Letter to the Editor

by Brian Johnson, Senior

Vista Kalipa’s November 13 article, “Let’s talk about sex,”seemed to have a good overall message, but if fails to address mycriticism of the recent “sex related articles.” It is fundamentallyvaluable to discuss issues of sex and sexuality on a collegecampus, but The Simpsonian seems to conflate this with humorousanecdotes and preachy advice about avoiding the “walk of shame” touphold one’s reputation.

Before I continue, I must express my appreciation for sucharticles as Jennifer Freeman’s “New weapon to combat date rape” andKalipa’s “Marriage: an antiquated convention of the past.”

The amount of space wasted, on topics like avoiding “randomhook-ups” and whether it’s okay to date someone you met at the bar,is unbelievable. It’s pathetic and irresponsible to publish sucharticles if The Simpsonian truly cares to contribute to the”marketplace of ideas.”

These articles, for example, Laura Dillavou’s “College dating,”propagate a notion of sexual morality that many people findprimitive. It unjustly takes an authoritative position as to whatsorts of relationships are worth pursuing.

The closing paragraph of Dillavou’s article seems to imply thatpeople are necessarily happier when they are in committed, longterm, monogamous relationships with a significant other. Thearticle is also riddled with generalizations about men and womenand seems to give heterosexual relationships primary (if not sole)consideration. Describing a “giddy” young girl gabbing to herfriends about a date with a new boy, and a boy who is obsessed withbeer and video games-some of us don’t like video games.

In his editorial defending such articles, Kalipa, after statingthat “random sexual escapades do exist on this campus,” goes on toclaim that “they need to be addressed and dealt with,” as thoughanyone has the authority to tell the participants in such escapadesthat they are in need of a change.

If The Simpsonian thinks that there is nothing wrong with thoseless prudish than the “He Said/She Said” columnists, then I wouldprefer that it not be used as a forum for sexual dialogue.

Sex is aesthetic and not the sort of thing about which one cangeneralize. It follows that any authoritarian view of sexuality isdestined to be oppressive to some people. There are those who maynot desire a long term monogamous relationship or individuals whodon’t get all giddy when a boy asks them to a movie.

Kalipa rightly claims that many serious problems could be betterdealt with if we, as a culture, had more open discourse aboutsexuality; however, he fails to notice that when the discourse iscommitted to one view of relationships or sex it is unfair to thosewho don’t fit into that mold. I believe in open sexual dialogue, itshould be done in a way that doesn’t presuppose the superiority ofany particular sexual morality.

Just because a culture can discuss sex or sexuality, doesn’tmean that it is a sexually liberated culture. The sexual articleshave done more for propagating stereotypes and bad ethics thancontributing to the “marketplace of ideas.”

Brian Johnson