another. In each relationship I find myself trying desperately to do whatever it takes to make the other person happy. I avoid the fear of being alone by trying to escape it by drinking or becoming involved with people

that I know will only bring stress and sadness into my life. My last attempt at a relationship failed because of this reason, and I cannot keep making the same mistake.

I would like to stop this cycle and be happier with other things in my life like school, my friends, and my future plans. I would like to be a wiser lover to myself by slowing down and only allowing healthy things and people into my life and my body.

Results

I was honest with myself and I asked, “Am I really accomplishing eve- rything I want in my life?” My answer was no. Drinking was one factor that was getting in the way of being healthy.When I started the experi- ment I had to find an alternative to drinking when going out and socializing. I could no longer escape myself in that way, instead I did the opposite. Not drinking forced me to really take a look at myself and really see the people who surround me. I saw good people who were just as lost and confused as me. I never noticed how thoughtless I was until I took a step inside. I did not feel alienated from my wider circle of friends like I thought I would. I actually had conversations with my close friends that connected us on a deeper level. I replaced desperate attempts to finding a romantic relationship with stronger friendships.

I was honest with myself and redefined some of my core values. It is important for me to have stability in my life and routine; drinking was getting in the way of that. It weakened my morals and gave me excuses in romantic relationships. I feel that eliminating alcohol will keep me on a more stable romantic relationship path by giving me time to think and do things that are healthy. Even after two weeks of not drinking I have felt more emotionally stable and confident in myself.

EXAMPLE 2

One change came to mind when I first received this assignment, and it deals with my inability to trust people. I have an extreme difficulty opening up and sharing myself with another person. For the last few years my life has been following Murphy’s Law, and when I was given the assignment, it had not even hit the peak of things “that could go wrong.” I decided to change the relationships I have with men, because I feel that it has the greatest impact on my emotional wellbeing, which

is rocky at best. I do not allow myself to become close to men in the emotional aspect, but have no problems being physically close to them. This creates relationships purely based on sex with a highly “no strings attached” policy. For the past few years, since a devastating break up with an abusive ex, I have not been able to trust a man past the point of getting my pants off. I am willing and able to change that part of me, because I feel that I hurt men with revenge in mind, pun- ishing them for actions of my ex-boyfriend. At the time the assignment was given, I was seeing two men at the same time, neither of which I am extremely attached to.

Results

I have seen Mr. M every day since Halloween and about three times before that. He is now my boyfriend, and the experiment worked pretty well. On our first “date” we went out for Chinese food, and he began to ask me questions about my previous lovers. Normally when people ask me these kinds of questions, I either do not answer or I lie, because I’ve cheated on pretty much every boyfriend I have ever had. I told him the truth, explained a few of the situations and he seemed to understand. He loves me already I think, and I am positive it is because I started caring. I also slept with him (like fell asleep with him) which I never do, ever.When I am asleep, I will answer any ques- tion and tell anyone anything they need to know because I am a talker to the extreme.There is no way not to avoid my sleep talking, and I get nervous that people are going to ask me things while I sleep that I do not want to answer. (Paranoid, I know.) I have spoken to both of my other lovers since I started the relationship, and actually slipped up once. In the very beginning I started to get discouraged because I am a very negative person. I had sex with one of my usual men and felt terrible afterward. For the first time, I felt guilty for sleeping with someone else who I was not even dating at the time. I barely knew this person before I decided to experiment on him and from just the begin- ning, to let him into my life, I started to gain a deeper love relation than I had ever had.

These examples are far more serious than the usual ones, though many touch on troublesome aspects of a love relation, though not necessarily romantic love, since we consider many kinds of love. Many focus on a frozen relation with a parent or on self-love.

How did these two students make such significant life transitions? In the experiment format, after identifying their desired change, students plan their experiment by responding to the following items:

• State specifically what you will do, with whom, when, where and for how long.
  

• State what obstacles or excuses you anticipate in carrying out your experiment.
  

• Estimate how committed you will be in completing your experiment.
  

• Identify what risks are involved, both in doing your experiment and not doing it.
  

