Props to you, M.

I wonder who exactly the Parent was talking about when zie/they wrote that "We" are not your friend and "We" don't care.

Last I checked, the Daily Gazette was a source of news and features primarily for the edification and enjoyment of the student body, not parents.

In fact, there are a lot of students interested in open and non-gender essentializing dialogue about sexual issues, including masturbation, and I don't think this kind of thing shocks many of us nor would "We" be likely to get the impression that it was written for that purpose.

To the parent: M has a legitimate purpose in writing such things, and if you don't understand what that is and it makes you so uncomfortable that you have to respond that way then maybe you should leave the STUDENTS' channels of communication to the STUDENTS. Thanks.

— A | Unregistered, Swarthmore

There are Swarthmore students who think that some issues, important as they may be, should remain private; the issues are not appropriate for public display. Simply because we do something doesn't mean we must publish it -- why in today's society do we assume that just because something is real, it must be flaunted to the whole world? Why does it seem that being shocking, intentional or not, is inherently good?

There appears to be a double-standard here, in that M defends his (using gender-neutral singular here) potentially shocking articles, but is clearly unhappy about the equally shocking homophobic actions and words at the Sager party. Shouldn't M be happy that comfort zones -- in some cases not even metaphorical comfort zones! -- are being reevaluated? (Lest I be misunderstood, please understand that I am in no way condoning the reprehensible behavior described as occurring at the Sager party.)

The Gazette's sex columns appear to have a trend of trying to be bold and daring by pushing the envelope. Certainly Gazette has written many articles about non-traditional expressions of sexuality in the entire range of hetero-, homo- and auto- sexuality (leaving out, I suppose, only bestiality; perhaps for another week?).

A bold broaching of diverse forms of sexuality and sexual practice certainly is the gazette's prerogative, but some students don't like or appreciate it. That's our prerogative, even if we only rarely or never express it. M, the Gazette, and the student body should not believe, however, that only old-fashioned and prudish parents protest explicit and sometimes flippant treatment of sexual behavior. We students also believe that sex and sexuality is something to be respected, not necessarily exposed in detail in daily news.

Certainly sex is important and deserves discussion in some forum. We have many opportunities, especially with the wonders of the internet, to learn all we could about sex, from modern discussion boards to ancient classics such as the Kama Sutra. These are appropriate placed; easy to access, comprehensive, and also easy to ignore if they make someone uncomfortable. I would suggest that in the daily emailed newspaper and on the student and faculty dashboards is not appropriate.

Despite some criticisms of past articles, I do appreciate today's article, as it appears to be a thoughtful discussion of generational / societal opinions of sexual issues and the appropriateness of different types of sexuality and sexual expression. These are things we should talk about, and I believe we can do so with a minimum of shock and a maximum of respect for all. Thank you for taking the write to write about it, and I hope future articles can continue in this vein.

— Chris Green | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Well said, Chris Green!

— p | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Since when is "he" a gender neutral pronoun?

— Krystyn McIlraith | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Thank you so much for your words, M:

"Sex-positivity is about consent, not promiscuity; knowledge, not ignorance; pleasure rather than shame; and the creation of a space where all choices are respected."

— L | Unregistered, Swarthmore

To the Editor:

I was wondering when someone -- either a parent or a student -- would finally address the increasingly distasteful and idiotic "envelope pushing" articles you've been running about sexuality. (I guess they're about sexuality; mostly they just seem to be exhibitionistic displays of "naughtiness" by students who are willing to act out in the way they do without being willing to identify themselves by name.) I really have nothing to add to the two last comments, one by a parent and one by a student, already posted, except to say to that since the Gazette publishes to the world, its contributors and on-campus readers shouldn't be surprised to read comments from off-campus readers who might be offended by the content and puerile attitude of the articles by the Bone Doctor, the Lube Lad(y) and M, or the breathless reporting about Sasha Raskin's (her parents must be so proud) Sex Toy symposium. We thought that smart people went to Swarthmore. These articles have certainly made think harder about whether I would want to send my daughter to Swarthmore. I have also decided never to give an unrestricted gift to Swarthmore again. I have no desire to participate in funding any part of this garbage.

