College Sex - Philosophy for Everyone: Philosophers With Benefits (9 page)

It might seem after all of this complicated nonsense that it would be impossible for people to hook up using online tools. But people are get- ting together left and right, and using social sites is essentially mandatory for college students and is gaining popularity across all ages. Moreover, dating sites like Match.com and eHarmony.com are quickly losing any taboo that used to be associated with them. More and more college stu- dents are joining these communities and people are hooking up like rab- bits. On the dating sites there is a culture of extreme objectification, and even
expert objectification
. It is common on these sites to have professional photography done specifically for your profile. How do you take a

“MySpace picture” without it looking like one? Hire a professional. And with “29 dimensions of compatibility” as eHarmony advertises, suitors are further distanced by not having a text, but instead, a multiple choice questionnaire.

Let’s recap the potential trajectories of courtship so far:

Face-to-Face

Get phone number

Calls or texts

Face-to-Face


Calls/texts or online

Face-to-Face

Online

Private messages or profile posts

Calls or texts

Face-to-Face

Calls/texts or online

Online

Private messages or profile posts

Calls or texts

Face- to-Face

Calls/texts or online

The type of communication following hanging out or hooking up is often an indicator of how things went. If things went well, or at least was per- ceived that way by one of the people, direct contact like a phone call or text message is likely. This immediate gesture signals that he is very inter- ested and wants to continue in courtship. The response to this act is equally important. If the call is taken, which is a large clue already, the status of courtship or attraction, and so on, is normally obvious by the conversation. If the call is not answered and a message is left, the technol- ogy the person replies with – if he does at all – points to his level of inter- est. If a phone call is responded to with a text message, if a text message is responded to with an online message or email, if an online message is responded to with a public profile post, this would be a huge sign showing a lack of interest or a sense of uneasiness. This move, which may not be consciously chosen, creates distance and brings the relationship into a “safe” place of objects where a battery of technological gestures can help him manage the situation. In sum, it is easier to give and take bad news online. The alienation of people by the distancing and objectifying tech- nology makes it easier for people to break up or brush people off.

Shy college students use level jumping to their advantage. There are a number of reasons why college suitors prefer to use online media for courtship, especially when it comes to meeting and introductions to new people. A person who may be socially awkward or have challenging inter- personal skills may be much more successful using the text-work of the Internet. The incredible amount of control over how she can frame her information and online persona gives rise to an alternate online-ego or confidence, behind or through which the suitor may exploit opportunities

not available ten years ago. Shy and soft spoken sensibilities can become, often comically, robust and aggressive when enough distance and subter- fuge is in play.

When Internet dating was still relatively new and heavily stigmatized, popular culture had a running gag: a new and exciting online romance would be depicted, followed by the first face-to-face meeting … and … neither person would be anything like they described themselves to be. The butt of the joke was often a geeky college kid. The mode of commu- nication used by these shy suitors is also used in relationships where someone cannot express themselves in person. Many important conver- sations, fights, and love letters are enacted this way, because they might be too upset, intimidated, or flustered to articulate it in person.

It can be hard to judge if “level jumping” is disrespectful or not. Prior to the social media craze, the moral standard was that breaking up was done face-to-face. Doing it over the phone was not acceptable, and there was a level of respect perceived when breaking up in person. From this perspective, brushing someone off via online message would amount to a slap in the face. But I am not sure online junkies would agree. If most of the relationship, however brief it may have been, takes placed via indi- rect technologies, then perhaps online is an appropriate space to give bad news. This is also much more acceptable if the couple met online; court- ship here still has a level of unreality associated with it. It would be com- pletely normal to hear a rationalization like, “It was an online thing. I met them on that website; it didn’t work out, no big deal.” Now it may have been the case that these people just did not have a connection, and meet- ing online was not a factor. However, I suspect that framing relationship reports with technology like this can be used to lessen the social stigma of a failed relationship – “It was just an online thing.”

Black Holes

There are some places where technology is seemingly abandoned and college kids revert to the glory days of face-to-face courtship. The Mecca of this wild space is the bar and club scene. Here caution is thrown to the wind and kids will sweet talk and “hit” on each other, grind on each other, and suck face until the lights come on.This is one of the few social spaces where someone has a chance to talk to a stranger without the creepy or rapist vibe associated with the random campus walker.

That being said, of course the bars often do house weirdos, creepsters, and maybe even actual rapists – but that is not who I am talking about.

Going to a bar is like signing a social contract: within these walls it is okay to dress slutty (without being slutty), talk to strangers, and say things that would otherwise get you fired at work for sexual harassment. And college bars are king. Bar culture is a fascinating world to visit. There is a separate code of appropriate behavior, a sexual ethic much different and more direct than non-bar communication and courtship. Try this experi- ment: in the middle of the day, strike up a conversation with a stranger you find very attractive. After the initial brief introduction or small talk that gets their attention, tell them that you find them extremely attractive, that they are “hot,” and that you want to go back to your place and hang out with them. It is not likely that this will be successful. However, this style of communication is commonplace at the club.

Outside of the bar, verbal expressions of attraction are usually much less interesting. It seems that complimenting a person on their physical appearance must have a clinical matter-of-factness, “Sally, you look very pretty today; I like your sweater.” A lot of this has to do with the “political correctness” in our society at large and isn’t isolated to younger folks. My point is just to highlight the radical incongruence of morally appropriate discourse at different places within a single community. One of the sig- nificant differences that contributes to this is use of technology, specifi- cally the lack of use in the bar scene.

