Flirtation, adultery, student-teacher boundaries — again!

I get a fair number of emails from college students, almost always young women, who found this blog after having googled the phrase “student crushes”. I reposted the piece that I did on Tuesday after receiving two such emails at the beginning of the week, both from women who had crushes on older, married, male professors.

Let’s review: professors should not date students who are enrolled in their classes, for some excellent reasons. We shouldn’t suborn adultery for some equally important reasons, as I wrote in January ’09 in a post called Helping Him Become What He Pledged Not to Be.

And while I don’t have a problem with professors dating their former students (though the ideal would be that a student would be sufficiently “former” as to have left the campus entirely), I do have a very serious problem with decentralizing the relationship status of the parties in this discussion. I think we can have a serious discussion about whether or not professor-student romantic relationships are invariably unethical and a bad idea. I take that negative position, but know that others — in good faith and at times with very thoughtful reasons — can take the opposite one. But I don’t think that it’s possible to make a compelling case in defense of adultery. While it is possible to critique monogamy as an institution, it isn’t ethically viable to defend dishonesty. And at its heart, the sinfulness of cheating is not in the sex, but in the lie it creates. As I wrote fifteen months ago:

One of the great tragedies of infidelity lies not in what it does to others but what it teaches us about ourselves — that we are fundamentally untrustworthy. And it is hard to be happy while living with the dissonance between one’s language and one’s life.

So let me be clear. I’m happy to chat with folks — in “real life” or through this blog, email, social media and so forth — about the ethical and human issues surrounding this topic in which I am deeply invested. What I’m not interested in doing is co-signing any behavior that dishonors another person’s monogamous commitment. Relationships can end, of course, and romantic statuses can shift. But when we’re dealing with people who have pledged fidelity to others, we have an obligation to do all that we can to help them honor that commitment. Honoring the commitment to fidelity can include breaking up prior to sleeping with someone else. But it cannot include idle flirtation, emotional affairs, or outright seduction.

Older married men who flirt with younger women do so, generally, for ego validation. The longing to know that one still has “it” can be overwhelming, particularly for a fellow who hasn’t really dealt with his own fears about ageing and mortality. But whether he is a politician or a plumber, he needs to grasp that young women — heck, women of any age — are not yardsticks with which to measure the sexual appeal he longs to know has not diminished. When the greying Romeo is a married professor flirting with his own students, that behavior moves from being unfortunate and unwise to reckless and irresponsible.

And that’s a message that apparently needs frequent repeating.

Thursday Short Poem: Zagajewski’s “My Aunts”

I’ve had two Adam Zagajewski pieces on the TSP before, see here and here.

This is another excellent one. I come from a family where homemade lavender sachets are a summer tradition.

My Aunts

Always caught up in what they called
the practical side of life
(theory was for Plato),
up to their elbows in furniture, in bedding,
in cupboards and kitchen gardens,
they never neglected the lavender sachets
that turned a linen closet to a meadow.

The practical side of life,
like the Moon’s unlighted face,
didn’t lack for mysteries;
when Christmastime drew near,
life became pure praxis
and resided temporarily in hallways,
took refuge in suitcases and satchels.

And when somebody died–it happened
even in our family, alas–
my aunts, preoccupied
with death’s practical side,
forgot at last about the lavender,
whose frantic scent bloomed selflessly
beneath a heavy snow of sheets.
Don’t just do something, sit there.
And so I have, so I have,
the seasons curling around me like smoke,
Gone to the end of the earth and back without sound.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Restraining the ego and leaving doors unopened: a reprint on crushes, longing, and the desire “to know”

From 2007.

Below this post on student crushes, a reader named “P” describes her crush on one of her (married) professors. I’ll quote a section that has me thinking this morning:

I was interested in your advice not to talk about it with the professor. I had been considering doing so, although not now because there are still letters of recommendation for grad school to be written and I most certainly want to maintain a level of appropriateness until his defined role as a professor is done.

On the one hand your advice makes sense because he can’t really help me work through a crush of which he is the object. That’s not my goal though. My concern is that a large part of the reason I still think about him now is a curiosity as to whether he feels the same way

Bold emphasis is mine.