— Curtis Roberts | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Also, by now everyone who reads the Daily Gazette knows who M is and what kinds of articles she (M identified herself as a woman in an earlier column) writes. Just like one has the freedom to google Karma Sutra, one also has the freedom not to click on M's articles if one is not interested in reading about M's sexual exploits.

— Krystyn McIlraith | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Hey Chris and Curtis,
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T READ IT!!!!!
I wait with bated breath for M's column. M is trying to fix the horrible culture that both of you love to perpetuate.
And Chris: If you can chalk whatever you want, M can write whatever she wants!
Back off, both of you!

— JC | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Okay, I'm a parent of a Swarthmore student too, and I think the other parents should back off. Our children may always be children to us, but to the world, to the school administration and to themselves, they are young adults. To its great credit, Swarthmore is showing its progressive ethos by providing a space for its students to discuss matters that are of critical importance to them. If parents don't like the way it's done, that's our problem. These discussions would occur even in the absence of a print medium, and the tone would no doubt be the same. Is it the discussion you object to, or the fact that you can be a party to it?

Learning to handle one's sexuality is a very large piece of the growing up process. An educated young man or woman is more likely to have a good understanding of and control over his or her sexual desires, and that can only be good for everyone. I urge the parents who are upset about the column in question to reconsider their positions. If you are concerned about your child's behavior at college, it's fair and appropriate to have a conversation with him or her about that. You, as a parent, have the right and responsibility to communicate your values to your child. But you don't have the right to shut off communication among students on campus. And you don't have the right to control the lives of your adult children.

Condemning the column won't change your child's behavior, but it might convince your child that you are not the person to go to when they have questions or concerns about their sexuality. Is that relly what you want?

— Laura Horowitz | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

To Chris:

While I would agree that sex is something to be treated with respect, I do not believe that silencing others about behavior with which they are comfortable is beneficial. I also would say that M does treat the subject of sex with respect-simply a different type of respect than the respect you believe is appropriate. Though you have a right to maintain your level of respect for sex, M has a right to respect sex in the way that she wishes as well. It is not okay, however, for one person or group to determine that a particular behavior or belief (assuming those behaviors/beliefs do not cause active harm to anyone) belongs in the private sphere. I do not support silencing the discourse of sex on this campus, especially not in a sphere where students are easily able to choose not to read the column.

To Curtis Roberts:

Please do not equate sexual behavior, in any form, with being stupid. That is extremely insulting, which I unfortunately believe you fully intended. You do not have the right to pass value judgments on our behavior, sexual or not. It is for the precise reason of shame that you are trying to make M and other columnists feel that the campus needs to have public forums about sex. Having sex, and wanting to have sex, should not be something to be ashamed of. Do not automatically assume that these students are performing these acts without thinking about them intelligently beforehand. I would say that because this is Swarthmore, they have in fact thought quite a lot beforehand.

To Laura Horowitz:

Thank you. Without supportive parents, sex can easily become a shameful, hidden, unknown desire. And without a supportive peer network at college, sex can easily remain that way.

— Katie | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I'd just like to respond to one thing: Chris' seemingly wishy-washy stance on the internet as a public venue vs. private space. To argue that there are "appropriate" uses of the internet (like explicitly defined "Kama Sutra" websites) is just another example of trying to re-privatize sex and sex education.

The Internet, as a form of information exchange and communication among strangers, is public (literally, by definition). Minus the current restrictions placed on certain websites by the CDA (communications decency act) and other laws resulting from anti-pornography and anti-smut sentiments that seem to dominate our congress, it still seems to exist as a pretty liberating place, especially in reference to sexuality. In a culture that finds general distaste in the public expression of most non-normative sexualities (masturbation included), the Internet is nearly the last-public-space made available for free expression of self-hood. Your treatment of minimum standards (like so many other approaches to sexuality that try to compartmentalize, hierarchalize, etc.) draws the distinction between certain public-sex as ok and others as inappropriate--they should remain private. I'm not sure why graphic depictions of sexual encounters (Kama Sutra) seems to be so much less offensive than talk about masturbation, but I really think that a general anti-sex sentiment has something to do with it. But it becomes more of an issue when we're not just talking about masturbation, but about the minimum requirements necessary to cultivate a sense of one's self, which, lest we ignore the lessons of social movements for over a hundred years, sexuality most certainly includes. To argue for the re-privatization of the sex that people just don't want to see or hear means reproducing sexual inequality. In the words of somebody else submitting to your response, you do have the right to look away and avoid that which offends you, rather than restrict a person's ability to be-where-they-are.

