College Girls: Unpaid Whores

If you were to visit a women’s studies department at an elite university, you would encounter a wide variety of courses on the sexual liberation of women. The main thrust of these courses is that for too long, various social institutions have prevented women from exploring their sexual desires. Now, thanks to the heroism of such women as Gloria Steinem, Margaret Sanger, and Bella Abzug, women have been partially freed from the oppressive forces of male patriarchy. In other words, young women are encouraged to be whores.

The chant of Gen. Y college babes might as well be “We’re here, we’re whores, get used to it!” No, most girls are not actually uttering those words, but the slutty sentiments are implicit in the standard female college behavior – wearing tight shirts and pants, getting publicly drunk, hanging on every guy around, and engaging in random sex.

The concept of “behaving like a lady” is an anachronism. If a college girl acts like a lady, she is considered boring, prudish, and old-fashioned. Why is this happening? Five important explanations come to mind.

(1) Feminist thought has taught young women that equality is achieved by acting like promiscuous sluts.

In Who Stole Feminism? Christina Hoff Summers writes extensively about how the women’s rights movement was hijacked by gender feminists, who supplanted equity feminists. While equity feminists were concerned with such mainstream issues as equal pay for equal work, gender feminists were obsessed with proving that (a) there are no biological differences between men and women and (b) men are evil. When the gender feminists seized control of the movement, they encouraged women to behave just as immorally as many men. This was seen as a step toward gender equity.

But why is it liberating for a college-age woman to jump into bed with a man that is not her husband? Why is it freeing to become intoxicated and to hook-up with anonymous frat guys? Why is it an expression of equal rights to give into men’s animalistic instincts?

Presumably, women could exercise their true power to tame men by using celibacy (and other ladylike behavior) to induce men into monogamous stable relationships and eventually into marriage. Along the way to healthy relationships, women could also gain some self-respect.

As women have strayed from the church, they have replaced what is holy with what is temporally pleasing. For Catholics, the model woman is Mary, the virgin Mother of God. She is beloved by the faithful for her unflappable devotion to and trust in God, her nurturing of the Son of Man, and her deep love for all humanity.

Today’s college girl looks to Ally McBeal, the trollops of Sex in the City, and the floozies on Friends to set their moral compasses.

The sad truth is that college girls are so desperate to find love that they are willing to degrade themselves to get it. But true love can only be understood in the context of the Word of God. Any other notion of “love” is secular and, by definition, limited and finite.

The explosion in availability of the birth control pill fueled the so-called sexual revolution of the ‘60s, the consequences of which we still see today. With the ability to partially regulate the probability of pregnancy, women can choose to have sex more liberally. Expanded abortion-on-demand services have also permitted young women to engage in more sex because of the greater ease with which a major consequence of sex can be disposed. Abortion providers have recognized the prevalence of sex by college girls in their choice to locate close to our nation’s colleges and universities.

Perhaps just as important as the reduction in the economic costs of sex is the decline in the psychic costs of sex – specifically, the social stigma associated with nonmarital sex. In an earlier era, young women who chose to engage in sex were socially ostracized and their behavior denounced. Today, if a young woman engages in a one-night-stand (“random hook-up”) she is a liberated studette.

(4) Marriage has been devalued by young women and replaced not only by cohabitation but also by new, bizarre social arrangements such as “friends with benefits.”

Young women have traditionally looked to men for marriage and family formation. This is no longer true. College girls look at men not as marriage material, but as sex partners and roommates. Many college women live and sleep with their boyfriends. This is the norm.

Additionally, other sex-based relationships have become commonplace. In recent years, a new and disturbing arrangement known as “friends with benefits” has emerged. In this arrangement, men are not even forced to perform the normal duties of boyfriends, i.e. flowers, Valentine’s Day cards, rides to the abortion clinic, etc. Instead, girls consider these guys “just friends” whom they happen to screw every now and again. No strings, no attachments, no dinners. Just sex when they feel like it.

This type of arrangement is the next logical step in the direction that young women have drifted in the last few decades. These women have become unpaid whores. At least prostitutes made a buck off of their trade. These women just give it away.

The truth is that women actually lose power by becoming tramps. When they give away one of their main sources of bargaining power in a relationship – sex – men gain total power by achieving everything they want…free sex with no obligation.

(5) “You know exactly who’s to blame…the mother and the father.” – The Oompa Loompas in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

College girls are clearly responsible for their own behavior, but their parents have shaped their values. The verdict is in -- their parents have failed. Too many parents, particularly mothers, have eschewed their moral obligations to raise their daughters to be respectable ladies.

Instead, many moms want to be their daughters’ friends, talking late at night about boyfriends, parties, who’s hot, etc. Young women do not need more friends, they need mothers who will provide moral guidance. Unfortunately, these self-absorbed moms cannot deal with the fact that they are old and will never again see their early 20s. Thus, they attempt to live their sorority days all over again through their slutty daughters.