• Predict the results of your experiment, both positive and negative. Indicate what difference it will make if you are successful in your experiment.
  

  The purpose of these questions is to focus on specific actions that are possible to engage, with respect to which a student can identify specific barriers that stand in the way of a clear sense of success. Typically, stu- dents see big barriers and give a low estimate of achieving success. In spite of their pessimism, they are often surprised at the high degree of success they achieve. They are successful because they move from enter- taining a change hypothetically with negatives that inhibit action. As they identify the risks of not making their experimental change, they are bet- ter able to overcome the risks of doing it.
  

  There are two more items to complete in the planning stage.They are to “identify one ‘big’ or essential, universal or philosophical question present in your experiment.”While they initially find this instruction vague, they are able to identify questions like “Am I really free?” “What is romantic love?” and “Can you love more than one person at a time?” The “big” questions from the two student examples are as follows: “What makes a relationship or lifestyle unhealthy?” and “What is trust?”The other item to address is:
  

• Describe how your experiment is related to love or being a better, wiser lover.
  

  In answering this question, students establish a reference point for assessing their experiment. Consequently, they think about their ideals in relation to not only the details of their planned experiment, but more generally about the meaning of love from a, perhaps, new perspective of “better and wiser.” Once they complete their experiment they can tackle the following:
  

  • Based on your experiment, describe what you have learned or concluded about your “big” question and being a better, wiser lover.
    

    In principle, the experiments are Socratic. Students engage in a dialogue with themselves to clarify a concept at issue for them. (In the course, they are given critical thinking skills that help them to clarify meanings, test how they know what they believe is true, and reflect on their values.) They are also engaged in actions that give them results about their com- mitments, their assessment of obstacles and risks, and any differences between predicted and actual results. Consequently, students clarify what is involved in making a life change and explore the meaning of a concept embedded in their thoughts about the change. They often dis- cover mistaken assumptions, like “I have nothing to talk about with my parents.”
    

    A Daring Ideal
    

    Early in the course, students are asked to make a commitment that is part Zen mindfulness and part Socratic.Throughout the course, they are encouraged to adopt the ideal of being a wise lover. The ideal is both alluring and confusing. After class discussions, many students embrace the ideal and attempt to clarify its meaning in various contexts.The ideal certainly gives them pause when making choices: when they consider being a wise lover they shift from impulsive or habitual action to a more reflective perspective. In effect, they become more philosophical as they engage their “real” life. They often recognize what is obvious to an out- sider: alcohol, another substance, or peer pressure has affected their capacity to make wise choices for themselves. Students typically make a distinction between academic and “real” life. Their sexual practices are often disguised or withheld in their academic discussions and not touched on significantly in course lectures. Philosophy courses can provoke heated discussion, but it seems there is only a weak connection between aca- demic ideas about sexual practices and students’ actual sexual practices. In the standard Philosophy 101 lecture-discussion survey course of “per- ennial” philosophy ideas, it is easy for students to keep separate (and unexamined) their “real” life ideas and practices.
    

    In summary, we are offering our experimental model to connect criti- cal thinking and troublesome aspects of their lives about which they are
    

    willing to risk making a change. They identify obstacles and excuses, like fixed ideas about a situation and about themselves, and their fears, and low expectations for meaningful improvements. Good experiments involve the virtues of honesty, courage, and foresight, which strongly contrast with the alcohol, conformist motivation, and disregard of conse- quences so characteristic of the college student’s experimentation with sex (and other temptations like drugs). In our experience, the experi- ment works for many students. The two examples we have used are evi- dence that students can make profound changes in their lives.
    

    We have focused on using this experiment to make changes in actual problematic areas in a student’s life. It is also possible to use the experi- ment as a thought experiment to reflect on potentially troublesome choices facing them. By modifying the experiment format, students could imagine hooking up in detail, to consider obstacles and excuses for doing it, as well as predicted results or consequences if they did.Thinking about their “big question” and being a “better, wiser lover” in this format can be instructive for self-knowledge. In regard to experimenting in general, a big question is the value of Socratic experimenting itself. We have not presented an argument to show that philosophical thinking and deliber- ate experimenting is better than impulsive or compulsive experimenting. Any reasons bearing on the issue would have to appeal to examples.That is, an ideal experiment would involve trying and comparing both kinds of experimenting. So, in order to appreciate its value, we recommend exper- imenting with the Socratic experiment.
    