— public vs. private | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Chris--
I am very offended by your implicit relating of healthy sexualities (hetero-, homo-, and auto-) to bestiality. I really, really hope that this was not what you intended to imply, but that language is demeaning and hateful (and eerily reminiscent of former Senator Rick Santorum's equally offensive remarks) to those of us who fight against, in both dialogue and in our personal lives, the sex-negative, exclusively heterosexual, marriage-focused culture we live in. Talking about and supporting sexuality outside of the only publicly acknowledged "correct sex" (i.e., heterosexual, in marriage, missionary, woman on bottom) does not mean sex-positive people support bestiality. That is a hateful fantasy propogated by the sex-negative communtiy to undermine the queer and sex-positive community; you'll notice that it's only people like Santorum, never actual representatives sex-positivity, who say that we want to mainstream bestiality. People like Santorum (and apparently, yourself) bring up bestiality so that they don't have to actually acknowledge the legitimate arguments on behalf of consensual, adult sex being made by the sex-positive community. May I remind you that animals can't consent and that sex between humans and animals is physically damaging to both. The sex-positive community does not support it. To mention bestiality and homosexuality in the same sentence is a scare tactic used only by the homophobic. It is disgusting and deeply degrading. Please refrain from doing it in the future.

I also take issue with your equalizing of M's articles with the homophobic comments and sexual harassment some experienced at Sager. There is a difference between shocking someone and violating someone. Unwanted touching is a sexual violation. Hate speech is a violation of the humanity of the targeted community. Both the touching at the homophobic comments at Sager were unavoidable by their targets. But everyone has to click on this article to see it. And the headlines are often quite clear as to what the article is about, even if you don't know who M is. Explicit talk about sex in a closed forum directed at adults (i.e., the Daily Gazette) is neither violating nor hateful. It may indeed be shocking, but I believe you can legitimately debate its worthiness. There is no legitimate debate about hate speech or sexual harassment.

— Abby Graber | Unregistered, Swarthmore

How was the original message from the parent received? Was it signed? If so, will the Gazette please cite? This is a different issue from the practice of publishing anonymous comments, which I have questioned at some length in other threads. Rather than simply running a letter as an opinion piece, you are quoting it as source material. I therefore think you're absolutely obliged to provide all identifying information you can, much as if you were writing an academic paper.

An attribution lets your readers verify that this person is actually a Swarthmore parent, contextualize the remarks with the author's past public positions, and assess the author's credibility as an authority on journalistic standards. It also proves that the message is real; I am not suggesting that M or the Gazette would fabricate such a thing, but to maintain credibility in the long term, a newspaper has to demonstrate that it never does. Finally, citation would direct all reaction (both positive and negative) to the author's controversial, ad hominem remarks squarely at the author, where it belongs. Right now, the anonymous quote irresponsibly disperses the effect on public opinion over all Swarthmore parents.

— David German '08 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I have to say that I am very offended by Curtis Roberts's snide and sarcastic insult towards my fellow student Sasha Raskin:

"or the breathless reporting about Sasha Raskin's (her parents must be so proud) Sex Toy symposium."

I'm sure Sasha's parents ARE proud of her. Her workshop provided a safe and comfortable space for interested students to get worthwhile information. The workshop was well-attended (75-100 students, by various counts), and many students remarked afterwards about how much they had learned (Did you know that because sex toys are marketed as 'novelties' in the U.S. their manufacturing and contents are unregulated, and because of this many 'jelly' toys contain probable carcinogens? Now you do!).

— Jessica | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Miles: How about replying to ask for attribution? If the response isn't cooperative, you could simply cite the e-mail address, though I can also see arguments against that.

In any event, thanks for being receptive to my armchair quarterbacking about Internet journalism. I certainly dispute the anonymous parent's perspective on the Gazette: it has steadily improved on all counts, including intellectual depth and content quality, during my four years at Swat. The progress has been especially dramatic this year, and I am grateful to the entire Gazette staff (M definitely included) for producing a first-rate campus paper.

— David German '08 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Curtis, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making baseless assumptions about my family and their opinions.