I’m going to step beyond P’s specific issue with her professor, and reflect for a moment on the extraordinary desire so many of us have “to know”. P seems less interested in actually having an affair with her married prof than she is in finding out if her feelings for him are reciprocated. If you read through the comments below that post — and indeed through the comments on all the student crush posts — it seems clear that for many folks with crushes on their teachers, this curiosity to know whether or not the object of their desire feels something in return can be overwhelming.

I can’t think of a more tempting — and more disastrous — reason to begin any love affair than “curiosity.” When I was younger, I cloaked neediness and compulsiveness in the language of intellectual (or at least romantic) curiosity. Time and again, I pursued someone because I was desperately curious to know certain things: Could I “have” them? Did they “want” me as I “wanted” them? What would it be like to “be” (however briefly) with someone “like that”? Firmly committed to the lie that “experience is always the best teacher”, I attempted to justify some fairly unjustifiable behavior with the explanation that I had “an insatiable desire to know.” (This is a particularly common trait, I know, among academics — many of whom are notorious for petty affairs and infidelities. We exalt the pursuit of knowledge above all other virtues, and periodically find it all too easy to confuse the gratifying of our own ego with the acquisition of genuine understanding.)

I posted in February about flirtation. I wrote:

Flirtation, particularly when we are married or in committed relationship, brings us dangerously close to one of the most pernicious sins of all. No, I don’t mean adultery. I mean the sin of using another human being to soothe our own anxiety, to feed our ravenous ego. Sending out “mixed messages” that arouse interest, deliberately fishing about to see if we can get a little “stroking” — this is toxic, manipulative, adolescent.

This connects to the kind of curiosity to which P seems to refer. Our ego longs to know if we are wanted. Our ego promises us “I won’t take things too far; just let me find out!” The ego has a way of making its demands seem alternately reasonable and irresistable. It tells us that there’s no harm, surely, in taking steps to “know once and for all” whether that cute, taken teacher or student or colleague has an interest. Surely there’s no way any normal person ought to be expected to resist the temptation to “open the door, just a crack” in order to find out whether or not he or she is the object of another’s desire. “I don’t want to do anything”, the ego protests, “I just wanna know!”

I came to this realization later than many, but I’ve become convinced that wisdom and happiness in no small way correlate with a willingness to leave some doors closed, certain opportunities unpursued. One tool I use these days to measure my own spiritual growth is my own willingness to live contentedly with what I don’t know. Not only do I not need to know if a student has a crush on me or not, I’m called to make certain I take no steps in order to “find out.” (Like a lot of people’s, my ego, unrestrained, had all the subtlety of an untrained Great Dane; left unleashed, it would pant and slobber and race after promising scents that suggested the delicious gratification it craved. It knocked a lot of things over, periodically knocked people down, and left a big wet mess.)

Committing to “leaving doors unopened” is a spiritual and psychological discipline. Like any discipline, it gets easier with practice and the passage of time. When I was younger, I thought wisdom would come as the natural result of the relentless pursuit of every possible new experience. I believed that in love (or at least its physical aspect), any door unopened was a “crime against eros”. I didn’t see my behavior as compulsive, needy, and childish — I honestly thought it vaguely heroic. That was my sad foolishness, but it was a foolishness that hurt many others as well as myself. And it’s a foolishness I see alive and well in many of my students and, more troublingly, in my peers.

I have no right to judge those younger than myself who are only doing what I was doing at their same age. But I am wary of the lie that bitter experience is the only way to learn. Jesus told doubting Thomas, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. I’ll take the huge liberty of rephrasing it: Because of all the doors you recklessly opened, you have become wise; blessed are those who have become wise while leaving the doors closed.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Cognitive dissonance, conflict, and civility on Facebook

A few people have defriended me on Facebook recently. Before I explain why, a bit of background: I have well over 2000 “friends” on Facebook, ranging from family members to students to blog readers. I’ve been “on” the site for just over three years, and have found it an indispensable tool for keeping in touch with old friends — and for sharing media content (blog posts, videos, articles) that I find useful or interesting. Those of us who have public platforms (even if they are small platforms) are social influencers; it seems sensible to use the platforms we have to promote causes near and dear to our hearts.