    NOTES
    

    1. William Masters and Virginia Johnson,
       The Human Sexual Response
       (Boston: Little Brown, 1972).
       

    2. Alex Comfort,
       The Joy of Sex
       (New York: Crown Press, 1972).
       

    3. For a discussion of the walk of shame, see chapter 4, this volume.
       

    4. Paul Joannides,
       Guide to Getting It On
       (Oregon: Goose Foot Press, 2009), p. 763.
       

    5 Ibid., p. 763.
    

    6 Ibid., pp. 763–76.
    

    7 Ibid., p. 763.
    

    1. Ibid.
       

    2. For an earlier version of the experiment see George T. Hole, “An Experiment To Make Your Life More Meaningful,”
       Teaching Philosophy
       14, 3 (1991): 223–39.
       

       B ASSAM ROM AYA
       

       CHAPTER 2
       

       THE STRAIGHT SEX EXPERIMENT
       

       

       New Frontiers for College Sex
       

       Discussions of college sex experimentation com- monly focus on same-sex conduct performed in thecontextofhaphazard“bicurious”interludes brought on by intoxication. In a new educational setting where much exploration awaits, it is not surprising that many incoming students partake in behaviors formerly unknown to them. An unin- hibited social climate, coupled with inquisitive
       

       mindsets, fosters exploration in other domains as well, be it recreational drug use, vegetarianism, or unchartered political associations. It is much like yielding to an insatiable urge to explore unfamiliar sites, flavors, or customs while traveling in foreign lands. A more tolerant and welcoming environment generates newfound interests, inclinations, and inquiries; it supplies much needed courage to act on volitions.
       

       In this spirit, the present essay seeks to explore a lesser-known phe- nomenon across college or university settings, namely, opposite-sex experiments involving self-proclaimed gay or lesbian students who, for one reason or another, engage in sporadic heterosexual sex. Much like their straight counterparts, homosexual students take advantage of opportunities that new college settings bring. Traditional accounts that attempt to explain same-sex experimentation do not convincingly apply to opposite-sex encounters. It will simply not do to extend a hypothesis
       

       regarding such experimentation about one student population to another. While there are some points of intersection between the two groups, such as acting on mere adolescent curiosity, opposite-sex experiments are dis- tinct and complex practices that powerfully undermine both heterosex- ual and homosexual notions of sexual identity. In this essay, I argue that straight sex experiments of gay and lesbian students are unique practices that reveal important insights into the depth and diversity of college sex. I attempt to show that opposite-sex experiments challenge the notion of sexual identity more effectively than same-sex encounters, by mimicking yet rejecting both heterosexual and homosexual norms. Additionally, I discuss some of the reasons why opposite-sex experiments have consist- ently been ignored in academic settings as well as mainstream society. Lastly, in an effort to avoid needless complication, the discussion will not address college sex experiments of transgendered students, self-pro- claimed bisexuals, or other groups.
       

       “I’m no queer!” The Paradox within Identity and Practice
       

       The running social, cultural, and theoretical focus on sexual identity might lead one to think that there is some corresponding relationship between sexual identity and sexual practice. The quandary is that one’s sexual practice often does not cohere with one’s self-proclaimed sexual identity, thereby challenging our widespread belief in a static notion of sexual identity. It is no mystery that many self-identified heterosexual students, at some point or another throughout their college careers, engage in same-sex practices. Straight college girls sometimes make out with other girls just to arouse their own boyfriends. Some of these encounters are voluntarily pursued out of curiosity, while others might be unintentionally brought on by inebriated stupors. Yet still, other encounters arise in a volatile climate of peer pressure, attributed to accepting one’s dare or fulfilling frat hazing rituals; this might include mild acts like a quick peck on the lips or licking another guy’s nipples, to serious moral and legal violations such as being sodomized by a broom- stick handle or other household objects while frat brothers cheer on.
       1
       At other times, straight students simply seize the opportunity to experi- ment while they can, especially since future moral obligations that come with marriage and parenthood may prohibit them from indulging in same-sex relations.
       