As M points out, sex positivity is incredibly important. It fights shame, which is one of the biggest driving forces keeping women and queer people down. Having been regularly told to fear and hate our bodies, thoughts, and feelings, a space that allows us to do otherwise is truly empowering.

I think it is hurtful to tell Swarthmore students to "go back to classes," as if we should not be doing anything else here. We live here, which involves a lot more than just classes. It is our world for all intents and purposes and while I'm in it, I want to make it a livable, welcoming space. This includes having a sex-positive environment where I feel safe. And part of safety is the ability to voice my opinions without sexism and heterosexism regularly silencing me (for example by being told that "he" is a gender neutral pronoun). It also includes parents trusting us to create our own space and live in it, and alumni (Curtis, shout out to you again) to realize that the issues that students are dealing with here have changed considerably since the 70's, 80's, 90's, or even last year.

Laura is absolutely right: "Condemning the column won't change your child's behavior, but it might convince your child that you are not the person to go to when they have questions or concerns about their sexuality. Is that relly what you want?" And trust me, we will have questions.

— S. as in Sasha Raskin | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Chris -

You make a grievous mistake to conflate the sexual harassment, assault, homophobic behavior and hate speech at Sager with M's column. Sexual violence that shames, degrades, and victimizes human beings (without their consent) is in no way related to M's respectful (yes, respectful) sex-positive discussion of masturbation. It's respectful because it's an open and honest discussion of something that most people engage in but are too ashamed to admit to, and it's respectful because it doesn't make any assumptions or judgments about it's intended audience (consenting adults, like us). You say that some web sites are appropriate for this and others are not - I would suggest that what's usually meant by this kind of comment is, "not where I have to acknowledge that it exists." There is a reason this kind of open, sex-positive dialogue was born in and continues to be vital to queer and feminist communities: as queers and women who are not ashamed of engaging in un-orthodox sexual acts for our own pleasure we necessarily don't fit into the dominant culture where only particular kinds of heterosexual sex are appropriate to be discussed "in public." That is, the dominant culture would rather we shut up or take our discussions to the margins of the public discourse because it would rather pretend that we Don't Exist. I am proud to be who I am and I get offended when people tell me that my life or my sexuality is somehow "inappropriate."

About what happened at Sager: As far as I know ALL of the victims of this behavior were women and/or queer people, and it seems the vast majority of the perpetrators, sadly but not surprisingly, were heterosexual men. The fact that this can and does happen at Swarthmore, along with your painfully misguided comment, leads me to believe that at lot of heterosexual men on this campus need to take a long hard look at their own privilege, and try to put themselves in the position of women who are constantly being given the message that their sexuality exists only to please men (or conversely, that the withholding of it is necessary to "civilize" men who supposedly can't help themselves from using and abusing women, cf. Wendy Shalit), and queer people who are told over and over again that their sexuality is dirty and immoral and are forced to conceal and repress who they are in the vast majority of "public" venues in this country.

I really tired of hearing comments from the above demographic like, "I don't understand how this relates to me," or, "I wish they would stop shoving this stuff in my face." Here's a suggestion: It relates to you because you are part of the group that is the dominant power-holding majority the world over. What you do and say has impacts on other people's lives, especially the lives of people with less power than you. You don't have the right to pretend that oppressed minorities and their open, honest, and respectful dialogues don't exist because whether you like it or not you are going to to play a part in whether and to what extent they continue to be oppressed. It's an extremely common tactic for the dominant majority to try to paint oppressed minorities desperately fighting for a voice in the public discourse as the "aggressors." It's true that a lot of heterosexual men honestly feel that way about this kind of discourse, but I will suggest it's because they fail to recognize the part that they and their community play in perpetuating the oppression that is ITSELF the aggressing force which this kind of discourse is working actively to RESIST.

I believe that in writing your comment you spoke honestly and without any malicious intent, but I have to point out that implicit in what you wrote is a lot of malicious content. This is why education, awareness, and open dialogue is so important. I'm sure you didn't mean to be offensive to women or queer people but the fact is that the dominant culture programs men from birth to be perpetuators and enforcers of that patriarchal culture, and you HAVE to work actively to educate yourself and resist it if you don't want to be a part of it. The same thing goes for other forms of oppression like racism, which is why I think it's so important for white people like me to educate themselves on racial issues.

