And in case you're wondering, no! I mean all of this conceptually...
Although I will admit that the pie part was not conceptual.
Okay, you see, I'm on my way to the Seminary campus to return a couple of library books (that I actually finished. woo! I love recreational reading!), one of which was "Sex and the Soul". And as I'm driving there, I'm listening to an NPR program talking about the financial bailout and all the greed on Wall St.
Then, I get to Sem and, what's this?
A Pie Social for Thanksgiving week? You don't say! ;)
How fortuitous for me that I happen to be on vacation and can get there during the day and I happened to finish up my library books just in time for the pie soci.., I mean before the library closed for the holiday and all...
So I survey the spread and note the preponderance of apple pie. The phrase "as American as apple pie" occurs to me, and I think: yeah, just like greed and sex - part of the American cultural fabric.
Sex
This book I just read was all about how college students today deal with sexuality and spirituality, how they reconcile them (or rather... don't.) It was a fascinating (and sad) research project by Donna Freitas. She surveyed roughly 1,000 college students at various types of universities about their sexual practices and their religious practices and how they dealt with the two. The main question was: "are these two areas of your life integrated, distinct, or at odds?"
The answer is - no, not integrated (except in very rare cases). And the other two options break down cleanly by type of college. For students at Evangelical colleges (like Bethel), sex and religion interact constantly - because they are at war with each other!
For students at all other types of schools: private (like Macalester), Catholic (like Marquette) and public (like UW or U of M), the sex and religion spheres are deliberately kept separate - they have nothing to say to one another, no grounds on which to interact.
At Evangelical colleges the "purity culture" rules the day. Students are encouraged by their peers to NOT have sex, since it is seen as detrimental to relationship (with each other and with God).
At Catholic/private/public colleges the "hookup culture" rules the day. Students are pressured by their peers to have MORE sex, as hookups are seen as potentially opening the door to relationship development.
At Evangelical schools, sex is the enemy of religion and vice versa - it is a battle for purity, for both men and women.
At Catholic/private/public colleges, sex and religion don't mix. There is a sort of dissociative disorder that blocks recognition of one by the other in a person's life.
Interestingly, no interviewee who participated in the "hookup culture" actually LIKED it. Rather, they bemoaned the fact that it even exists, were personally disappointed in themselves and their participation in it, but shrugged and said "what can we do? It's how it is."
Similarly, no one embedded in the "purity culture" thought that it was a realistic or even ultimately a healthy view of sexuality (essentially denying that you are a sexual being for the sake your relationship with God and the larger religious community.) But at the same time, most Evangelical schools have no alternative to offer. Grace on THIS issue is hard to come by.
What both kinds of students have in common is this. They all:
1) invest highly in their spiritual identities (even if unaffiliated)
2) experience sexual desire, and long to act on that desire
3) highly value finding a non-sexual, fulfilling romantic relationship
and
4) don't know how to reconcile items 1-3.
Basically, the book ends without solutions. It leaves us (and the students) in tension. All students agree that once married integration is more likely. The hard part is to integrate sexuality & religion... while sexually mature and unmarried. How to do that is unknown.
Greed
It seems there is as much bemoaning in the press these days of Wall Street's "culture of greed" as there is of colleges' "hookup culture". What struck me yesterday is that the bemoaning is very one-sided.
We the people, in order to form a more perfect conscience, pretty much blame Big Finance (specifically) and Wall Street (generally) for the greed part. But we very conveniently forget that the "hookup" of borrowers and lenders is entirely consensual.
The borrowers are very interested in the lifestyle their peers are leading, and want what they have. Lenders merely take advantage of the borrowers' desire. Borrowers will go to bed with whichever lender most enhances their self-esteem and status by putting themselves in homes and cars that they can't afford.
We the people... are our own worst enemy. Greed 'R' Us, baby.
The borrowing populace complaining about the greed on Wall Street kind of reminds me of the girl who eagerly had unprotected sex with the highly desirable boy on whom she had an awful crush. She had a wonderful time and felt great about it - until she missed her period.
Then she has the audacity to blame the boy for getting her pregnant and "ruining her college and career" plans, when it was entirely consensual on both sides. She wanted him just as much as he did her. They both had options, one of which was to NOT "do this deal".
It's like the old Prairie Home Companion skit that had a Norwegian Lutheran pastor counseling a young college girl on her unplanned pregnancy: "Vell den, Yenny, if ya didn't vant to go to Minneapolis... den vy did ya get on da train?"
Borrowers don't expect an unplanned preg... I mean foreclosure, either. But if you leverage yourself right to the edge, and then unemployment strikes unexpectedly (as it did with me last year), there you sit facing the loss of your house, staring at bankruptcy because of your indebtedness.
