Sex and Consequences 1/10/2007 By Janice Shaw Crouse

On college campuses, counselors are seeing double the number of depression cases and triple the number of suicidal students.

On college campuses, counselors are seeing double the number of depression cases and triple the number of suicidal students. The American Psychological Association reported in 2003 that counselors on the nation's college campuses were seeing significant increases of these and other "severe psychological problems." Why are the nation's brightest young adults flooding the student health centers to overflowing? What has changed since the late 1980s to produce such emotional and psychological devastation among the nation's college students?

A campus psychiatrist at a major American university has written a book attempting to answer the questions about what has gone wrong. The book, Unprotected, (written anonymously but revealed to be Dr. Miriam Grossman from the student health services of the University of California, Los Angeles) reveals that "radical politics" has replaced "common sense" in the campus health and counseling centers to the detriment of students' well-being. In short, Dr. Grossman declared that her profession was "hijacked" and that college students are the "casualties" of "radical activism" by the health professionals on college campuses.

The nation's 17 million college and university students are being denied truth while their risky behavior is condoned by the prevalent social agenda on campus. Dispassionate objectivity and compassionate concern for an individual's health and well-being have been replaced by social activism. Now, the "polarization" of "opposite" sexes and a "binary gender system" must be replaced by androgyny and "alternative sexualities." Nobody dares mention that emotionally destructive behavior produces negative consequences. Ideology takes precedence over consequences. In fact, consequences are never mentioned except in the context of smoking, diet, exercise or sleep. Certainly, no one mentions the "fascinating research on the biochemistry of bonding" which reveals that casual sex is hazardous to a woman's mental health.

When I was an academic dean, I found that there was often (though not always) a relationship problem -- usually a broken romance -- behind a sudden drop in a student's grades. Dr. Grossman describes story after story of students who came in with academic and psychological problems that, she discovered with a little probing, turned out to coincide with sexual intimacy that produced one-sided attachment. Dr. Grossman quotes a neuropsychologist who described the effect of oxytocin (the attachment hormone that produces bonding and trust): "You first meet him and he is passable. The second time you go out with him, he's OK. The third time you go out with him, you have sex. And from that point on you can't imagine what life would be like without him."

Ironically, Dr. Grossman (who laments political correctness) uses the term, "sexually transmitted infections" (the politically correct designation because "infections" seem less serious than "diseases") instead of "sexually transmitted diseases." Today, on and off campus, STDs are considered no big deal. Yet, human papillomavirus (HPV) -- a major cause of cervical cancer -- is so common and so contagious that some doctors recommend that women "assume" that a partner has the infection. Condom use among college students is a joke -- one study revealed that less than half of college students used a condom during their last vaginal intercourse. Discussions about HIV/AIDS are even more off-limits: while definitive information is available about the specific behavioral risk factors, myths spread misinformation -- anybody can get it or AIDS doesn't discriminate. Dr. Grossman lays out the facts: HIV is spread through anal sex, shared needles or a partner who does those things.

Dr. Grossman reveals, too, that God is not welcomed in college health clinics. In fact, psychologists are almost five times more likely to be agnostic or atheist than the general public. Almost 90 percent of Americans believe in God. Among students, over three-quarters say they pray, and an equal number say that they are "searching for meaning and purpose in life." In fact, "cultural competency" (respecting the values of inclusion, respect and equality, especially in respect to gender, race, sexual orientation, disability and other identities) is replacing religion, even though evidence reveals that religion protects against drug and alcohol use, early sexual activity and suicide.

While the public generally sees abortion as a "woman's issue," Dr. Grossman cites a Los Angeles Times survey indicating that post-abortion men experience more regret and guilt than post-abortion women do. She also reveals that chlamydia is far more serious than generally perceived and that the college years are a good time to address the ramifications effectively; instead the dangers of chlamydia are ignored or profoundly sugarcoated. As a result, untold numbers of women discover too late for intervention that they are infertile.

Another profound misrepresentation takes place on college campuses: by focusing exclusively on career, many women will pass their window of opportunity for finding a husband and having children. After age 30, a woman's chances of conceiving drop by 75 percent; if she gets pregnant, her chance of miscarriage triples, the rate of stillbirth doubles and the risk of genetic abnormality is six times greater. Sadly, as Unprotected points out, the waiting rooms of infertility centers are crowded with professional women who bought into the myth that they should focus on career and wait to have a husband and children.

The basic message of Unprotected is that today's women are amazingly misinformed and unprotected. Casual sex has consequences, and the steady flow of students crowding campus health centers is a clear indication that somebody needs to be telling young women the truth. Dr. Miriam Grossman has begun the enlightenment. Let's hope that others will follow her lead.