Alcohol, the best and worst friend a college student may have, plays a crucial role here without a doubt. The wildness, debauchery, and glori- ous inhibition are all accelerated by derivations of this magical elixir. It could be argued that alcohol is the technology of choice here, and that the change in behavior is purely chemical.While acknowledging the clear biological impacts of the drug – inhibition, beer goggles, better dancing – I think it is only part of the equation. My counter example is that the same actions are deemed appropriate in the club no matter if you are drinking alcohol or not.

After college and even more so in graduate school, coffee shops replace many of the functions of the college bar. Cafés are still a place where society approves of outright flirtation for singles of all ages. Instead of buying someone a beer or cosmopolitan, people are buying black coffee or a triple
venti
non-fat macchiato.With a caffeine buzz and their favorite books in hand, single people love their coffee shops. However, the plot thickens. It is becoming popular to bring a laptop to the café! Customers maneuver for the seats with the electrical outlets, where they will remain

for hours on end. The bright screen emits an aura of light around the customer that acts as a don’t-bother-me force field. This is the sibling of the student walking across campus glued to their cell phone.

Someone quietly sitting, reading a book in a café is exponentially more approachable than the person at the next table squinting at her laptop. First, a suitor has many clues to engage the reader. The person’s choice in literature often sparks interests in a suitor and gives an easy “ice breaker.” There are no such clues when dealing with the laptop zombie. The black box gives the impression that he is doing something impor- tant. The loud noises of the keyboard mimics a real conversation people do not want to interrupt. With enough laptops in the room, the friendly café is turned into a computer lab that happens to have good coffee. Once again, technology pushes people away.

Wrap It Up

College students master an enormous amount of technology. The limit- less sex drive of college students has never had a better chance for satis- faction. There are so many things to know, but technology creates opportunities that abound for the young lovers. The nature of online profiles and the “objectification” of people online raise many interesting questions, warranting more research.The entrenchment in technology of college lovers will be a fascinating spectacle to follow. It is clear that video chatting like Skype will be the next massive leap forward, which will most likely minimize the role played by written text online.

I leave with an analogy that attempts to tie the broader technological issues of college courtship with sexual foreplay and intercourse. Understanding each layer of technology in courtship can metaphorically be seen as lovers undressing each other. There is a microcosm of court- ship within this most intimate of rituals:

The couple meets and kisses passionately, the initial face-to-face encounter. They take off their shoes next and start to get more com- fortable – the exchange of information and early flirting. Topical layers of clothes are removed, shirts, pants, and so on; their guards are down, mutual interest and attraction signaled. The incredibly tough snaps, buckles, and hooks of undergarments and lingerie are next – carefully navigating technology (form) and saying the right things (content).

At last, the two lovers are fully revealed to each other and sex ensues; the couple meets and continues courtship, in person and unmediated.

NOTE

1 See Dermot Moran and Timothy Mooney (eds.)
The Phenomenology Reader
(NewYork:Routledge,2002) and Dermot Moran,
Introductionto Phenomenology
(New York: Routledge, 2000).

BRETT LUNCEFORD

CHAPTER 4

SMEARED MAKEUP AND STILETTO HEELS

Clothing, Sexuality, and the Walk of Shame

7 a.m.:These Boots Aren’t Made for Walking

When I mentioned to my students that I was writ- ing an essay on the walk of shame, some responded with knowing looks and smirks while others responded with a bit of confusion. Others in the class responded to their confused classmates by explaining that the walk of shame is when men and women make the trek back to their apart-

ments or dorm rooms after a night spent elsewhere. “All you have to do is wait outside a frat house or a sorority house on Sunday morning to see the walk of shame,” one student explained. Once the explanation had been made, they immediately recognized the phenomenon.

There is a good reason why the walk of shame is not quite so prevalent at my current campus. Ours is mainly a commuter campus with a small percentage of students living near or on campus. However, at Penn State, where I received my doctorate, a large percentage of students lived either on campus or within a few blocks of the university. As such, the walk of shame was an institution. For example, when I taught a course in small group communication, I had an assignment where students had to create an infomercial selling some product of their choosing, either real or imagined. One group developed a “walk of shame kit.” In doing so, they

polled 100 women who lived in the dorms with them and asked questions such as “Have you performed the walk of shame?” “If so, how many times?” and “What do you wish you had brought when you performed the walk of shame?” They found that many had performed the walk of shame at least a few times, and one woman confessed to doing so 50 times. I expressed doubt that such a number was accurate, but was cor- rected when one of the students explained that that response had come from her roommate. “It’s definitely accurate; she’s had an interesting semester,” she explained.

A former colleague at Penn State reported that he would go out to breakfast with his roommates on Sunday morning and watch as people performed the walk of shame; for them, it was like breakfast and a show. People performing the walk of shame are easy to identify – they are wear- ing clothing that is calculated to attract sexual attention that seems out of place in an early morning walk. As such, women are much easier to identify. As Laura Baron notes, “Everyone knows black-patent leather stilettos, jeans, and sequins isn’t a morning jogging outfit.”
1
This essay will focus mainly on women who perform the walk of shame because they are particularly held up for ridicule because of their transparency. My students reported that people in the dorms would mock the women who performed the walk of shame, calling them “whores” and “sluts.” Elsewhere, I have discussed the rhetorical and semantic aspects of defin- ing this behavior as the walk of shame.
2
In this essay, I take a semiotic approach. Semiotics is the study of signs and sign systems, which makes it particularly well-suited to examining aspects of the walk of shame, such as the clothing, that mark such behavior as shameful. Specifically, I will consider how the clothing worn during the walk of shame functions as an index (i.e., a specific type of sign) of sexuality, which is marked, especially in young women, as shameful.