I hope I have shed some light on some of these questions.

Amanda

— Amanda Winters | Unregistered, Swarthmore

M, I LOVE YOU.

As someone who previously put myself forward in a public forum in support of queer sexuality, sex-positivity, etc., and got harshly bashed (hey, remember the chalkings, guys? Cuz I do!), I'm glad to see that others, including Sasha and yourself, are keeping up with the good work!

Sasha, I'm so glad to be your friend, and *I* for one am EXTREMELY PROUD OF YOU. *kissies*

— Diana Pozo | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Curtis:

Why do you believe that you have the authority to pass judgment on the topics in the Daily Gazette, Sasha's parents, or God knows what else? The fact that you consider yourself able to fully assess every situation you listed only proves how poorly informed you really are.

In case you haven't heard, this campus is about tolerance and respect for all sides of the issue, not blatant dismissal of beliefs you know little about.

As for your daughter, why don't you let her make the decisions and develop her own views as an individual.

Sasha: Stay strong--what you are doing is awesome and I am more than sure that your parents are very proud.

— Lonely Falcon | Unregistered, Swarthmore

As a former managing editor of this publication, I have some comments on this topic. I personally have no interest in reading any of the columns in the Gazette (due to lack of time, their lack of relevance to me, etc.), and the approach that I have decided to take is to not read them. That is my choice. Regardless of what you think of the columns, there are still plenty of newsworthy articles in the news and other sections (and the Gazette does not make a claim that the columns are news), and people should feel free to focus on reading what interests them. I'm sure that the topics of the columns do interest some people, and it is really up to the editors to decide whether or not they would want to publish them in the Gazette. Although I'm not a big fan of the current html format (where you have to click on the headline of the article in the e-mail to link you to the article that you want to read instead of having the whole issue with all of the complete articles together in one e-mail as was done in the past), it does mean that readers do not have to bother scrolling through articles and columns they are not interested in.

In response to a couple of the earlier comments...I think that it is inappropriate to comment on the intelligence of students in a negative way simply because you do not agree with their points of view or because you are not comfortable with the topics that they decide to write about. I also do not think that you can judge Swarthmore as a whole due to a few columns which you may consider offensive.

In response to A, the Daily Gazette has existed as a publication put out by students for the Swarthmore community, which includes faculty, staff, alumni, parents, and anyone else interested in Swarthmore...not just students. This should be clear if you check out the Daily Gazette's charter, if it has not been changed since I updated it around 2006. Yes, the primary focus is on students and others on campus (especially if you consider things like the weather, event listings, previews of events, sharples menus, etc.), but the publication is read by many non-students. The numbers of non-student readers increases every year as graduating seniors become alums and subscribe and new parents are introduced to the publication. You should keep in mind that the Gazette is actually not just a channel for the students; it is a resource for everyone, and students are most likely to benefit from this resource, at least according to the charter and to the way the Gazette worked for the three years that I was on the staff and the years before that.

The Gazette did not publish columns when I was a student. Basically the feeling was that opinions pieces would cause clutter that wasn't appropriate for Swarthmore's "only daily source of news, arts, and sports." The Gazette was essentially in place to give people in the Swarthmore community up to date information relevant to what was going on at Swarthmore (ranging from weather and event listings to campus news and sports coverage to brief world news summaries to those wanting to have a little taste of what was going on outside of the "Swarthmore Bubble" without having to venture too far away) and not people's opinions. This was a role not filled by any other campus publication at the time. Perhaps these columns are relevant to students and others who read the Gazette. I really have no idea, and I certainly cannot speak for anyone else, especially current students. Whatever happens with these types of columns in the long run, I think that members of the Gazette Editorial Board should take at look at their charter and make sure it reflects what they are publishing (i.e. make sure it says you are printing columns if that is what you want to do). I definitely think that opinions pieces that are of interest deserve to be published somewhere. I think that they have the potential to be interesting and informative to some, but not all, people. Taking the perspectives of the Gazette's history and mission statement, however, I'm just not quite sure that the Gazette in its current form is the right place for these columns, and I can understand how people who have been reading the Gazette for years and have certain expectations might be less happy when things change from what they are used to, especially if you consider the group of readers who find some of the material offensive and who have been using the Gazette for years to see what their kids are eating and what's going on at Swat. That said, I do think that people have the right to have their opinions published somewhere, and perhaps this situation can provide a good opportunity for discussion as to what the best medium would be to present these columns.