Of course, not all of my Facebook friends share my views. I may be a staunch liberal, but I’ve got acquaintances (and loved ones) who span the spectrum from neo-Stalinist to Christian Reconstructionist and almost everything in between. When I post about hot-button issues — as I did in the aftermath of the George Tiller assassination last May, folks whose views are diametrically opposed to my own sometimes feel compelled to weigh in. And things can get very hostile very fast.

Blogging permits anonymity. I happen to blog under my own name; many don’t. Most of my commenters use first names only, or pseudonyms. But my Facebook friends are all real people whose names I know, whose pictures I can see, whose lives (at least online) are open to me as mine is to them. One can’t anonymously “troll” on Facebook as one can on a blog. But rather than turning down the temperature of the discussions, this intimacy makes the political arguments all the more intense. Much of it takes the form of “I cannot believe someone I love and respect can be so obstinately wrong”. The desire to show a “friend” the error of his or her ways is often exponentially greater within a closed social network than it is in the more open world of the blogosphere. I lost four friends on Facebook after I declared Dr. Tiller to be a martyr, and noted my open and unequivocal support for late-term abortion. Emotions ran high all around.

It’s tempting to avoid using Facebook to advance causes. It can just be a site for sharing photos and updates with friends. But I am a political creature. To pretend to be apolitical, to pretend that issues around gender justice and animal rights aren’t central to my being, is to present an entirely false image of who it is that I am. I suspect that a great many people, left and right and in between, would say the same. To paraphrase the good Lord, there ain’t much point in hiding one’s light under a bushel. And so the trick is to be an honest, open, loving, but authentic advocate for one’s deepest beliefs — and to do that advocacy in a way that engages and influences others, while respecting their right to disagree.

My Facebook “wall” is not a freewheeling forum for the discussion of ideas. It is my bulletin board, reflecting my views of the world on which others are free to comment — but not free to denigrate. For example, I noted several times recently my support for the National Network of Abortion Funds, including my contributions to various teams in their annual fundraising bowl-a-thon. I have made it clear that comments like “baby killers!” are unwelcome and unacceptable. I don’t go to the Facebook pages of my right-leaning friends and write “woman-hater!” underneath their posts linking to pro-life sites, after all.

The challenge for those of us who use social networking sites to communicate our personal and political selves (for many of us, those are inextricably woven together) is finding ways to practice integrity and civility in our exchanges with those whom we disagree. In the case of Facebook, because we are interacting primarily with those whom we have chosen as our friends and colleagues, the stakes are much higher than they are on a more anonymous platform. Facebook allows us to discover which of our friends — often much to our astonishment — hold views we consider objectionable or bizarre. To some extent, it’s a regular exercise in cognitive dissonance, as we struggle to reconcile our fondness for a person with our horror at her or his views. I know I give plenty of folks opportunity for just that, both here and on my Facebook page.

We live in a politically-charged era. I am proud of how many of my students are engaged. I am proud of those who fight for the causes I believe in, but I’m also proud of the integrity and passion displayed by those who hold radically different views. Having come of age in the politically apathetic early 1980s, part of the generation known as “Reagan Youth”, I am deeply impressed by the savvy, intensity, and commitment of those born a quarter century later. I am struck, too, by how many young activists do manage to maintain friendships (on Facebook and elsewhere) with partisans on the other side. I am learning much from them.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Of Boobquakes and the modesty peddlers

Those up on these things know that today is Boobquake day, during which women are encouraged to show just a bit more skin when out in public. The point is to rebuke the Iranian cleric Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi, who recently remarked that scantily-clad women cause earthquakes.

Without commenting on the Facebook-promoted Boobquake phenomenon itself, I think it’s important to note that Sedighi’s comments, as absurd as they seem to reasonable people, exist on a continuum with the only-slightly-less absurd words of American right-wing pundits and preachers. While a great many social conservatives would dismiss Sedighi’s remarks, one suspects that most would do so more out of antipathy towards Islam than out of a genuine sense that what he said was wrong. After all, while the number who believe that a push-up bra leads to cracks in the earth’s crust are few, it’s common to hear conservatives bemoan the lack of modesty among today’s youth (and by youth, they almost invariably mean young women.)

