Chastity Letters

Unlike other people, I doesn't consider Lent a time to turn away from the Internet. Instead, each Lent has a theme. 2004 was about beginnings, the start of the letters. 2005 was about internal Catholicism, and really didn't conclude until The Violence of Love in September. 2006 was about marriage and attractiveness, the logical scenario of why men shouldn't volunteer at homeless shelters.

This year, the idea starts the day after Ash Wednesday, when I had one of those wonderful contradictory days. In the newspaper over lunch, I read about the Louisville Courier-Journal Bluegrass poll. It showed that 47% of respondents opposed mandatory vaccination of sixth grade girls against the sexually transmitted HPV. One 42-year-old mother of two teenage girls stated that "I don't think it should be mandated. I think young girls should be discouraged from having premarital sex. Young girls should be taught to keep themselves healthy."

Then, after work I was talking to a friend. We were discussing my move, and the secular twenty-something offered me advice she thought was very important. "When you next meet a woman you're interested in, don't be shy. And don't tell her that you haven't been physical with a woman before," she said. The two quotes clash quite strongly, eh?

Vaccine (24-28 February)

First, about the vaccine. I like my musings self-contained, and doing this helps me summarize what I've learned, so you get an informational essay to start. Maybe I should just retake freshman English, but until then, here goes. Gardasil, has been in development and testing for over a decade, first just down the road at the University of Louisville. I even saw a commercial for it this week. The government report notes no safety problems over the course of the study, and very high rates of antibody development for the particular strains of genital human papillomavirus, HPV. Roughly half of all women and men acquire HPV, through sexual conduct of any type, including touch and oral, not just insertion. A recent CDC study found that about 27 percent of women 14 to 59 had HPV strains. Over 40 percent of women 20 to 24 had prevalence. For almost all men, there are no effects. A few men, and a few more women, develop infections. More seriously, two HPV strains lead to cancer in women. About 10,000 women develop cervical cancer each year, and about 3,900 die. Gardasil would prevent about 70 percent of these cases and deaths.

There are non-moral issues to oppose mandatory vaccination. A large one is cost. Because Merck has a patent, the series of 3 shots runs about $360. In comparison, the vaccine for six basic diseases - diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, polio, and tuberculosis - costs about $1. $360 is not trivial. Others have made complaints about vaccine safety. There is some evidence suggesting that the small amount of mercury in thimerosal, a vaccine preservative, may increase the rates of developmental autism. The majority of research does not agree; furthermore, prevention of nasty disease is very useful. Nevertheless, since mercury is clearly toxic in larger quantities, the recommendations and I agree on the withdrawal of vaccines with thimerosal. The complaints receive press, which drowns out all the benefits. It's easy to run pictures of autisitic children potentially damaged by vaccines, but how does one run pictures of people not infected with rubella? And it's important to note that HPV vaccine does not use mercury. I think safety is a front.

It's time to head for the other reason, immorality. I'll start the quotations with Focus on the Family, which supports availability but not a mandate. There are two supporting reasons - The possibility of HPV infection resulting from sexual assault, including date rape, and the possibility that young persons may marry someone previously exposed to and still carrying the virus. They also note that the HPV vaccines do not, in any circumstance, negate or substitute the best health message of sexual abstinence until marriage and sexual faithfulness after marriage. It's a very balanced proposal, more balanced than I expected.

Let's move down the spectrum, to an organization called Human Life International, of which I'll quote: "This HPV vaccine, my friends, is a classic case of the culture of death playing fast and loose with people's lives. They use junk science to hook our terribly un-reflective culture on a promise that will benefit only a miniscule portion of the population, and then the false perception of security surrounding their newest ruse hooks everyone else into behaviors and lifestyles that perpetuate the damage and decay our decency."

So, what do I think? If I was the parent of an 11 year old girl, would I have her vaccinated? Should the vaccine be mandatory?
I answer Yes to the first question, No to the second. If I'm blessed enough to ever have a daughter, I think it's the prudent option. I prefer she has the same ideas about sexuality as I, an understanding of the incredible value of one's self. I'd like her to wait until she's ready to make a lifelong commitment. It's what I do. But maybe she won't. Denying her protection to make sex slightly more scary is a horrible way to argue my point. She should make the right choice because it is proper and moral, not because of the consequences. In my mind, not protecting her just to make sex more dangerous is sinful. It's a moral end, but an immoral means. As an intellectual Catholic, I have pledged both moral means and moral ends. The HLI author is far too focused on the ends, and downright wrong. He's fighting the negative war that I dislike so much. With my daughter I'll be much more positive.