When I was working with the Gazette, I really appreciated feedback from our readers. We made many changes to the publication based on comments from our subscribers. I do have to say, however, that extremely negative comments with a mean tone and without constructive criticism and thoughtful suggestions for improvement were difficult to take seriously. It is difficult to listen to complaints from people who are offended when the complaints themselves are offensive. I hope that the Gazette editors put out a survey after publication is over for the school year in order to determine exactly what the readers would like to see. Even though the website does allow readers to make comments (a great feature by the way), it does not necessarily allow for comments on the publication as a whole, and surveys like we used to send out to readers when I was on the staff would be beneficial in this regard.

— Alex Glick '06 | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

[Curtis:] “I have also decided never to give an unrestricted gift to Swarthmore again. I have no desire to participate in funding any part of this garbage.”

The Gazette, like pretty much all student-organized groups at Swarthmore, gets its funding from the Student Activities Fee instead of the general college budget. You can rest assured that your unrestricted gifts have not funded the “garbage” printed in the Gazette, nor would any future donations possibly be used for that purpose.

It might be a valid critique, though, to note that the only topics that currently get dedicated opinion columns in the Gazette are sex and study abroad. Even so, that fact shouldn’t reflect too strongly on the Gazette’s editorial staff, who would readily welcome writers for other opinion columns.

[Krystyn:] “Since when is ‘he’ a gender neutral pronoun?”

Using masculine pronouns to refer to a singular person of unknown gender is the traditional usage in formal English. It may be less common today, when many writers seem to prefer “they,” which denotes an incorrect number but the proper gendering.

[Abby, as just one of several examples:] “[Linking bestiality to other non-normative sexual expressions] is a hateful fantasy propogated by the sex-negative community to undermine the queer and sex-positive community; you'll notice that it's only people like Santorum, never actual representatives sex-positivity, who say that we want to mainstream bestiality.”

It seems likely that this statement is true. But, the terms sex-negative and sex-positive have not been a part of the prominent sexuality discussions on campus in the past, and I confess my previous ignorance of these terms, which makes it pretty hard for me to truly assess statements like this in a fair manner. So, please tell me who could be properly said to represent a sex-positive position?

— Lucas Sanders | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Looking over the many responses to my comments, I appear to have been misunderstood in a number of ways. I apologize for being somewhat unclear in a few of my positions, and also for the length of this subsequent explanation. When referencing specific comments or people, their signed name is placed in parentheses.

"he" is, as was pointed out (Krystyn McIlraith), more accurately described in my usage as an "indefinite pronoun" rather than a "gender neutral pronoun." In the English language. It has been used and accepted for centuries for the purpose of describing someone whose gender is unknown. M's gender was not known to me at the time.

"IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T READ IT!!!!!" (JC) This is a fair point, if expressed discourteously. I agree that I have the freedom to not click on M's articles. My point is simply that while I do have the freedom not to click on sex articles, I still find their placement in the Daily Gazette inappropriate. It's hard to read the Daily Gazette or use the dashboard (both of which are significant parts of college life here) without seeing the titles of the articles.

I would further point out that I only wrote in once the sex article itself raised the issue of its legitimacy. I previously wrote nothing because it didn't seem an appropriate reaction to the article's content.

While Katie argues that my comment is a form of "silencing," I don't see it quite that way. Silencing would be to demand that the Gazette refuse to publish these articles, with perhaps some menacing words or behavior if they continue to publish. I am not advocating intimidation, I am instead saying that there are students on this campus for whom the publication of a sex column in the Daily Gazette is seen as tasteless and inappropriate, and we would like it if the Gazette didn't. See the difference between that and silencing?

Katie continues to say, "It is not okay, however, for one person or group to determine that a particular behavior or belief (assuming those behaviors/beliefs do not cause active harm to anyone) belongs in the private sphere." I would gently ask, for whom is it okay, then? We all make our individual determinations and then discuss them and as a society decide. No one person has the power to force everyone to agree or conform, but as a society we do make decisions. The decision-making process occurs as everyone expresses his own view and from the mix comes compromise -- and no one needs to be happy with the compromise. Despite compromise, we all still maintain our individual ideas about what is and isn't appropriate, and it is perfectly okay for each person to express his opinions, whether he be advocating greater reserve in news printing at Swarthmore or (for instance) increased nude beaches in the US. He's still made a decision about the public and private spheres, which is perfectly legitimate.