Oops. Maybe I should have thought about that when his hot breath was on my neck and his whispers were urging me:
"no money down"
"introductory rate"
"interest only loan"
"a three year balloon"
"real estate appreciates"
Mmmhmm. Sure.
Except he didn't stick around for breakfast. Just came and went. :(
So, social commentator, did you go back for a second slice of pie?
Yes. Pecan just wasn't enough. Not with key lime also on the table.
Pecan: hearty, familiar, comforting.
Key Lime: creamy, exotic, refreshing.
Who can choose?
But I did stop at two.
1 comment:
Um, enlightening as always. Tho I think I read the blog through covered eyes until I reached the point where you expounded on what you meant by "sex". Thank God no personal details! :-)>
Predatory lending, an interesting concept, and old as time- I mean it literally goes back to Cain & Abel! Now there's a blog topic. I'll let you have it, I'm furiously editing my blog before casually mentioning it in my grad school apps :-0
Still, you would agree that there is a double standard when it comes to guys & girls having sex outside of marriage- especially in the Christian community. Not saying it's right or even fair, but that it exists- (tho I think we have touched on this before)-
Guys, fairly or not, are viewed as hard-wired for sex. They "can't help it," it's "in their nature," guys "have needs." So if one day you hear that the pastor's son knocked up the star cheerleader, there are shaking heads of disapproval, but more shrugs than wagging fingers. He's a boy, things happen!
But if a girl were to profess even a remote interest in the fact that she is a sexual creature she is immediately marked as a, pardon my French, a whore- be she sexually experienced or not.
I'm not saying start a New Age burning of the sage kind of thing, but something as innocuous as asking what does it feel like to kiss a guy? was it it like the first time one "does it" (in any context, marriage or not.) shouldn't be treated like the Salem Witch trials. These topics are definitely shyed away from in any class I've been in and all knowledge I've acquired, I've had to ask my (secular) friends- I appreciate that you guys have fostered a really open attitude in our family, but some questions are jsut too bizarre to ask your folks, don'tcha know ;-)
One need look at an extreme case like Madonna and Hugh Hefner. Madonna is the female Anti-Christ (I prefer the title "world's oldest dancer") and Hugh is just a dirty old man and rather superficial based on his taste of "women."
In addition, when girls engage in sexual congress they run the risk of getting pregnant, something that just doesn't happen to guys, even that pregnant "man." (Sorry dude- you were born female, had a sex change, but kept your girlie parts, you're still a chick & not the first case either.)
I know if a child is conceived it is just as much his as it is her's in the biological and familial responsibility sense of the word.
But unless they're seahorses-(who gestate the babies)-
then the guy in question is much more likely to skip out whenever he feels like it with little to no social stigma vs. the girl who is saddled with the kid unless she gives it up for adoption, etc., Just playing devil's advocate here. . .
Guys also exhibit less STD symptoms, hence, why they tend to pass on "the gifts that keep on giving" vs. girls who are much more likely to be symptomatic. Not trying to turn this into a biology lesson here, just saying that sex for guys has less far-reaching and/or imemdiate consequences.
The friends that I've talked to who have had sex & aren't married have expressed small traces of regret about their decisions. But they've been taught that sex is a right that shouldn't be denied. I guess they see each loss of a partner like the scrapes one acquires learning to ride a bike. it sucks, but it's life. And you do want to ride, right?
And in regards to your Lake Wobegon story, again, sex ed is often taught in extremes in Christian contexts- hence, why so many kids geta warped view & then get sent ut into the world- either you're frigid virgins until the day you get married or you look at each other with the slightest spark of lust & suddenly there's a bun in the oven. She may not have wanted to go to Minneapolis, but a day trip to Dubuque never hurt anyone right? Yeah, but it can escalate. . .
Again, I advocate an openess in sex ed classes taught within the context of Christian schools & churches. It's not healthy to teach kids to be "afraid" of sex, when we extol it as a privilege of marriage. Like the element it is often compared to, sex is like fire. You want them to be safe, but also smart. You wouldn't want your 15 y/o. running in terror from a camp fire. In the same way, it is too much of a gift for people to be afraid of the act God gave us as a gift,--- but not to abuse it just because we know how to uh, rub two sticks together ;-)
Despite what Descartes believed, you cannot separate the mind and body, they are intrinsically linked and both have needs, good needs, but needs that need to be put within a framework, a context. Just as it's unhealthy for kids to be locked up in their rooms with all comic books and absolutely no friends, it's unhealthy to say that only sinners have sex. If that were true, the population would have died out a long time ago.
You wouldn't want to send your kid off to college without them knowing how to cook for themselves, do laundry, balance a checkbook, drive a car, etc., In the same way- people shouldn't go into life & even marriage w/ absolutely no info. God wired all of us to be sexual creatures. We just have to know how to harness our internal "fires" in ways that honor Him.
Will be interested to know if Elizabeth responds to this. . .
Post a Comment