Those familiar with the atmosphere on college campuses over the past decade or so will recognize the plight of this student from Dartmouth. The author, in the style of The New York Times’ Modern Love column for The Dartmouth, writes of her dissatisfaction with relationships at her school, not simply because of the lack of privacy afforded at a small school, but the tendency of students to treat everything from hookups and “situationships” to dating relationships as “casual and meaningless.” Her concerns echo those of a growing number of young people who, as documented in Christine Emba’s recent book Rethinking Sex, find the sexual culture increasingly dysfunctional, anti-relationship, anti-intimacy, and anti-person.
Fed Up With the Facade
The author opens her brief article with a conversation between herself and a male friend. While she says “it’s impossible to find a meaningful romantic relationship at Dartmouth,” her friend replies that everyone he knows is “in good relationships.” Later, however, that same friend acknowledges that “in retrospect…most of those people I think are not in great relationships.” Initially prompted to inquire why she herself could not find a real relationship, her friend’s response made her wonder whether real relationships were possible at all on Dartmouth’s campus. For her, there are two extremes: ultra-commitment or anti-commitment. Most people who aren’t in committed relationships fall into a gray area between the two, hoping for the former while weakly defending the latter. Observing how unhappy students are with this state of affairs, the author insists that “even if you don’t view your drunken one-night-stand as something of significance,” she writes, “maybe you should.” Her advice, though voiced with a countercultural air, resonates with a more traditional view that physical and emotional intimacy should occur together within a relationship of real duration – namely, marriage.
Intimacy and Investment
The author laments that relationships on campus are so often “sullied by the words and opinions of others.” Gossip about what some potential romantic prospect did with whom, when, and whether they’re worthy or not, abounds. The author would prefer “that certain details” of a relationship “remain entangled within the unique minds of the two involved, even after it comes to an end,” rather than given various afterlives through the conversations of others. The author’s apparent belief that one can be physically intimate with multiple people without betraying that intimacy is misguided. It is no wonder that so many young people today are hurt by a sexual culture which treats the natural desire for commitment and exclusivity as a sign of weakness. Though the author pays lip service radical sexual autonomy (“I am not suggesting that students shouldn’t be exploring their sexuality openly and curiously”) her desire that all relationships be acknowledged as meaningful, no matter how casual, puts her at odds with the prevailing dictum: do what feels good, as long as it’s not criminal.
A Peer’s Response
What do our students think of this? Chloe Ezzo ’23, a Love and Fidelity Network leader at Dartmouth, offered us her thoughts on the author’s conflicting impulses to at once hope for intimacy while also accepting hookup culture as given. She wrote:
“Unfortunately, the aftermath of the sexual revolution paired with mainstream culture has led my generation to believe that we are supposed to hook up with people who can’t acknowledge us the next day when deep down, what we’re all looking for is to be loved fully and completely. It’s not easy, but we need to recognize that this is a choice. We can choose to reject this model in favor of a traditional conception of relationships and marriage. No one who decides to respect themselves, pursue serious long-term relationships, and reserve sexual intimacy for marriage will ever feel used or like just another exploit. This is the problem with modern love, but we can still choose to reject modernity and pursue genuine love and romance.”
Chloe articulates well the predicament in which so many of her peers find themselves – settle for the status quo, or wage wholesale revolt against it. Modern love is marked by a hyperfocus on consent, which offers little leeway for actual guidance on how to conduct relationships or how to conduct oneself within one. Without the capacity to call out certain behaviors as bad or unhealthy regardless of context, and to situate healthy sexuality within the confines of commitment, students can only ever advocate for themselves and their own wellbeing on the basis of subjective experience. Dartmouth’s Modern Love author is right – it is ridiculous to worry about “expressing even an inkling of investment” in another person’s life, to feel “self conscious” or awkward about interfering with someone else’s day, particularly if that someone is a sexual partner. What kind of world is it where someone can give their body to another and yet deny any obligations or ties? Chloe’s conclusion is the right one, for love is a choice, and to enjoy real relationships means unequivocally rejecting the lie that we can really care about each other without clear boundaries and solid commitments. It is to reject the belief that we can have it both ways, to sacrifice our present illusions in order to give a full gift of self to the one who promises to care for us.
