i mean, really.

Greetings from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia! I’m hanging out here with my family, but something came to my attention that was worth braving the dial-up internet to rage about. You guessed it: True Love Revolution.

For those who don’t go to Harvard, or for those who do but try to avoid contact with other people who go to Harvard (wise choice), I may have to explain what exactly True Love Revolution is. Basically it’s an abstinence society “not affiliated with any religion.” Which, in itself, is fairly amusing given that the founders seem to both be fairly big fans of the Catholic faith, and according to a recent New York Times article (dial-up won't let me put in the link, so you'll have to copy-paste like a caveman: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/education/edlife/abstinence.html), like to let their faith “enrich” their opinions. So you know, not a religious society. Just a society heavily enriched by Catholicism. All are welcome.

Anyways, the point of this post: the NY Times article: I mean really. First of all, since when does a student group merit an article in the New York Times? Or rather, since when does a student group merit an article solely based on the fact that it exists? Sure, I would read an article in the New York Times about the BSA’s new public service initiatives, but I would never find an article like that in the Times. There are too many more important stories to be told. Like how Sarah Kinsella and her boyfriend are both virgins. Hm, but actually I don’t recall the article ever stating that as a fact. But maybe hypocrisy, like news, is not really newsworthy anymore.

The article basically seems to be pointing out the existence of such clubs in campuses across America. Its not so much that I find that to be uninteresting, because I think it’s actually a very fascinating trend, but I do wonder how exactly THIS, out of all the various exciting things I saw happening on campus, got picked up by the New York Times. And I also wonder about the tone of the article, which seems fairly unquestioning of some of the ridiculous statements coming out of “Ms Kinsella” and “Mr Murray’s” mouths. Such as the thought that the “awesome effects” of oxytocin create a special bond with the person you sleep with, making the possible end of relations with that person a sad time for you. As if a) someone who has been in a 1.5 year-long “chaste” relationship has, by avoiding sex, also managed to avoid heartbreak if the relationship should end, b) everyone who ever has sex has an orgasm, and the “awesome effects” of such an event are the root of all the subsequent emotion, or c) sadness is something you can eliminate from your life simply by avoiding sex. if only we were all so lucky as Ms Kinsella and Mr Murray that possible sadness due to sex was our greatest concern in life.

I also take obvious issue with the implicit suggestion that the respect the TLR founders show for each other is something unusual. Oh my god, they ask each other how they’re feeling? People who have sex NEVER do that.

I mean basically the whole idea of the group is just fundamentally ridiculous. A “non-religious” group led by two Catholics who are dating about how you should save sex til marriage “because you’re worth it.” If you don’t want to have sex, great. Cool. But its not “because you’re worth it.” Its because you don’t want to. Which is a good enough reason. Let’s not dip into the crazy bucket to try and make our beliefs sound more trendy. And let’s not judge other people’s decisions for that reason either. I’m psyched for Sarah and Justin that they have a relationship they’re both happy with, but there’s no reason for them to suggest that their way of doing it is better than anyone else’s. Although if we ARE going to start making judgments like that, I have to point out that if after living in Harvard Square for 4 years you’re still going to Border Café on dates, your relationship is probably doomed. Maybe not doomed to fail, but definitely doomed to not be delicious.