“I can’t believe what young women are wearing these days” is an ancient lament. While it is axiomatic that what scandalizes one generation is accepted as normal by the next, it’s also true that standards tend to fluctuate rather than steadily decline. Think of the plunging necklines of the early 19th century in Europe, and contrast them with the Victorian prudishness that only emerged decades later. These things go in cycles. It’s simply ignorant to assume, as many anxious guardians of public morality do, that “things have never been this bad, and without radical (state or divine) intervention, things will get even worse.”

The real constant in history is the way in which the bodies of young women are seen as threats to the social order (if not also to the stability of the globe’s tectonic plates). Those who believe in the myth of male weakness argue that the vast majority of heterosexual men are driven mad (or at least unavoidably distracted, tempted, etc.) by women’s unwillingness to cover up. Those who don’t understand how testosterone and Y chromosomes actually influence behavior insist that they render males helpless at the sight of boobs and buttocks and uncovered thighs. The social conservatives adopt a simple formula, basing it on a creative misreading of both Scripture and evolutionary psychology (and yes, it’s notable that many right-wing Christians abandon their hostility to evolution when they see that its misuse serves to bolster their argument that women need to cover up.) The formula: social upheavals (and perhaps temblors) are caused by women’s refusal to police themselves (and each other). Since men are incapable of sexual self-regulation, God gave women (and women only) the gift of self-control. When women refuse to exercise that self-control on behalf of both themselves and their brothers, chaos results.

It’s easy to mock Sedighi. But when we repeat the lie that women are more capable of self-regulation and are therefore expected to exercise modesty as a strategy for restraining men and protecting society itself, we are taking essentially the same stance as the befuddled Iranian cleric. Boobs don’t cause earthquakes. They also don’t cause rape. They don’t cause men to be distracted or unfaithful. Exposed in whole or in part, they don’t portend the decline of civilization or of human decency. We need to repeat this message over and over again.

Building a just society means, among a great many other things, reiterating over and over that each of us has the capacity for empathy and for self-control. All of us ought to enjoy the right to delight in our bodies and display them as we choose. And make no mistake: women’s bodies are only threatening in a culture that denies the possibility of universal male accountability, and denies the reality of women’s sexual agency. (Not to mention a society that is ridiculously uncomfortable with one particularly effective way of feeding infants, but that’s another post.) Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi is an enthusiastic denier of both possibilities. But so too are many others who disguise their medieval views of human nature behind only slightly less ridiculous assertions.

Happy Boobquake day.

See this post for a take on the real biblical meaning of modesty.

UPDATE:

In a discussion on my Facebook page beneath a link to this post, my friend Joanne writes:

Showing off my boobs doesn’t really make the people staring at them committed to freedom for Iranian women

I think we all agree to that. Note that I’m not celebrating or promoting Boobquake (it ill-behooves a male feminist to do so). I certainly don’t think that displaying women’s bodies is a particularly effective tool for solving discrimination. But I do think that the enforced concealment of women’s bodies is part and parcel of the problem. To the extent that a public, media-savvy campaign can expose (pun intended) our own hypocrisy about women’s sexuality and female flesh, then I think that events like Boobquake are fine. But they need to be a spur to serious reflection and continued activism.

Check out some thoughts at the Ms. blog as well.

Snakes by the Springs

Regular blogging resumes next week, but need to share this story.

We were in Colorado for a few days earlier this week, visiting friends who live just outside the small town of Pagosa Springs in the southwest of the state. While I was off having a working lunch, my wife took Heloise down to the play by the banks of the snow-melt-swollen San Juan River, which runs through the heart of the community. My wife carefully placed HCRS on a rock to sit, and turned away for just a split second. When she looked back, my fifteen month-old daughter had what appeared to be a brown branch across her lap. My wife looked closer, and saw that it was a snake. Before Eira could react, Heloise picked up the long, thin creature, and with a smile and a giggle, displayed it triumphantly. Eira kept her cool, and without alarming either my daughter or the serpent, picked up a real branch and gently lifted the snake out of Heloise’s hand, set it down some distance away, and let it slither off.

