By Dion J. Pierre COLUMNIST
In light of the proliferation of an alleged nationwide sexual assault epidemic on college campuses, university administrators from Occidental to Princeton are taking various steps to ensure that accused rapists are adequately punished and future assaults are prevented.
Despite their proactive stance, the discussion on sexual assault prevention has failed to acknowledge the presence of a widespread hookup culture.
This damaging ethos – an undeniable legacy of the ‘60s – has inhibited young people from recognizing that their sexual desires should never trump an individual’s right to be treated with dignity and respect.
During the 1960s, feminist activists called on women to liberate themselves from antiquated expectations of their gender. For many feminists, the key to achieving this goal was to encourage reproductive autonomy. This included ending the presumption that women ought to remain sexually inactive until marriage.
Because it had normally been the case that men were free to satisfy their libido at their own will, realizing gender equality meant that women would now demand to be afforded the same right.
Essentially, female sexuality became a weapon against the establishment, and the groundwork of the modern hookup culture was laid.
In the years that have followed, feminists have contended that casual sex is crucial to female progress. In an article flippantly titled “Boys on the Side,” author Hanna Rosin argues that “feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture.” Rosin reasons that women’s participation in the hookup culture is empowering, and joys in the fact that women have finally learned how “to keep pace with the boys.”
The ethical implications of her argument are unsettling. Rosin fails to realize that when feminists adopted the prevailing male attitude toward sex, that attitude became a universal cultural law.
Instead of recognizing the intrinsic worth of our fellow persons, this idea – one to which feminists were formerly opposed – dictates that we are all only as worthy as what we can offer one another sexually.
Our generation has been saturated in this ideal. We consume media that tell us sex is little more than a business transaction. Throughout our youth, we internalize this stimulus, and by the time we reach the collegiate level, we assume that it is an acceptable norm. Exacerbating this is a success-driven culture that discourages intimacy because relationships can potentially get in the way of our own self-interest.
Sadly, the most convenient opportunity students have to socialize comes at off-campus parties where exorbitant amounts of alcohol are consumed. Some studies have shown that as many as 40 percent of college students engage in binge drinking and that 55 percent of the sexual encounters not involving committed partners occurred under the influence of alcohol. It should come as a surprise to no one that all of this has created an environment conducive to sexual assault.
By no means can it be argued that sexual assault did not exist before the hookup culture. But what can be argued is that we should forgo sexual practices that were never okay in the first place. It would suit both men and women to aspire to the kind of human relations fostered by 19th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant.
Kant argued that all human beings were entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. Fulfilling this means that we all have a duty to never use someone solely as a means to an end. The moment we pursue someone only for the fulfillment of our benefit, we cease to treat that person with respect, and only as an object.
Today, many would argue that casual sex is acceptable so long as there are two consenting adults. Still, we should ask ourselves what kind of value we put on an individual, and ultimately, on ourselves, when we encourage that kind of behavior.
If we are going to have an honest discussion about sexual assault prevention, we must come to terms with the fact that the way we view sex is reflective of the value we place on our fellow persons.
The views and opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section are those of the authors of the articles. They are not an endorsement of the views of The Chronicle or its staff. The Chronicle does not discriminate based on the opinions of the authors.