"Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both."

Has anyone read a book called "Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose At Both"? I heard about this book from a feminist I'd been working with on some student activism issues, and also heard a few of my female friends mention it. Last week, in that emotional fall out, I decided to sit down and read the whole book - and I've got to tell you, I've never been so confused by a book in my life.

By the time I finish any book, I can always tell if I hated it liked it, but I don't really know with this book.It brings up a good point and takes a stand against sex-positive feminism in taking the position that sexual politics and the power thereof do not translate into true political power in feminism. In fact, it might add to the plight of women. Just from that chapter alone, one could write a whole damned essay on feminist theories and personal responsibility.

But at the same time, it also covers the lives of college students and the "hook-up" culture, featuring the lives of many young women who, caught up in the casual sex culture, were unable to have healthy, loving relationships. Its attribution is, as if, somehow casual sex leads to an inability to love.Furthermore, it treats heartbreaks, broken relationships, unrequited love (or as I like to call it, unrequited interest, as "love" is built in a relationship, and not just through mere association with someone) as if they are cataclysmic events that are harmful to young women and men. They are not. They are pretty healthy. They are a part of being an adult and social interaction. I've bad my share of bad (as well as good) relationships, unrequited interests, and all those things covered in the book, and it's only made me a better person. So, I am failing to understand the author’s point.

What I find problematic is that the author presupposes that, somehow, we can't have both. She supposes that, somehow, without love, that college students will grow old to be like that lady in "Great Expectations," sitting at home wth a bunch of cats.

What if, it's just that college students - and especially ambitious ones, are being promicuous because they've not yet (since their standards and dreams are so high) found the person who is fitting enough to love? Does this mean, then, that they ought to throw away the condoms, stay away from the bars, and just be old and boring?

It also talks about the academic challenges of college and how, because careers and academics are considered more important than love, many women are choosing the formers over the latter, and instead, choosing to “hook-up.” I get a sense, and perhaps I am being defensive here, that the author is advocating love and marriage over academic and career achievements. This, for me, opens a whole other dialogue about that Betty Friedan brought up in the “Feminine Mystique,” which, ironically, was mentioned in the book.

The book also attributes the casual sex culture with the Vagina Monologues and my favorite play, "Because He Liked to look at it." Its message was, essentially, raising awareness about female sexuality has somehow been responsible for the sexual behavior of women that ended up hurting them. I am not a big fan of using the play as political activism, but I don’t like the idea of bashing it.

My biggest issue with the book is, like many other studies of sexuality, it only addresses relationships in a heterosexual sense. There are many of my friends who go through the same “hook-up” culture as homosexuals, both males and females.I don't know …the majority of the book reads like a bad episode of Real Life or Queer as Folk (straight style), but it also brings up very interesting feminist perspectives, weaving together the various movements and waves. If nothing else, it's making me think.

In all, it's a good book. There are some quite touching parts to the book, while other parts just makes me want to throw the book out the window. It’s sort of like a roommate – sometimes you love it, sometimes you hate it.Bottom line I drew from this book: everything in moderation in terms of both casual sex and falling in love. I don't think the author said this, but it's what I drew from it.

There's Marc Loi's creative nature at work for you.I don't know what to make of this book …but, if you feel like discussing it, the copy I currently have is yours. Drop by the house any time and pick it up.

Rise of violence against women

I don't know if you've noticed the same trends, but I am very disturbed that in the past weeks, there seems to be a rise in violence against women. The college student in New York who was abducted and killed, the man who killed his family and shot himself on the freeway in middle America, the police officer who killed his pregnant wife, and now, the professional wrestler who supposedly (and allegedly) killed his wife and child - there seems to be a rise in violence against women.

In all these news stories, the focus is always on the "investigation," but never is feminist thought applied to this - asking why the rise in violence against women? Or, perhaps, is it that the media is merely focusing more on these cases now, being bored with Iraq and having nothing to report about the violations of the Bush Administration?

I assert this: violence against women can be blamed by the culture in which we live in, the one that eroticizes violence and misogyny. Take a look around you - the magazine ads that feature women in the trunk of a vehicle, diamonds that are depicting women lying on the floor with phrases like "to die for," video games that feature violence against women, television shows that show women being murdered.

Do a quick online search and you'll find a host of Web sites devoted to "erotica" that's devoted to rape and forced sex. All of these factors, I think, seap into our conciousness and tell us, as a people, that they're all "natural." No matter how intellectual, advanced and intelligent a society, such thoughts will become socially accepted norms.

One thing I've learned, as a feminist scholar, is that what is "natural" has to be challenged, its agency put into question - with us asking the questions of who the creators of these rules were, and more importantly, why these rules exist.I don't know how to deal with the prevelance of sex and violence on TV. Some parts of me, a more primal, animalistic part, still thinks the idea of being able to "reach out and touch somebody" with an M-16, being 500 meters away, as something that is powerful. In the bedroom, I still think certain mutually erotic pleasures, are still acceptable. But where do we draw the line?

Do we like these things because they are natural - true to the teeth natural, or are we buying into a violent, misogynistic society's product -- a product that, in the end, hurts one half of our human population? I could easily say "fuck it" and just try to be a good person. But our obligation in life is one that's not just for ourselves and our families, but our community and our nation. What then, shall we do, as "enlightened" feminists, when it comes to sex and violence?Marc