Even assuming she stays as positive as I, I agree with Focus on the Family, somehow. To restrict my daughter in her mate selection to those also fully chaste is too strict. Way too strict. It ignores the possibility of redemption, or youthful mistakes, or a change in belief. The gentleman my daughter finds should be a man of honour when they meet and court and fall for each other. That I would really want, and is rare enough. There have to be allowances for personal growth. Past experience matters, but vaccination allows my daughter to not eliminate many men and evaluate them on their total experience.

That said, I object to mandatory vaccination on the basis of cost. I'd like to see HPV eliminated, in the same way that polio and smallpox have become rare. But as mandates go, there are more pressing problems. For instance, I'd want to take the vaccine money and apply it to the Basic Six around the world. As we've found, problems elsewhere can become problems in America very quickly. Most importantly, at least for me, I refuse to let Merck, or any company, profit in billions of dollars in revenue through lobbying and mandates. I understand that the costs of development must be recouped. I even accept a fair rate of return for the risks involved. To be convinced that the return involves $360 a person, I would need to see a lot of financials. Those I found suggest this price is much higher than other curatives. Then again, I have the apparently mistaken idea that corporations have responsibilities in exchange for the generous gift of rights through "corporate personhood", and that government has the right to disband corporations that do unlawful acts. I'm clearly an idealist. So, at a lower cost I might reconsider. As for the rest of the story, about abstinence as policy, a guest perspective, and my personal morality of sexuality, that will come next.

Abstinence as Policy (March)

When I first started planning this series, I thought about unicorns. No, not in terms of unicorn sex (and I am NOT linking to that!) I was thinking of a nasty response to my oath not to have sex until marriage. Does it really matter? After all, I am not particularly attractive. I'm not extraordinarily tall or muscled. I still have acne breakouts. One of my front teeth needs replaced for aesthetic reasons, thanks to a childhood bicycle accident and the subsequent root canal. I went to graduate school. I go to church. I have nerdy hobbies. I play card games. I teach, of all things, statistics.
For me, pledging not to have sex is like pledging not to kill unicorns; one can make the statement but it will never cause a real tough decision.

Well, you didn't expect me to start with unicorns, eh? This is not about the physical act, because a quick flight to an area in Amsterdam would solve that legally, if I desired. Plus, my choice is not about policy and the potential health costs, because as I argued above, safety alone does not a choice make. And speaking only about costs neglects benefits. I've been told quite often that the benefits are wonderful. I'm sure they are. After all, otherwise, why was le petit mort created? Before my story, I'll take a short digression to the general case.

So, what about pledging in general? Does it work as policy? The Kaiser Family Foundation questions effectiveness. Young adults who pledge virginity or chastity are somewhat more likely to abstain, but most kids eventually do the deed before marriage. The Kaiser Foundation has a secular public health bias, with their quotes focusing on counts and disease. They seem to believe that because chastity is incomplete it's no good, which is strange given the emphasis on other risk reduction methods. I would argue that the pledge is not a causative mechanism; that in general, it's more of a signal. There's an interesting quote within the more balanced NIH government study: "Once the pledge becomes normative, it ceases to have an effect," [the authors] wrote. "The pledge identity is meaningful, consequently, only if it is a minority identity, a common situation for identity movements."

The NIH author is completely correct. Avoiding sex is countercultural. As a defensive idea it works well. For most readers of these letters I don't need to spell that out. The more interesting part is when there's an attempt to make that life normative. I'm referring to abstinence education, which not only the Kaiser Family Foundation rejects but also other studies, including a recent one from Mathematica Policy Research. There are many different programs that call for abstinence. Most, I suspect, are poorly designed and poorly taught. Public schools can't teach all the reasons, anyway. It's not just risk reduction, though that helps. As I argued above with Gardasil, safety isn't enough of a reason. Stories of teenage pregnancy and radically changed lives aren't enough. It's also not enough to talk about the benefits of respect and clear commitment, when temptation abounds, like the physically blessed women who advertise fancy underwear in prime time.

To put sexuality in its proper place, we need more than minority identity or fear. To head in that direction, I'll quote from a conservative source (because I can be balanced). "Abstinence is ultimately a negative, because it focuses on avoidance. Chastity is positive, because it focuses upon personal growth. It requires learning to view others as unique individuals, rather than commodities." We need positivity. But who is the author?

Almost a thrill (April 23)

In an interesting coincidence, while I was working on my stand for chastity and virginity, I got to hear another viewpoint. I attended a talk Wednesday night the 18th at Bellarmine, on a subject appropriate for a Catholic university: chastity. Since my office is in the next building over, It was an exhausting two minute walk to the meeting place. My long commute had several positive consequences. One good thing is that it allowed me to avoid some scary, scary video until later that night. A better thing is that I managed to meet several more post-college Catholics in Louisville among the roughly 30 attendees, though primarily of the traditionalist fidelity-as-virtue crowd. I was nervous at the beginning, when the priest in attendance chose Ephesians 6 on the breastplace of righteousness and people weren't surprised. It's a highly defensive passage. Maybe he was thinking about belts. At least two attendees thought I was still a student, which means I can still pass for 25. Interesting.

It was a well vocalized talk by an intelligent articulate speaker. The presenter was Dawn Eden speaking about her book, The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment while Keeping your Clothes on. She wore sensible shoes, by the way. I had managed to stay up late and read through the text beforehand, and there was much to admire in the book and talk. I suspect it does quite well with its intended audience, teenage and college women. As she noted, it has a chick lit feel, somewhat less than "He's Just Not That Into You", but still not in the style of most things I read. It won't make the Annals of Probability, I suspect.

Since I don't need to do a balanced review, I'm going to skip right to my two significant problems with the book. The lesser is treating chastity as technique. Ms. Eden stresses the countering minority identity I described above. The back cover claims a sexual revolution, "an antidote to the relentless casual-sex propaganda in popular media today." Passages are awash in optimism. To quote two, "That kind of attraction is the one special valentine. You only need to receive it once in your life -- and it's yours forever." Or "When I meet my husband, I will appreciate him as the gift that he is -- and I know he will appreciate me in the same way." It has the feeling of magic, or the latest variant of The Rules. In the text, the chaste lifestyle is presented not only as morally good for a woman, but also a super husband catcher. The concept of failure is not apparent. Chastity is not only Church approved, but more effective! Buy now!
To her credit, Ms. Eden realized this flaw, and as she mentioned privately, she wrote a short piece about the problem.

There aren't easy solutions to the greater problem either. In the course of her talk, the description of the potential husband was the "cute guy". Three times, actually. The guy was not described as funny or faith-filled or nurturing or smart. I had noticed a similar trend in the book, which I inquired about. The examples stress the physical, most commonly as the first characteristic about a man. Jay is boyishly handsome, with pale blue eyes. Ian is handsome and debonair. Jack has wit and charm first, but it's important to mention that he's not just good looking, but was often mistaken for Gerard Depardieu. Jon was a diamond in the rough: "a looker handicapped in the dating game by thick glasses and a shy, self-effacing manner." Tom has the well regarded Northern European blue eyes and blond hair, and looked trim and very Ivy League.

On the other hand, when describing the ideal man, physical attractiveness is apparently less important. Her mother and sister had difficulty meeting a "responsible, gentlemanly man who wishes to be married for life." At various places, Ms. Eden notes that the most important quality to seek in a husband is character, the kind of man looking to find the right woman and settle down. Yet as she notes on page 104, "You'd still be drawn to men you consider attractive - that's only natural." Here lies the problem. It's natural, but lots of things can be described as "natural". A very common rationale I hear for lust and casual sex is that arousal is "natural", that to stop the urge is aberrant. Natural's a dangerous path. As long as men and women are described first in physical terms, the emphasis is still on external qualities and not moral strength. The choice was there. That's an error.

Once, a year or two ago, I was accused of the same flaw. In that case, the accuser was correct, at least to her. We were working on a little grad school project. In one casual chat, we were talking about trips, and my college roommate came up, since I had visited him the prior summer. He and his wife had their first kiss at their wedding. After that conversation, and my thoughts that their chastity was a good idea, and that I was chaste, I got less respect from the accuser. Obviously, only lousy people who matched with unappealing, halfwitted and homely partners would avoid sex. That, combined with my lack of a serious relationship, made me worthy of less respect. I got frustrated. I don't speak much about the women I court or date, but in response I provided a few descriptions and pictures. I don't date often, because I wait for charming, intelligent, interesting women. Yes, the women are attractive as well, often very physically appealing, but that's a bonus. The tactic worked; I got treated better. But it's not a general tactic, only for that specific situation, and it wasn't very virtuous.

Virtues and gifts come in many forms. Physical attractiveness is a gift, which I don't have but others do. Care about one's appearance is the virtue, and I wrote about that once. Another question at the talk was about the difficulty of finding modest elegant clothing, something I've heard before. Again, there aren't easy solutions. I appreciate Ms. Eden's attempt, and the chapter in the book about clothes is a smart chapter. She wants women to be "cutting through the superficiality and showing that beauty is more than skin-deep." Yet men are described superficially, just as in the rest of the culture.