It was a docile beast, and my ecologist friend suspected a very even-tempered bullsnake or, possible, a “night-snake.” My wife was able to rule out a rattler, and rule out a conventional garter snake as well. It was nearly three feet long, slender, and brown. Guesses from those expert in Rocky Mountain herpetology are welcome.

I’m proud of my fearless daughter and calm spouse, and am very grateful I missed the whole thing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Spring breaking

It’s Spring Break this week at Pasadena City College, where it is customary to joke that we enjoy America’s latest such hiatus. I’ll be doing some traveling with the family (fortunately, our plans this time do not involve Europe and flights that might be cancelled due to ash). Regular blogging resumes Monday, April 26.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Jennifer Knapp comes out

What had long been rumored was confirmed this week: Christian recording artist Jennifer Knapp, whose extraordinary talent as a singer and songwriter made her the first religious musician to appear at Lilith Fair, has come out as a lesbian.

Knapp burst on to the Christian Contemporary Music (CCM, as its called) scene in 1998, with her debut album, Kansas. I first heard her music at the end of that year, the same year that I was undergoing my own spiritual rebirth and recovery. Most Christian music bugged me; I’d heard Steven Curtis Chapman and Amy Grant and been left cold or exasperated. But there was something raw and authentic in Knapp’s singing, something that seemed worlds away from the “we’re so happy ’cause we’re saved and God is gonna give us rainbows” praise sound that seemed to dominate the Christian airwaves in the 1990s. The song that grabbed me, and became in many ways the “theme” of my recovery and my return to Christ in those years, was her lovely acoustic “Martyrs and Thieves”:

There are ghosts from my past who’ve owned more of my soul
Than I thought I had given away
They linger in closets and under my bed
And in pictures less proudly displayed
A great fool in my life I have been
Have squandered till pallid and thin
Hung my head in shame and refused to take blame
For the darkness I know I’ve let win

I knew what it was to have surrendered willingly to that darkness; I, an addict and alcoholic, knew what it was to have grown pallid and thin and self-absorbed. And Knapp — of course herself an adult convert — made the wonder at the sheer goodness of God seem palatable and honest rather than forced and saccharine. She witnessed, but never preached — a vital distinction that so many Christian artists miss.

After two superb follow-ups to Kansas, Jennifer Knapp went on a mysterious hiatus in 2003. She stopped touring and recording, and went incommunicado. There were rumors about her sexuality; rumors that she’d lost her faith. She stayed underground for nearly seven years, returning earlier this year with an announcement of a new tour, a new album, and a new willingness to tell the truth about a vital aspect of her identity. Continue reading

Thursday Short Poem: Dameron’s “Red Thread”

Another one from DéLana Dameron’s splendid debut collection, How God Ends Us. I’ve only had one lover with dreadlocks, but I know something about possessiveness, mementos, and the strange souvenirs we collect and clutch.

The Red Thread

He rests his lips on my forehead, fondles
a lock of hair. My cheek on his chest
we swim in currents of dreadlocks

converging in the delta of his arm stretched
flat across his pillows. My right hand weaves
our strands together like birds building

nests in azaleas. He says he can see
I carry a world on my head, that my hair
holds the weight of many lovers. Our hair

is a bird’s nest, I think, an ephemeral
construction, the disparate gathered to build
a bed. I want to know if birds are monogamous,

if there is such a thing as lovebirds, except
this act, this bed, might know nothing
of love or eternity. He picks up the South African

wooden bead lost in my black jute vines,
the twisted ropes, twirls it in a question
he won’t ask. He says he’s always hated red.

I don’t tell him I’ve pulled new burgundy
threads from his locks already, how we pick up
and carry all our lives everywhere we go. I want

to know why it will end like this — his lock offering
more than he’ll offer in words. I don’t tell him
I know there is someone else, that he holds

the energy of all the women he’s loved in this bed,
in his hair. I believe I should abandon him,
and too, I have collected the jerseyed sheets

his camel-brown wool, his raven skin —
all the places I have last lain my head.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged