This is less of a review of Restless Virgins than an examination of my reaction to it. Is that technically what "review" means? Perhaps, but for clarity's sake, know that this post will address the book's subject matter and how that made me feel versus being an actual critique.
I have conflicting emotions when it comes to the interconnected story of the class of 2005 at Milton Academy. Part of it is that deep down I share the same pearl-clutching dismay about the current state of adolescent sexual politics as the the book's two authors. They are frank about the impetus for Restless Virgins, which asks the question--in the wake of the 2005 oral sex scandal at Milton that saw the expulsion and criminal trial of several hockey players and the mysterious wild card that is the sole female participant--how things could have changed so drastically from their not-so-long-ago day at this prestigious private school. I've often found myself shaking my head at the way things seem to be going in regard to young women in their teens and early twenties, not specific to this one incident in this one school but what seems to be a widespread change in what is accepted or even expected sexual behavior that, to me, feels like backlash in what isn't even a full generation after I came of age.
Un-reciprocated oral sex is the tip of the iceberg of what disturbs me here, but it's a powerful symbol of the current climate, and it's the place where I'll start. According the ten or so students they interviewed who were seniors during the 2004-2005 school year, from before the time they started high school, it was common for boys and girls hook up freely, usually without any kind of commitment or intention of commitment and the one constant seems to be that girls perform oral sex on the boys with no expectation of reciprocity. Based on actual testimony, I have no reason to believe that this isn't true and that it doesn't happen with adolescents everywhere. I don't have much to say about the whole hooking up phenomenon - what interests me exists outside of any kind of judgment about whether sexuality belongs outside of love or committed relationships.
The thing that strikes me again and again is not necessarily the act itself and the casual attitude toward it, but the overall inequality of the situation. What are these girls getting out of these interactions? Why would they willingly be party to something that smacks of exploitation? Jones and Miley, from the interplay of testimony from an almost equal number of boys and girls, draw up the dichotomy that these girls are usually seeking social status when they randomly and willingly engage in oral sex with boys. Not necessarily love or affection, though that is sometimes the case, but many of the subjects of Restless Virgins suggest otherwise. On the surface, it seems clear how the boys benefit, but there's also a by-product of them being on the receiving end which is that they have stories to share with their friends, as if every hook-up is done for the purpose of locker room fodder.
Using sex as a means to power is a theme as old as the hills and I don't doubt that there is truth to this version of how things are the way they are, particularly in the status-mad world where scholarship kids mix with the old moneyed. What truly disturbs me is that these young people seem to be very much aware of their motivations, they are already jaded and even their first forays into the world of sexuality are joyless. I can count on one hand the number of times that an incident is described as the result of mutually respectful exploration or just in the spirit of fun or pleasure. I know that adolescence is prime time for self-consciousness and low self esteem, but even the boys, whom you might believe to at least be following a societally condoned pursuit of id seem compelled more by what the experience will do for their standing than for their physical enjoyment. Frankly, I can't think of anything more depressing.
Though the Milton Academy students' experiences definitely have roots in the universal teenage experience, there are factors to be considered that inform the story of how Restless Virgins came to be. For example, Milton Academy is a community filled with the hyper-smart kids, leaders who are often legacies who feel that have images to project and reputations and expectations to meet. This can work against a healthy, fulfilling sex life because everyone is so preoccupied with their image, the future they envision and how they think things should be and what they should be doing. One of the subjects in particular, Reed, embodied this-- he came from an upper-middle class background and so aspired to the luxury that many of his friends and classmates were born into that his choice of sexual partners as well as what different things he would do with each one was carefully premeditated in terms of how it would affect his reputation. Even with all this consideration, it's clear that any of his transgressions would have been forgivable as long as there was a story behind it. Which leads me back to that old chestnut that might as well be the permanent subtext for this blog: the sexual double standard.
Of all the young women whose senior year was chronicled in the book, I can't think of one who didn't compromise herself sexually as a matter of course. These are all smart girls, the cream of their respective crops, yet one after the other they engaged in humiliating or unsatisfying trysts for no really good reason other than attempt to improve their social standing or boost their self esteem. Even bad girl Whitney, who was clearly the most in touch with her own capacity for sexual pleasure, seems to fall short of subverting the paradigm-- she repeatedly cheats on her "true love" Nick, but even as she racks up a pile of meaningless conquests, she admits that Nick is the only one with whom she has enjoyable sex (even though she admits he was too squeamish to perform cunnilingus).
Part of the extreme frustration I felt with the girls profiled in the book was due to my own knee-jerk feminist impulse to defend them and their right to make choices. I believe that they are just as free as the boys to test out the waters and make mistakes in judgement while still being entitled to respect. But even with this, I am guilty of expecting so much more from them-- why did these otherwise shining stars allow themselves to be at the mercy of the guys? Instead of owning their sexuality, they use it as a shield, and some as a weapon. This conundrum--coming to terms with my personally held double standard--made me uneasy. My inability to reconcile my own biases will the number one reason why this book will haunt me for some time.
Obviously I want to expect more from the boys. What the book describes is a microcosm of a culture that rewards them for the same reasons the girls are punished, and it's a culture I've long railed against. But I find it all the more interesting when it comes to the crux of the book-- when several hockey players are expelled (and most of them are put on criminal trial) for engaging in what appears to be consensual oral sex with one underage female student, who comes to whose defense? And what's the difference between the sanctioned, official fallout and the general response? It is no surprise to me that the girl is vilified by most students for causing the boys' expulsion while she suffers no really legal or administrative consequence.
She is not held accountable by the school and is even allowed back, which I guess is due to her age.
The scandal erupted not because it was so unusual (clearly there were many, many similar incidents in which many other participants were involved if you believe the testimony of their fellow students), just that this particular group got caught and there was no longer a way to deny the reality of a very broken system. What everyone wanted to know was, what was going on in this girl's head when she agreed to or possibly proposed the idea of servicing several boys with no apparent prospect of reciprocity? Nobody really cares why the boys would do it because, well, they're boys. But how could someone have so little self respect? How does something like this come to be? That's the reason the book was written, to try to approximate an answer to these questions. Without the testimony of the young woman or that of the others involved, nobody will ever really know. But by writing this book and getting the candid, extensive point of view of those who made up the community at the time, have we come any closer to an answer? And is the very exposure and exploration enough to get to the heart of the problem and make a change? If, by addressing the disconcerting state of affairs, can we begin to break the cycle?
I have no idea. I hope so. I will say that I didn't put this book down feeling entirely hopeless about the state of today's teenagers. For one, teenagers are my favorite. I still refuse to ascribe to a hysterical mindset; I can't let the contents of one book make me think that they're all doomed just because some of them make me want to pull my hair out. I appreciate that there is an epilogue wherein most of the participants--even the boys, which I thought was especially important--attribute much of their behavior to the crippling insecurity that comes with one's high school years. Most said that they were much happier in all aspects once they moved on to college and away from their small, stifling, clique-riddled community at Milton, and that included healthier and more enjoyable sex lives.
It'd be a dream come true for me if that dark time was something we could find a way to prevent altogether. And the more we write about it and talk about it and educate kids I don't think it's an impossible dream. Here are some totally amazing people who are way ahead of me in that aspect (a small reprimand for my readers - how long have you known about The Midwest Teen Sex Show and not told me about it? How could you?).
Written material © 2008 Dawn Emerman
