I just finished reading Joe Concha's article entitled "Earth Girls Are Easy," and it was appalling.  As a single woman in my late 20s, and a regular visitor to Hoboken I might add, I felt a moral obligation to respond to a number of Mr. Concha’s statements.

I pen my response with one important assumption, which is to assume that Mr. Concha has not just emerged from under a rock. It is amazing to me that someone who has advanced in time past the turn of the 20^th century could be so oblivious to the fact that, when it comes to being "naked and horizontal," it takes two to tango. While he lambastes the "morally bankrupt" women of Hoboken, Mr. Concha fails to recognize that the men of Hoboken are just as deeply involved in this so-called rush to intimacy.

It is this hypocrisy that led me to write the letter to the editor that eventually spawned this column. It is clear from the opinions expressed in Mr. Concha’s article that the age-old "double standard" is still alive and well for some.

While Mr. Concha laments the lack of "good girls" left in the city of Hoboken, he has obviously participated in the same types of sexual encounters he condemns. Indeed, he readily admits to having been "the beneficiary of such trysts."  I am quite certain that Mr. Concha was not complaining about his female partners' sexual availability in those situations. It is also hard for me to believe that the chaste few that refused his sexual advances were respected for their decision, rather than cajoled and made to feel guilty for activating the launch sequence without completing the takeoff.

Before my response to Mr. Concha’s article is dismissed as the as the gripe of a bitter man-hater, I must address a statement by Mr. Concha that is insulting to both women and men. To proclaim that women are hastily engaging in sexual relations in the hope "that maybe something concrete could come out of performing acts before the time was right," suggests that Mr. Concha still believes in the archaic notion of women using sex to get love. 

Perhaps Mr. Concha should be aware, that assuming the act takes place between consenting individuals, there is (*gasp*) nothing wrong with sex for pleasure only. Perhaps he should also give his gender more credit. Not only does his statement suggest that women use sex to manipulate men into beginning relationships with them, it also suggests that men are completely disinterested in relationships that continue beyond the one-night stand. I dare say that the majority of men are mature, intelligent, interesting and respectful enough to engage in relationships with women that involve interaction outside the bedroom.

It is possible that Mr. Concha is not one of those men. In yet another blatant nod to the double standard, he states that he finds it "staggering that a girl could be so comfortable in such a naked situation so quickly." Well, why shouldn’t she be? He was obviously comfortable enough to take her away from the bar, the party, the office, the (insert pick-up venue here), and invite her into his bedroom or follow her back to hers. I fail to see why it is acceptable for Mr. Concha to feel comfortable in this situation while at the same time expecting his partner not to be. Mr. Concha seems disappointed at women’s willingness to be "intimate and exposed" without "much consideration and time," but let’s face it, this article is not about intimacy, and it’s about sex. There again, he makes that assumption that to women, sex always equals intimacy and that is simply not true.

Mr. Concha sets forth a number of disturbing points in his article, making rash generalizations about men and women alike, but perhaps the most troublesome and chauvinistic aspect of Mr. Concha’s article is his characterization of women as sexually irresponsible. Mr. Concha asserts that condom use is on the decline, and even goes so far as to criticize women’s birth control choices by saying that "the pill…stands the test of time, but who can blame a girl for forgetting to take it every day for the rest of their 20s and 30s?" I guess this not such a radical statement, however, since someone who cannot conceive of women having sex for any reason other than to trap a man into a loving them would probably also believe that women would want to complete the trapping process by getting pregnant. To that I say, don’t flatter yourself. The vast majority modern women are not so desperate to snag a man that they are willing to bring a child into this world for the sole purpose of trapping a man they have slept with in a relationship.

Since I graduated from college six years ago, I have spent many a weekend in Hoboken. While I do not dispute that the Hoboken culture in many ways mimics the sexually free environment of a college campus, it is important to recognize that both women and men contribute equally to the prevalence of casual sexual encounters there. Gone are the days when society expected women to save themselves for that special relationship, while men were permitted and expected to sow their wild oats before settling down.

Those days have been replaced by an era where men and women are equals in every possible aspect. With equality comes freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility.

Men and women should both approach sexual encounters, casual or otherwise, with a shared responsibility, having an eye toward protecting their own sexual safety and without making any assumptions about the safety habits of their partners.

It is only then that true sexual freedom can be achieved for both genders.

To read Joe Concha’s "Earth Girls Are Easy" column, click here

For questions of comments, please use the message forum of realhoboken.com or write editor@realhoboken.com