"Woman's Lib brought them sexual freedom but they gave up certain satisfying and happy relationships as a result. I'm not so sure that simple marriage is an answer, as the lack of value and respect they place on their most intimate of gifts has been translated through their e-z behavior, and will surely be returned as a lack of respect by a partner."

Women are completely and utterly on the short end of the stick these days. The sad part is that most don't even realize it. They won't even acknowledge the problem.

I think that deep down, almost all women want a long term, committed relationship to someone. They might not be able to articulate that in so many words, but I think the emotional desire is definitely there. The problem is that with the loose sexuality and the toxic legal environmnet, fewer men are willing to buy into what they view as The Marriage Trap.

In the last 20 years I've seen this go from the complaints of a few men, to the level of undisputed folk wisdom. Marriage is viewed as a raw deal for men. Or to use the oft quoted phrase: "don't buy the cow if all you want is a little milk."

It didn't happen in the last 20 years. It happened in the 60's with birth control and "free" love, only it cost dearly.

My point is that they are pointing to a change that has happened over the past twenty years. If they are pointing to a change that has happened in this time, they should be looking for what is different during this time. "Free love" has been dead and gone for a long time. While many people no longer hold views that perfectly correspond to what the church believes, very few people still believe that casual sex is a good idea. In that sense, we've moved away from the viewpoint that became popular in the 60's and 70's and was just starting to come back down in the early 80's. In that case, a trend that we're seeing now and not twenty years ago should be harder to trace to a philosophy that has been waning for twenty years.

You think I'm being overly optimistic? I think you need to re-read the post. I agree with you.
I wrote that the only reason many women want the father around is for the money they provide the children. They fail to see the critical importance a man plays in a childs life.

I do agreee with you about marriage. It is sad, very sad. Many people who get divorced think they are going to get rid of their problems when divorcing. Rather, they just exchange them for different ones.

It is interesting how you link religion with the marriage statistics. I hear polls all the time report that a huge majority of U.S citizens, 89% say they are Christian. The number decreases dramatically when they are asked specifically if they are "Born Again" Christians, to something like 7%. So if we link religion to divorce statistics, we should define what it means to be a Christian. My instinct tells me that "Born Again" Christians have a very low rate of divorce if both husband and wife are believers.

"I wrote that the only reason many women want the father around is for the money they provide the children. They fail to see the critical importance a man plays in a childs life."

Very true. Unfortunately for the women who would wish to do so, men are getting wise to this. Another contributing factor to the rise in illegitimate births. From a male perspective, the family courts side against the man in all but the most extreme circumstances, so why bother with the marriage license if you're not going to get custody and simply get stuck with a child support payment?

It would be very interesting to see a comparison of the child support payments assessed on divorced men as compared unmarried men where the issue is illegitimate paternity. I haven't seen any research, but I'd be willing to wager that the payments are less under a paternity situation.

"I do agreee with you about marriage. It is sad, very sad. Many people who get divorced think they are going to get rid of their problems when divorcing. Rather, they just exchange them for different ones.

I see a worse problem emerging than divorce. Men are choosing not to marry in the first place, and women are going along with it. Marriage exists to protect women and children, and to a significantly lesser extent, men. The problem is that the legal relationship has become so skewed against men that a lot of men are simply declining to participate. Marriage does not occur where the man is not willing to say "I do."

That's devastating for any children born of illegitimate partnerships, as well as for society as a whole. You, I, and everyone else pick up the societal costs of illegitimacy. We also pick up the costs of the children that were never born. While the costs of illegimacy are readily identifiable and staggering, I would argue that in the long run the cumulative cost of the children foregone will actually prove more debilitating.

"It is interesting how you link religion with the marriage statistics. I hear polls all the time report that a huge majority of U.S citizens, 89% say they are Christian. The number decreases dramatically when they are asked specifically if they are "Born Again" Christians, to something like 7%."

I think the issue there might be a case of semantics. For example, I'm Catholic. Most Catholics would not identify themselves as "born again" as the term is typically used (incorrectly) to identify evangelical Protestants.

By the way, thanks for the repartee and have a Blessed Sunday.

Is it actually a sharp increase in the problem, or are we simply realizing (and focusing on) something that has been there all along?

I am not qualified to give you an authoritative answer to that very important question. But FWIW, from my reading, what I can tell you is that the people who study this issue believe it is some of both. They do not seem to believe that all of the increase can be explained by doctors being better trained at diagnosing depression.

"What do you think is the correct definition of "born again"?"

In my view, it's a handy term meaning spiritual rebirth in Christ.

There seems to be some difference of opinion between Catholics and Protestants as to whether Baptism in and of itself qualifies as being reborn in Christ. I've also heard some evangelicals note that you have to acknowledge Christ as your personal savior in order to be "born again."

I don't see those points of view as being mutually exclusive; if anything, I seem them as being complimentary.

So what's your definition?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.