       Similarly, self-proclaimed homosexual students are likely to experiment with an opposite-sex encounter, albeit for different reasons, such as striv- ing to imitate or fulfill mainstream sexual norms or undermining group- specific expectations of homosexual norms. Of course, this does not mean that members of this camp exhibit signs of bisexuality or latent heterosexuality. In most cases, it is a young lesbian bewildered by her first straight kiss or the daunting task of her first fellatio, or a gay man curious about submerging himself in a woman’s bosom. It doesn’t “con- vert” the experimenter and soon enough he reverts back to whatever was familiar to him. These sporadic acts, on the part of gay or lesbian stu- dents, further call into doubt the notion of residing within the limits of a static, clearly defined sexual identity; this is an especially relevant asser- tion for this population group since it has already taken the additional step of renouncing “mainstream” sexual orientations, prior to embarking on a journey to acquaint themselves with any possibilities mainstream sexualities may have to offer.
       

       Attempts to resolve the disparity between sexual identity and sexual practice have busied aficionados of sexology for decades, especially in the area of study known as “queer theory.” Within this monumental body of work, there are generally two dominant views. On the one hand, many argue that there is something unique about being gay or straight, namely, that there is in fact a clearly defined sexual “identity” (this is sometimes called the “ethnic model”). The view seems to have been influential in the early days of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) lib- eration movements, but was abandoned at some point in more recent decades. On the other hand, opponents of this view argue that the con- cern with identity is too restrictive, for it does not include variations such as situational sexual experimentation, episodic bisexuality, transgendered individuals, and other incidental sexualities or obscure categories that cannot be easily subsumed under strictly defined sexual or gendered boundaries. At some point, it was further realized that the notion of sex- ual identity is far too exclusionary, in that it overlooks key differences within groups, especially ones that cut across race, ethnicity, culture, gender, class, age, and sexual tastes. Thus, the use of the word “queer” (literally, “strange” or “odd”) entered the lexicon of GLBT studies so as to account for any and all possibilities that might emerge, irrespective of identity or practice.
       

       The queer designation has received its share of criticism as well. While it certainly opens up the possibility for introducing a more inclusive con- cept, it is frequently argued that the classification “queer” errs in the
       

       opposite direction; that is, it lumps too many groups together that otherwise have little in common with one another. As an open-ended umbrella term, queerness welcomes all; it is equally applied to overlap- ping sexual minorities (e.g., lesbian sadist and urophiliac pederast) as well as groups having little or nothing to do with sexual practice (e.g., vegan communist, Muslim feminist, and cannibal poet).While sexual identity is rejected for being too narrow, queer is renounced for being too wide.
       2
       As far as situational or context-specific sexual behavior goes – chiefly, same- sex or opposite-sex escapades – neither the static model of sexual identity nor the boundless excess of queer theory has much to tell us about erratic college sex experimentation among gay and lesbian student populations.
       

       “You just might like it”:The Straight Sex Experiment
       

       Ever since Alfred Kinsey introduced his sex scale during the mid-twentieth century, a vast majority of sex research has perpetuated the social, cultural, and intellectual fascination with sexual experimentation in American society. The infamous “Kinsey Scale,” as it would later be known, outlined a seven-point numeric system which attempted to dia- gram a seemingly diametric opposition between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual identities. The scale functioned so as to establish a continuum between two distinct counterparts, where zero stood for exclusively heterosexual identity, and six indicated an exclu- sively homosexual one. Since the vexingly complex nature of human sexuality is not easily bifurcated into two distinct halves, the sexual space between one and five accounted for alternative combinations, with bisex- uality, or something close to it, usually placed around level three. As it turned out, a large portion of Kinsey’s subjects fell somewhere along the spectrum, rather than some clearly marked division between heterosex- ual and homosexual.
       3
       Results from the Kinsey studies were initially met with surprise and hostility; social norms at mid-century were not quite ready to accept same-sex behavior as part of an ordinary developmental process, much less as part of an ordinary sexual identity, and given that these studies were published in the heyday of McCarthyism, cautious or ambivalent public reception was rather understandable.
       

