Scared to Love
I recently began reading Laura Sessions Stepp’s Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both, a book I am really only reading because of the final three words of the title. That young women are pursuing sex and delaying love is common knowledge, but it’s rare to find someone who is willing to declare that this causes women to lose at both. While I am not yet at that stage of the book, I am looking forward to her conclusions.
In the first section she discusses what young people mean by the oft-used phrase “hooking up” and seeks to figure out why girls are so quick to hook up and so slow to commit to significant relationships. She shares a conversation that took place between a college-aged girl named Shaida and her friend.
Girlfriend: and we layed [sic] in bed and talked for like four hours and like had sex during the whole thing; it was really like a moment; like he held me sooo tight for the rest of the night; i woke up really close to him; and i felt something…Shaida: that’s incredible intimacy…do you love him?
Girlfriend: i am scared of loving him
Shaida: because of what being in love will do to you
Girlfriend: because of what does that say about me….i’m just a weepy girl who relies on someone….i want to be independent and i think that it is important for women of our generation but by saying i love someone and need him it’s like contradictory…hypocritical…but i also don’t want to give into love because i am scared he won’t call me…and I will be heartbroken and then feel like a stupid girl that should have known better.
Though she doesn’t say it awfully well and relies on the kind of IM-based lingo that makes English teachers weep, I think she says something important. I’ve often wondered how it is that girls can be so easily convinced that hooking up is both good and natural and this really helped me understand at least one dimension of it. Girls in our society are raised to be independent and to greatly value their independence. Many girls, as with this example, see love as a sign of weakness simply because it gives men the ability to break their hearts. It makes them vulnerable. Any kind of emotional need is seen as weakness. Love becomes something that proves incompatible with independence and empowerment. And so they act like men, giving and taking physically while believing that they are holding back their hearts. Yet it is not that easy. The heart is a tricky thing and can very easily and inadvertently become battered and bruised. And, from what I’ve observed, more and more young women are becoming older, more mature women whose hearts are hardened and, as I believe this author is going to suggest, whose find that they have given away their bodies and have lost their best chance at love. Feminism has encouraged women to act as they do today and, as I’ve said before, the real victims of feminism are women. But we all suffer the consequences.




Comments (11) »
1. Barry
April 14, 2007
5:36 PM
Hmmm. Interesting book you got there Tim. I have raised one daughter who is now married and just recently had my first grandchild and I also have a 14 yr. old still at home. I am finding out some interesting things from watching the peers of our 14 yr. old. Even at age 14 the girls in our culture are indoctrinated into the dating habit. By the time they are of marrying age they have been in and out of several relationships. This information makes me wonder if one of the reasons young women are afraid of falling in love or commitment is that they have no idea what that looks like.
Thanks for the post. Always thought provoking.
2. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
April 14, 2007
5:37 PM
Where are these girls’ fathers???
3. Alex Moore
April 14, 2007
7:23 PM
I believe that there are many who will argue that feminism is far broader than this very narrow and sad example that you give here. Though I will not deny that women are the true victims of this particular brand of feminism. However, we Christians get pretty angry when secularists take the worst examples of Christianity and build a case against Christianity as a whole because of isolated incidences and poor examples.
Of course, it is important to be open to the possibility that the ugliest side of feminism is very likely a symptom of a much larger societal problem that men are largely responsible.
There are many upstanding men who will be quick to admit that they treat women with great respect, and I believe you are one of these men, Mr. Challies. I like to think that I am one as well. But we cannot deny that the feminist movement is directly related to chauvinism and misogyny.
I believe that it is equally ignorant to say that all men caused feminism and to say that all feminism is wrong.
4. KathleenM1
April 14, 2007
10:18 PM
Since Tim freely admits that males routinely engage in the same behavior that this young woman exhibits, I fail to see how this makes her the loser. She has refused to become emotionally vulnerable to someone she knows is doing the same. Looks like an even deal to me — unless, of course, you’re one of those people who think it’s the woman’s job to become emotionally invested and then emotionally damaged by a break-up. In that case, when women fail to oblige your expectations of their self-sacrifice, the loser is not them, but you.