“Now Sabia,” you say, “you’ve been very hard on young women. But don’t young men deserve some blame? Aren’t you just a bitter, cranky, rapidly-aging misogynist?”

Young men are awful and they have gotten worse over the years. And let me be clear – young men are responsible for their own behavior.

But women have historically been the civilizing forces for men. That is biological. Moreover, several verses in the Scriptures refer to the important role that women have in the moral uplift of men.

It should surprise no one that sexual activity has historically been more frequent among gay men than among heterosexuals. This is because there is no civilizing female force in the gay community. Whenever men want to have sex, they just go ahead and do it. Neither of the partners has much of an incentive to refrain from sex since monogamous relationships and traditional familes are generally not the final goals of these partnerships. Recently, the behavior of young heterosexuals has begun to resemble that of gay men because young women are imitating men in their sexual promiscuity.

The result of young women’s abdication of responsibility has been significant moral decay on America’s college campuses. Can the moral high ground ever be reclaimed? Perhaps…one church pew at a time.

Here's a little something you might like...

1254:] In the union of the sexes, each alike contributes to the common end but not in the same way. From this diversity springs the first difference which may be observed in the moral relations between the one and the other. The one should be active and strong, the other passive and weak. It is necessary that the one have the power and the will; it is enough that the other should offer little resistance.

[1255:] Once this principle is established it follows that woman is specially made to please man. If man ought to please her in turn, the necessity is less urgent. His merit is in his power; he pleases because he is strong. This is not the law of love, I admit, but it is the law of nature, which is older than love itself.

[1256:] If woman is made to please and to be subjected, she ought to make herself pleasing to man instead of provoking him. Her strength is in her charms; by their means she should compel him to discover his strength and to use it. The surest way of arousing this strength is to make it necessary by resistance. Then amour-propre joins with desire, and the one triumphs from a victory that the other made him win. This is the origin of attack and defense, of the boldness of one sex and the timidity of the other, and even of the shame and modesty with which nature has armed the weak for the conquest of the strong.

[1257:] Who could imagine that nature arbitrarily prescribed the same advances to both, or that the first to feel desire should be the first to show it! What a strange perversion of judgment! The consequences of the act being so different for the two sexes, would it be natural for them to engage in it with equal boldness? How can any one not see that with such a great disparity in the common stakes, if reserve did not impose on one sex the moderation that nature imposes on the other, the result would be the destruction of both, and the human race would perish through the very means established for preserving it? With the facility women have of arousing men's senses and of awakening in the depths of their hearts feelings that were thought to have died, if there were some unlucky country where philosophy had introduced this custom (especially if it were a hot climate where more women are born than men), the men would be tyrannized over by the women. They would eventually become their victims and would find themselves dragged to their death without ever being able to defend themselves.

[1258:] Yet female animals are without this sense of shame and what is the result? Do they, like women, have the same unlimited desires that shame serves to curb? With female animals, their desire comes only with need. When the need is satisfied, the desire ceases and they no longer make a pretense of repulsing the male but do it for real.[Note 1] They do exactly the contrary of what the daughter of Augustus did; once the boat is filled with cargo, they refuse to take on more passengers. Even when animals are free the period of their willingness is very short and soon over; instinct gets them going and instinct stops them. What would substitute for this negative instinct in women if you were to rob them of their modesty? To wait for them to lose interest in men is to wait for them to be good for nothing.

[1259:] The Supreme Being has wanted to do honour to the human species. By giving man limitless impulses he has at the same time given him a law to regulate them so that man can be free and can control himself. While granting him immoderate passions, he joins reason to these passions as a means of governing them. While granting unlimited desires to women, the Supreme Being joins modesty to her desires as a means of restraining them. In addition, it has added an actual bonus for using these faculties well, which is the taste one develops for decency when one makes it the rule of one's actions. All of this is worth more, it seems to me, than the instincts of animals.

[1260:] Whether the human female shares the man's desires or not, whether she is willing or unwilling to satisfy them, still she always pushes him away and defends herself, though not always with the same force nor consequently with the same success. In order for the attacker to be victorious, the one attacked must permit it or order it -- for how many skillful ways are there to stimulate the efforts of the aggressor? The freest and sweetest of acts does not permit of any real violence; indeed both reason and nature are against it -- nature, in that it has given the weakest enough strength to resist when she pleases; reason, in that real violence is not only the most brutal of acts but the one most contrary to its own ends, not only because the man thus declares war against his companion and hence gives her a right to defend her person and her liberty even at the cost of the aggressor's life, but also because the woman alone is the judge of her condition, and a child would have no father if any man might usurp a father's rights.

Emile Book V, Jean-Jacques Rousseau

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.