       Kinsey’s respondents confirmed what social and sexual conservatives of the time feared most, namely that homosexual inclination, more spe- cifically experimentation, was much more prevalent than previously
       

       imagined.The scale was, and continues to be, of great historic significance because it spearheaded the notion that same-sex experimentation forged a commonplace rite of sexual passage for many adolescents and young adults, especially since a significant portion of Kinsey’s sample consisted of college students, as well as college-aged respondents more generally. The key role played by sexual experimentation achieved previously unrecognized cultural or clinical status. Sexual experimentation was gradually being recognized as a crucial ingredient in healthy sexual devel- opment. Of course, this minute achievement did not result in greater social acceptance of homosexuality. Nonetheless, Kinsey’s studies helped reinforce the notion that human sexual behavior is fluid and develop- mental rather than fixed or stagnant. The studies continued to challenge “identity ideologues” and their unhealthy preoccupation with compart- mentalizing human sexuality.
       

       Toward the latter half of the past century and well into the present, a great deal of social, cultural, and academic attention has focused on the prevalence of same-sex experimentation throughout various stages of sex- ual development. With endless questionnaires, statistics, surveys, and studies, there is somewhat of a social and cultural obsession with same-sex experimentation and homoeroticism more generally. In popular culture and the entertainment industry, frequent use of lesbian eroticism caters to widely shared heterosexual male fantasies (Madonna’s infamous nation- ally televised lesbian kiss with Britney Spears comes to mind). Heterosexual pornography commonly features lesbian sex so as to validate sexual desires many heterosexual men have but may never actually experience; entire series depicting drunken college girls “gone wild” on spring break lesbian sexfests are not uncommon. Of course, the heterosexual male’s interest in lesbian sex does not translate into same-sex desire, but exhibits a fetishistic preoccupation with same-sex behavior between women. Though some heterosexual women likewise take an erotic interest in gay sex between men, it is to a much lower extent. The plethora of pornographic material showcasing straight college athletes seduced by gay sex is largely aimed at a gay male audience. Sex plots featuring naïve and desperately cash- strapped college boys coerced into gay sex (i.e., “gay for pay”) similarly function so as to pay homage to pervasive sexual fantasies shared by many gay men. It is no mystery that there is public erotic interest in same-sex experiments at all levels, especially ones encountered by presumably drunk or confused straight college kids.
       

       Despite the march toward increased social acceptance of homosexual- ity throughout the past four decades, there continues to be a great deal
       

       of enchantment or mystery, and to some extent latent repulsion, with same-sex practices. It makes tabloid news when straight-as-a-ruler celeb- rities or politicians get caught in the act; it enlivens otherwise mundane social science research and mind-numbing daytime talk shows. One does not have to search far and wide for examples of this. Recall the media frenzy that unfolded when British pop singer George Michael was offi- cially “outed” after being arrested for lewd conduct in a Los Angeles men’s room, or the more recent political spectacle that unraveled when former Idaho Senator Larry Graig was charged with a similar crime in a Minneapolis restroom.
       

       By contrast, when high-profile gays and lesbians have an opposite-sex encounter, it is perceived differently. Rarely does the act evoke any reac- tion. Whatever media time one might elicit usually dismisses the act as a brush with bisexuality or some harmless PR stunt.The scandalous uproar one might expect to find is entirely missing. Iconic gay and lesbian celebri- ties such as Ellen Degeneres or Elton John should not be expected to ignite similar firestorms because any such acts are publicly non-essential (especially in John’s case, since he was once married to a woman many years before coming out). The trend in high-profile gay and lesbian oppo- site-sex experimentation, being largely a non-issue, applies equally to low- level or commonplace communities. Opposite-sex experiments of ordinary, self-proclaimed gays and lesbians bring forth no social controversy. In fact, virtually no attention has been paid, socially, medically, politically, cultur- ally, or otherwise, to opposite-sex experimentation among gay and lesbian college students. What are the reasons behind such glaring omissions?