In the end, that's not enough for a sexual revolution. Ms. Eden's presentation provides a vast improvement over "no man would marry me unless he tried me first." It's not defensive, either, which is wonderful. Unfortunately, under the idea of natural cuteness, a moral man should focus on his chest over Chesterton. There's plenty of time later to polish character and responsibility, but a homely guy will never win that opportunity. And then, what does it matter about character?

What does it matter? (April 27 - May 12)

What does it matter about me, anyway? My history is much less likely to lead to a national speaking tour. There aren't many advantages to biochemical depression. I certainly don't recommend it. I can cite one, at least at times: the removal of sexual desire. For me, depression knocks desire to infinitesimal values. Thus, not only do I not think anyone will want me, I don't care. Maybe there was also something physical, as for most of the Clinton presidency I can't recall any instances of arousal, even while content. Now, I understand much more of what my friends and acquaintances did during high school. No wonder they were strange and distracted.

It's a different perspective, to look less physically. For instance, I value presentation more than features. A lady who chooses flattering, accentuating patterns is more attractive than a physically more gifted, but poorly outfitted woman. Dress shows how much a woman cares for herself. A woman I'd want to partner with has self respect, elegance, and grace. I also get the additional benefit of noticing personality more easily. That's not saying I'm ignorant of physical issues, or that they don't matter. I notice. I'm just that even now I'm aligned relatively to the longer term.

The problem, of course, is that I'm inexperienced, both in how to be desirable and how to court. My first attempts were awkward, like learning to ski down a black diamond trail. There were painful embarrassing crashes. So I did the research, several months last year, on perception and mate selection. While I critique claiming a revolution yet searching for handsomeness, I'm not surprised. Those are the rules of the marriage market. I feel comfortable with the praxis, at least theoretically. In history, nevertheless, I'm part abstinent, part chaste.

Reactions to this knowledge vary. Occasionally Chinese and Korean women who know me will ask about dating in America. The cultural model differs, as do expectations. In general, American males and females more corporally orient than Orientals. (Yes, I know that's bad wordplay.) The perception is faster than reality, though, being influenced by TV and movies. They tend to be very surprised that I'm still a virgin; it doesn't fit what outsiders think about Americans. Also, to them I tend to rank higher than American women rate me. I'm relatively taller. More importantly, the concepts of intelligence and bushido virtues are valued more highly.

Another group of women and men aren't startled; they value me less highly once my past comes to light. One of them gave me the opening quote. From her, I was advised to find a relationship, any relationship, to gain experience. I wanted to ask how dreadful a woman would be acceptable. Take someone who is anti-academic, likes Paris Hilton and Punk'd and Coldplay, drinks heavily, smokes, and wears tube tops with capri pants. Should I date her if she shows a sliver of interest? Just to gather a history? That makes no sense. There will always be a subset of women who won't take a man without a sexual history, and/or a long relationship history. I can't change their minds. I'll always be less.

On the other hand, some would claim my past as a laudable example. To that group, stimulation is automatically ungood, and usually evil. (There's a huge side story here about the expectations of females and males. It annoys me that standards differ. There have been enough digressions already, though, so I'll stick to the main wrongness.) Ignorance is not exactly right either. Arousal is an emotion. If we assume a well ordered universe through God, there must be circumstances where that emotion helps. Feelings have reasons, as in the Gospel example. At least once, Jesus was angry, indignant, and consumed with zeal. He grieved; he sighed; he wept. Jesus showed compassion. At other times, Jesus was surprised and amazed; he rejoiced very greatly. If we follow the example of the Christ, Our lives are not supposed to be emotionless. My lack of desire was a temporary restriction, which now is no longer true. As Ecclesiastes notes, there is a time for every affair under the heavens.

Unfortunately for me, my time might be when the unicorns return to Capistrano. (Or did I confuse unicorns and swallows again?) I plan always to be chaste. Part of that is waiting until I trust and love someone who trusts and loves me enough for a lifelong commitment. I'd like to say that eventually my form of chastity will change, but there's no guarantee. For one thing, I could get run over by a bus tomorrow. OK, that's not a high probability event. It's much more probable that I'll never attract "natural" feelings. There's some bitterness in hearing that kindness and intelligence and sweetness are not primary in the descriptions of the chaste. Yet it's good to reinforce the lessons of last year. There's no magical happy ending. Since my life comes closer to a Steve Carell movie than a hip New York writer of liner notes, I have to get back to completing my doctorate, returning to the shape of last summer, and fixing the other little outward problems. So I'll end here. Who knows? Maybe the unicorn is around the corner.