5. Dave @ Banannery Public
April 14, 2007
10:38 PM
“Looks like an even deal to me”
Not quite, since men are emotionally different from women, believe it or not. But you do have a point—many college guys are calloused toward women and view them entirely as sex objects. I say this as a recent graduate.
6. Shannon
April 14, 2007
11:03 PM
Women are more emotional than men. How much more emotional varies from woman to woman, but to pretend that they are the same is naive. I don’t think that by saying women end up with hardened hearts by carrying on as men routinely do implies that men are somehow free from problems. The way it damages a man is different and I suspect that men don’t talk about what it does to them. Engaging in any behavior that is contrary to God’s will is going to keep you from damage.
From watching my friends in college, the woman usually paid the more obvious emotional price. My friends tended to be more insecure, more despondent, and at least one suffered from deep depression. The guys I knew who behaved like this showed an inability to commit and to view women with any sort of dignity. The “even deal” is that both forfeit the beautiful imagery of Ephesians 5.
7. KathleenM1
April 15, 2007
12:02 AM
No one has claimed that all men and all women are the same. But you’ve provided no evidence that women aren’t fully capable of having no-strings-attached sex. Nor has anyone explained how mutual no-emotional-investment sex would be more ‘damaging’ to women than to men.
As for your “friends in college” stories, they got burned because they made a bigger emotional investment than what they got. You’re proving my point.
8. Shannon
April 15, 2007
8:42 PM
Kathleen - I wasn’t clear - my point is that in the end, no one has “no strings attached” sex. There are always strings. There are always consequences. My point was that men and women display them differently. Sex wasn’t designed to be something that was used and discarded. It’s design is for one man, one woman, one lifetime - it’s supposed to bring us the closest we can be to another person - the one place we can be naked and not ashamed. A man who has sex a la carte robs his future wife if his body - that damages his soul whether he’s fully aware of it or not. A woman who has sex a la carte robs her future husband of her body and likewise is damaged. As for proof, what do you want? Statistics? A control group where people are having sex and supposedly not caring?
We’re broken this side of Eden. This is why we have to rely on Christ to make us whole. A la carte sex is nothing more than trying to fill the void that we created when we disobeyed at the beginning. I don’t think either gender can claim not to have damage from this kind of behavior. I just think women talk about it more.
9. KathleenM
April 15, 2007
10:05 PM
Shannon, thanks for your clarification. However, I’m not sure that you can categorically claim that no-strings sex doesn’t occur; I’d think that you’d need something a bit more data-based than personal opinion (or religious quotes) to back that up.
It would appear that quite a number of people, male and female alike, are capable of ‘hooking up’ (to use the latest term for what is likely a millenia-old practice) without becoming emotionally enmeshed. Given that the practice of sex-for-money has been around since forever, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that sex-for-sex has been around just as long. As long as there’s a strong human drive for it, sex will continue to be pursued and bartered for: in exchange for cash (prostitution), in exchange for security or heirs or companionship (marriage), and in exchange for sex (hooking up).
As for design, it’s always tricky to try to assign “designs” to human physical or mental assets and what we choose to do with them. Do you base your ‘design’ claim on how people actually behave, how they say they behave, how you wish they’d behave, how they used to behave, how your religious beliefs say they should behave, etc?
10. Marc Backes
April 15, 2007
10:11 PM
I think the most interesting part of the post for me was that she said she felt something in the morning…”she felt close”…
And I think at the end of the day, that’s the whole post in a nutshell. She feels a need to be close to someone because she probably isn’t that close to anyone else in her life. We each have a void, and somehow, some way, we are going to fill it.
To me, she’s reationalized immoral behavior because she is desperately in search something deeper relationally. It’s a common thing in our culture today among singles and young people. They are scared of getting hurt in a relationship, but they’re even more scared of being alone.
11. jonathan
April 18, 2007
2:04 AM
Enjoying the back and forth this topic has spawned.
Very good points KathleenM. Quality presentation.