Sex in the Dorm Room :: Herbert I. London

Child psychology is a field very much like education: the fashionable ideas of today often prove to be unremittingly foolish tomorrow. The child psychology theories of the 1960s and ’70s, for instance, which depended on the importance of early stimuli and intimacy, have been combined with radical feminism to radically alter traditional birthing practices and baby care. Hospitals no longer whisk newborns off to the nursery or enforce five-hour bottle feeds. On the contrary; if a mother requests the assistance of nurses so that she can get a few hours of undisturbed sleep, she is likely to be told, in a tone of severe admonition, that it is preferable for mothers to bond with their babies.

The reflexive orthodoxy on baby care now includes a variety of “child-centered” practices, including breast feeding on demand, baby slings, and co-sleeping. Confronted with unhappy, colicky babies, parents find the advice in baby care books impossibly vague. In the drive to promote the individuality of each child, many parenting books ignore universal, common sense principles that apply to all children and all mothers.

The cultural era inaugurated by the 1960s emphasized the “earth mother” approach: give the child what it wants, when it wants it. The baby became the center of a universe circumscribed only by mother and child. The proponents of this notion completely ignored the fact that one raises a child so that it may function in the world, where those kids will have to learn to do things on their own and share with others. But parents were vulnerable to the allure of such an approach because it is easier to give a child what he wants than to impose discipline and self-control.

Hence, many contemporary women are asking a valid question: How can I be a fully functioning mother if I’m obliged to subordinate myself to even the most minimal needs of my child? Three in a bed, with breast feeding on demand, is a recipe for personal chaos. (And it may contribute to infant deaths by suffocation as a parent unknowingly turns over on the child during the night.) Moreover, this practice doesn’t ensure tranquility: if a baby always gets what he wants, his likely response is to constantly want more.

There was a time when parents weren’t quite so overwrought. In most instances they simply did what came naturally. But in this age, in which experts think they know what’s best, parents are often so insecure that they don’t trust their own judgment. Johnny and Mary are placed at the very center of the universe, with mom and dad rotating around them like moons around a planet. And the orbit is determined by the latest popular child psychology guide on baby care.

The natural end to this silly practice may be upon us, however, as even myopic parents come to recognize the dangers of childhood self-absorption. Unfortunately, the change is probably arriving too late for many parents of the current generation. I have met many parents who tell me that their children are insufferable, but few of these moms and dads realize that they are responsible for their children’s condition.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that there appear to be so many self-centered brats in university life today. From birth through adolescence, their parents told them, through their actions, that the sun rises on their awakening and sets with their somnolence. Perpetual indulgence was the child-rearing practice recommended by the gurus of baby care, and now society has to pay the price for those decades of parental irresponsibility.

The present state of co-ed living in college dorms is an example of what can result from these nonsensical notions when applied to older children, as they almost invariably are. In the world of modern university life, where nary a discouraging word is ever heard, ideas that trample on common sense are commonplace. Last December 12, for example, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that coed dormitory rooms—not merely buildings or even floors of buildings, please note, but coed rooms—are assigned in at least four well-known colleges: Wesleyan, Swarthmore, Antioch, and Haverford. According to the report, these colleges aren’t trying to encourage romance, nor are they merely casual about sex. The arrangement, to use the language of its progenitors, is “an experiment in living together.” The utopianism of this concept is self-evident. “I think a lot of colleges are doing it right by giving men and women the chance to live together in family groups,” says Susan Kostner Tree, director of college counseling at the Westtown School in the Philadelphia suburbs.

Experiments Against Reality

Overlooked in this “experiment,” of course, are millennia of species history and immutable biological differences that no amount of cultural manipulation can erase. One might well ask whether most college-age people are mature enough to handle the sexual tension of such an arrangement. When teens are cohabiting, they are forced to skip the natural evolution of courtship and relationship-building that once occurred gradually and mysteriously. Now the mystery is gone, and so too are the social cues on which firm, lasting relationships are built. Jeff Ederer, Wesleyan’s residential director, admitted that although sexual relationships among coeds are “uncommon,” they (surprise) do happen. And, as he went on to note, breaking up is hard to do, especially because it isn’t obvious who should get to keep the dorm room.

As one might guess in this era of political correctness, another justification given for coed housing at Swarthmore was its effect on homosexual students. One gay student contended that mandatory same-sex housing was “heterosexist.” Homosexuals argued that living with someone who didn’t understand their sexual preference was awkward.

Many of the students in coed dorms contend that they are “laid back” about it all. Yet this casual façade is a deception that’s easy to see through, except for myopic college administrators. With reproductive-system hormones coruscating through their bodies, sex is undeniably an issue for adolescents and college-age young adults. For many, it is just about the only issue. Hence, to offer opportunities for sexual license to teenagers is simply irresponsible. It is also hypocritical. On the one hand, college administrators maintain that they neither encourage nor condone sexual activity. On the other, however, they allow males and females to live together in virtually any manner they choose.

Of course, to raise these issues makes one vulnerable to the charge of prudery, an accusation far more egregious these days than immorality. But the fact is that “hooking up” destroys the mystery and indeed the pleasure of romance: the sense that the object of one’s desire is a discrete, unique person fades away rapidly as notions of modesty, decency, and self-respect are jettisoned and replaced by a cruel self-centeredness disguised as honesty. And that, of course, makes unselfish love all but impossible to attain. How sad that so many of these sexual wanderers will never find genuine satisfaction in a romantic relationship that transcends momentary passion.

The authors of the Chronicle article conclude by suggesting that college administrators’ former fears about hedonism and tawdry behavior were overblown. But in an unmonitored environment, how do they know? How do administrators know what these kids are doing, much less thinking? And how can they be so confident in their speculations about what this casual attitude toward sex means and what effects it may have?

To be sure, there have so far been no scientific studies offering empirical evidence supporting my belief that modesty matters or that this coed tomfoolery will have a baneful effect on the lives of these young people. But as a professor of several decades’ standing, I do have much anecdotal evidence indicating that adolescents aren’t ready for this experiment and that the pressure it places on them can be debilitating. Moreover, I think that simple logic and a basic understanding of the human condition strongly suggest that these propositions are true and that today’s experiment in coed college living arrangements is decidedly foolish.

Unfortunately, college administrators ignore what any sensible person can readily see. Many administrators in higher education have simply lost touch with reality, and thus parents who send their children off to college should remember that ancient bit of wisdom, caveat emptor.

It may be that parents today are better prepared to recognize that psychologists and their many current-day experiments with reality ignore the immutable conditions of human nature and, frequently, common sense. A country at war offers new perspectives on a variety of things, including childrearing. The individualism, bordering on narcissism, of yesteryear may be on the wane. As Americans wave Old Glory without shame, a new psychology may be dawning, one that recognizes communal needs in the face of a clear and present danger. Although forged in blood and anger, such a psychology could balance individualism with societal concerns and egoism with selflessness.

Of course, to draw any conclusion at this point would be premature. But then again, the solipsism of the past has surely reached its limit, and the times have called forth a different set of concerns. Hence it is possible to hope that the self-critical honesty and resiliency we Americans have displayed throughout our history will bring on a period of psychological healing and sensible childrearing practices. Those would be the conditions for a truly successful experiment in living together.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to herbert i. london's free mailing list