It looks like I made a big old mistake in my post about her book when I said that she was arguing that those among us who have pre-marital sex are going to hell. Dawn isn’t saying that we’re going to hell, kids — she’s telling us that we’re already there.
L., my point is not that those having premarital sex are going to hell. My point is that they’re in hell — whether they realize it or not. The good news is that it’s not too late to get out. I’m glad you made it.
My bad.
I suppose I shouldn’t even try arguing with Dawn, given that she is apparently chastity’s “9/11 widow”:
For the condoms-and-Cosmo coalition to say that it’s wrong of me, in a book about chastity, to tell women the positive experiences they’ll have when they become chaste — it’s like the Fraternity of Fabulous Fatties berating a diet author. It’s like unregenerate drunks ganging up on Bill W.
How can the wanton wags be so certain that I’m wrong? They can’t. I’m their 9/11 widow; they can’t deny my experience, because they’ve never been there.
For the record, I hate Cosmo. And I have no problem with Dawn yelling from the treetops about her positive experiences with chastity. She’s happy with her choices? More power to her! No one’s denying her experiences — she’s the one seeking to deny ours. She’s an adult woman who seems to know what she wants out of life, and good for her for doing what makes her happy — I wouldn’t insult her by second-guessing what she chooses to do. I certainly haven’t argued that she’s secretly unhappy, or living in her own personal hell, because she’s chaste. She, however, has argued that all of us who have sexual relationships outside of marriage (that includes all you gays, too, married or not — sinners) just don’t know how unhappy and deluded we really are. She actively attempts to invalidate our experiences by positing that hers is the only correct one.
As for “not having been there,” Dawn may be surprised to learn that in my middle school days, I was the proud owner of a virginity ring (thanks, Christian horse camp!). Yes, I swore myself to chastity until the day I got married. I went to youth group and learned all about it and its benefits, and that it meant more than mere virginity, that it was a lifestyle, and on and on. I was dedicated. I even bought that ring myself — it certainly wasn’t part of an Electra-complex chastity ball, or an attempt by my parents to exert some sort of ownership over my sexual organs (thanks, mom and dad, really). It was, I thought, a mature and well thought out decision.
And then I grew up. I read some books, I did some soul-searching, and I fell in love. I learned that chastity just wasn’t for me — it didn’t square with my value system; I didn’t particularly like the idea that the intact state of my hymen conferred some sort of value upon me that I didn’t have otherwise; and for me, sexuality is something to be enjoyed, valued, and respected, not commodified and withheld until I found an appropriate buyer. To quote Simone de Beauvoir:
But virginity is demanded for more immediate reasons when a man regards his wife as his personal property. In the first place, it is always impossible to realize positively the idea of possession; in truth, one never has any thing or any person; one tries then to establish ownership in negative fashion. The surest way of asserting that something is mine is to prevent others from using it.
No thank you, ma’am, not for me. But I also realize that my ideas about the cult of virginity are not universal, and those who want to maintain it until marriage or whichever point they deem morally appropriate are acting within their own value system, just as I’m acting within mine. Are their choices right for me? Nope. And I don’t expect that mine would be right for them. Live and let live, right? But, back to Dawn:
If the concupiscent kaffeeklatsch really wanted to criticize my chastity advocacy, they could attempt to show empirical evidence that the unchaste live as happily as the chaste. That would take us into the seemingly bottomless morass of conflicting scientific studies — the pro-marriage and family side of which is displayed on MarriageDebate.com — but at least it would remain on the level of civil, reasoned, intellectual debate, and each side might learn something from the other.
Ah, but we (or at least I) never claimed that the “unchaste” are happier than the chaste. I’m only claiming that people should be able to make their own sexual choices, without judgment and shaming. Will they always be happy with those choices? No. People will make mistakes, and will do things (or not do things) that later they may wish they could change — that’s part of being human. We do it in the non-sexual realm of our lives, and we’ll certainly do it in the sexual. But I’ll still argue that people are far better off when they can chose their course for themselves, and when they can simply make themselves happy. If that means chastity, great. If that means a different partner every night, great. For most people, though, it’ll mean something in between. And I fail to see how the experience of one woman somehow disproves the experiences of millions. They’re all valid. What they all have in common is seeking out individual happiness. What I wish they wouldn’t include is this rush to judgment, and the assumption that because something makes you happy, that it will automatically make everyone else happy, too.
As one commenter on her site said, this isn’t about pro-chastity folks versus anti-chastity folks. It’s about the one-size-fits-all folks versus the folks who think that it’s better to let individuals make the best choices for themselves. Dawn thinks that there’s a single best way to live life, and that everyone should do what she’s doing. I think that individuals should decide for themselves what works for them, and do that.
Do I find Dawn threatening because I secretly think she’s right, as some of her commenters have suggested? Not any more than I secretly think fascists are right because I oppose their narrow worldview.
My perspective — and the perspective of many other feminists and progressives — allows for Dawn to live her life exactly as she is, without criticism and without skepticism. Her perspective, though, doesn’t allow many of us to live ours without judgment and shaming. Which isn’t surprising, I suppose, coming from someone narcissistic enough to compare herself to a 9/11 widow.
FYI: Any comments, on this post or others, which engage in slut-shaming of Dawn or anyone else will be deleted.
(And as a sidenote, someone please put me out of my misery if I ever abuse alliteration this badly).
My first reaction to the news that I was living in hell was “what do you know, hell really is better than Texas”*. I grew up in Texas and if my current life is “hell” then I can say with authority that hell is much more fun than Texas. And the climate really is better.
Apart from that, though…I think that everyone should practice abstinence at some point in their adult lives, just to prove that they can. Sex is fun and relationships are fun, but either can go very, very bad. And it’s important to know that you can survive and be happy without either to avoid the “my relationship is lousy but I can’t stand to be alone” trap. On the other hand, good sex and good partnerships are more fun than abstinence** and I see no reason to restrict either to people willing to take the insane risk of promising to stay in just one relationship forever.
*Reference to the quote by Sherman: “If I owned Hell and Texas, I’d live in Hell and rent out Texas.”
**For me anyway. If Eden or anyone else prefers to be abstinent, I see no problem with that. As long as the choice is freely made and not the result of social or familial coercion.
Could it be that Eden finds you threatening because she secretly thinks that you (or her mistaken impression of you) are right? Maybe she regrets her lost days of “unchastity” more than she’s willing to admit. She certainly seems to find you threatening.
What Diane said.
In general, people who want everyone to live the same way they do are often not very sure about their choices. They need others living the same sort of situation to validate themselves.
What Dawn does not seem to understand is that making others look bad or wrong to make yourself look good or right does not persuade thinking people to join your position.
It seems to me that Dawn is trying to aruge that a chaste life is both more Godly and more fun than a nonchaste life. But those two arguments sort of undercut one another. If chastity before marriage really is a moral imperative, then it doesn’t matter what kind of pleasure or pain it brings–it’s just something you gotta do. (Would you tell someone that they shouldn’t commit rape because it’s more fun to have sex with a willing partner?) If you argue that chastity is more pleasurable, then you are practically begging for a response of “well, maybe for you, but not for me.”
(And if you believe that chastity is a moral imperative but tell young people that it’s more fun…once those kids discover that premarital sex is kinda nice, what kind of respect are they going to give to all your other moral lessons?)
Grr. Drafting hedonism in support of religion is one of my pet peeves. I mean, I keep kosher, but I wouldn’t tell anyone that really, it’s more fun to keep kosher because pepperoni pizza, cheeseburgers, and clam chowder taste awful.
but at least it would remain on the level of civil, reasoned, intellectual debate, and each side might learn something from the other.
That’s such a crock of bullshit. Anyone who has ever gone to Dawn’s blog and posted enough dissenting opinions knows that she doesn’t want to learn anything. She wants to be right, and she’ll ban you before she’ll listen to you.
I have to admit that I haven’t read Dawn’s book, and from the exerpts, I tend to agree with her from a “belief system” viewpoint, but this seems to me to be comperable to the newest diet book, or any other self-help book.
“I have been on the kumquat and salt & vinegar potato chip diet for 20 weeks. I lost 50 pounds and I have never felt better in my life!”
Most people would say that doesn’t sound too appetizing, and it doesn’t sound like it would work at all. They’ll say: “Oh well, maybe the kooky diet works for some people but I don’t think it’s my cup of tea”.
A few people might try it. Some might lose a lot of weight, have their life completely turned around, and think this diet is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
But you wouldn’t see the level of vitriol I’ve seen here.
If someone mentions that cut the carbs out of your diet, it’s ho-hum. You’ll either try it or you won’t.
If someone suggests that you cut the sex out of your “diet”… All of a sudden, it’s World War III. I guess I just don’t get it. The only thing I can think of is the discussion of cutting out sex touches a nerve and the discussion of cutting out carbs doesn’t.
(Incidentally, the last comment you quote is anti-anti-Dawn, at least so far as I could tell.)
No shit. I have heard this kind of anger from people who are made to feel subhuman because they don’t diet in ways as extreme as your analogy requires. I’ve responded like that before, precisely because I know the effects of that kind of thinking.
For the record, my younger sister routinely savages the entire diet idustry and she is far from alone. You’d have a better time selling her chastity than a book prescribing any kind of “wonder diet/plan,” especially if what the book advocated is that EVERY person should eat this way or else they are bad people and deserve to be fat/diabetic/hypoglycemic, etc. If there is no acknowledgement that what works for one person and makes them happy is not a cure-all for everyone and, indeed, will make some people absolutely miserable, then regardless of the nature of the prescription it should be treated with scorn by responsible people.
Therein lies my problem with Dawn’s moralizing. I DID choose celibacy for quite a long time. It was good and right for me because I realized that I did not have healthy ideas about relationships and that self-esteem problems made this worse. I also had periods in my life where I had sex with guys I liked – usually long time friends – with a mutual understanding that there wasn’t likely to be more to it than pleasing each other. Both of those periods in my life taught me things and helped me become a better person. Both involved moments of joy and pain. I would not recommend one over the other because I can’t know what is going to make someone else happy.
I’ll take someone sharing their story and I’ll really reflect on their experiences. I’ll consider advice respectfully offered. Heck, I’ll read historical documentation about how things used to be done and whether or not that worked out for those involved. The Treasure of the City of Ladies is particularly fun to read and one or two things in it are still spot on. But anyone who has the hubris to tell me that their personal experience should dictate how I live my life is not someone I respect.
Actually, I’ve seen people debate the carbs versus fat theories of dieting in terms that make this debate and others on Eden look like the models of polite discourse.
On the other hand, I think you’re essentially right that asking people to cut out sex is a more extreme thing to ask than asking that they cut carbs (or fat or whatever). Basically, telling people that they shouldn’t have sex is more like telling them that they shouldn’t eat than like telling them they shouldn’t eat carbs. Sex is a very intergral part of the human experience and asking people to cut it out of their lives altogether, forever, is a very extreme recommendation. So an extreme response should be no particular suprise.
(Incidentally, the last comment you quote is anti-anti-Dawn, at least so far as I could tell.)
Not anti-Dawn, per-se. I’m just confused why two types of advice from self-help books causes such a brouhaha. Or is it just Dawn?
I guess now I’m not sure if it’s the suggestion of chastity that’s a problem here, or Dawn.
Tony, I think the problem has been stated. Quite clearly, in fact.
The issue is that even the most rabid diet proponent recognizes that there is a choice or not to follow their plan. I have yet met one actvively trying to legislate or punish people for not following the perceived “true path”. Not the case in sex and sex-related issues.
Haahahahaha!!!!!
Wow… so she never contradicts the idea that unchaste women cannot love and respect men. She claims to the writing a book only to women who already want to be chaste, but why do they then need to read a book convincing them of chastity? And why then does she assert a judgment over all women, regardless of whether they are in her niche market?
She claims her book is not a judgment, simply a value statement… but it is a value negative value statement against a particular action, “unchastity,” it claims universal applicability in all circumstances, and therefore it is a judgment against that action.
She accuses feminist bloggers of responding to her excerpts and not being social scientists… yet they are only responding to her blog! If she does not like informal discussion she should not have a blog. If she wanted to focus the discussion on something more social-scientific she should have posted excerpts citing objective studies instead of political sites or her own judgmentalizing.
As for self-help, this is not a self-help book… the focus is on selling chastity, not fulfillment. Fulfillment is only added in there to make chastity more attractive. Add to that the fact that the value being sold is inherently judgmental, and it is backed by a multi-million dollar Christian right movement, and it is clear that it is a political issue.
Comparing the reaction to her book with reaction to dieting is absurd. People diet because they don’t want to be fat. That’s obvious. Why one would remain chaste is not at all obvious– it takes a book to explain it.
The real question is why there is no person writing a book promoting “unchastity” as a more fulfilling lifestyle. That’s because the benefits of “unchastity” are obvious. It requires no books, no think tanks, no organized religion, no special interest groups to promote. If you think Dawn’s book “touches a nerve” and promotes “vitriol” because of a couple of unflattering blog posts, just think of the decades-long political crusade waged in this country against those who see the obvious benefits of “unchastity.”
The problem is Dawn’s my way or the highway attitude. She cannot get it through her head that her personal experiences do not dictate what every other woman should do.
Tony, are you kidding? My roommate saw someone who was weighing the merits of various diet plans go onto a yahoogroup and ask a general question the potential harful effects of Atkins, and she was raked over the coals by people on Atkins for “judging” their choices. And this was, overall, a pretty pleasant list, but it got nasty (and yes, the people who got nasty were self-described ultra-conservative fundamentalists). I can’t imagine the reaction if someone declraed that her diet was the one true diet and anyone who deviated was morally inferior, secretly miserable, doomed, etc.
Woman learns men ain’t as bad as they smell!
Her Blogness, Dawn Eden of Dawn Patrol, has written a book, The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On. Recently her publisher let her post a prepublication excerpt on her blog; now she’s reaping flack from everywhere…
Wow. Chastity as the latest commodity. I think I’ve seen it all.
As for Dawn’s arguments, well, I’d have a lot more respect for her if she didn’t automatically consign me to hell. If the awesome, loving, and pleasurable pre-marital sex I’ve had a couple of hours ago qualifies as “hell” then “heaven” must be too sweet to describe.
Tony, you haven’t lived until you’ve been lectured by an Atkins true believer about how evil fruit is, because it has carbs. Bonus points if you get cornered by someone who finds vegetables suspect on that ground.
I just don’t GET people who think that their way is THE ONLY way. I tried explaining that in my comment to her “waah people are criticising me” post — that folks, or myself at least, were pissed because she’d just flat-out said “Nope, sorry, you can’t possibly be as happy as you think you are because you’re not doing things my way” and the sheer stupidity of such a statement is enough to send the mind reeling — and I got hit with the “Oh, you’re just saying that because deep down you fear she’s right.”
What is this? Everybody-knows-Sara-better-than-Sara-knows-herself Day?
Speaking of, those socks are entirely the wrong color. And that top is totally not you.
When I’m not dating anybody, I don’t have sex either so technically I am living chastely between boyfriends. Does that mean that I am only in hell some of the time? I go in and out of hell, perhaps? Because I would definitely agree that the relationships with my ex-boyfriends were tantamount to being in hell, but that wasn’t because I was having sex with them. It was because they are Satan incarnated.
The debate we really should be having is how we messed up society so badly that we are rounding up those in their sexual prime and trying to sell them chastity and abstinence only, with predictable failures and disasterous results. The whole construct is held together by parents fears about Johnny and Susy doing EXACTLY what the parents did at the same age. It’s not helping people either stay chaste until marriage (if that is a goal) or helping others have safe enjoyable sex lives (or just plain avoiding messing with people’s heads until they are in therapy for years).