Some other posters ("public vs. private" and Abby Graber) appear to have grossly misunderstood my argument. I am not suggesting that heterosexual or "normal" sex is appropriate to discuss while homosexual, masturbatory, or "abnormal" sex shouldn't be discussed. (You're perfectly right to say that there is no clear distinction we can make between graphic heterosexual depictions and graphic autosexual depictions.) I am rather saying that all of the above are inappropriate for the venue of the Daily Gazette. I am, if you will pardon a moment of light-heartedness, an equal-opportunities restrictor. In short: I don't think a sex column, regardless of content, is appropriate.

Regarding bestiality, my point was to include an issue which I expected most people would agree is wrong, for which I had heard no compelling opposition arguments; and so logically should be included with all the other forms of sexuality covered. Abby points against bestiality are that (1) it's not consensual, (2) it's physically damaging to humans (3) it's physically damaging to animals. I'm not sure that consensuality is necessary for animals, and I had never heard that it was physically damaging. I'd be interested in seeing a reference for that statement.

Abby continues, "To mention bestiality and homosexuality in the same sentence is a scare tactic used only by the homophobic." I included bestiality boxed together with hetero-, homo-, and auto- sexuality. All three were equally related to bestiality. This was to make clear that I was connecting all forms of sexuality to bestiality (in that they are all sexual in nature). To claim that I was homophobically singling out homosexual behavior is both untrue and unfair. While others elsewhere may have done so in the past I did not do so here.

A final point made by Abby (and taken up by Amanda Winters) reveals a definite error in my initial comment. I should have clarified my comment connecting inappropriateness at sager with sex articles. My point was about how shocking or surprising something is.

Sager has been historically known to have the greatest number of sexually inappropriate events of the entire year. The final party is formally known as "Genderfuck" and (whether it should be or not) informally known as "Guys wear dress and girls wear less." Informational triangles were placed in Sharples reminding people of Sager's past issues with sexual harassment. Furthermore, to get to the Sager party one has to go to a relatively isolated part of campus, away from dorms, academic buildings, and the dining hall -- in short, you have to purposely go there for no other reason than to participate in the party. Given all of the above, folks should be just about as shocked that inappropriate sexual behavior and words occurred, as when they go to the dashboard to find out what's for dinner and are confronted with the titillating title of a sex article. Sager's actions were clearly more grievous, but much more to be expected; the Gazette's sex articles are clearly much less grievous, but entirely unexpected and much more difficult to avoid in daily life at Swarthmore.

To Amanda Winters would I reiterate that I am not arguing for one sort of public sexual expression and not another: I am suggesting that public sexual expression of any type through sex articles in the Daily Gazette is inappropriate. I also don't agree that "private" equals "shameful". There is much that remains private in my own life of which I am not ashamed. While I agree that the two can be and often are connected, they are not de facto the same thing -- just as "public" doesn't immediately mean "shameless" or "shame-free".

"[M's discussion of masturbation] doesn't make any assumptions or judgments about it's intended audience (consenting adults, like us)." (Amanda Winters). For what it's worth, at least some students are not consenting to the article being published (though I understand you meant consenting in a different sense). The article seems to make a fair number of assumptions and judgments, or else it couldn't have an intended audience: it assumes there is a critical mass interested, it assumes people will find it helpful, etc. But I don't mind people making assumptions and judgements per se: we cannot live in a world in which no assumptions or judgements are made. We should be clear that everyone, without exception, makes assumptions and judgments in everything we do.

I agree completely that heterosexual men are the primary culpable parties in the vast majority of all sexually inappropriate behavior (amanda winters). We (as you have correctly assumed, I am both male and heterosexual) have much to answer for in this area. I'm not sure, however, that increasing the sexual atmosphere of our lives will make heterosexual men more respectful towards women and homosexuals. From what I can see, the more exposure to sexual content, the more likely heterosexual men will make sexual advances wanted or unwanted. A liberating, freeing, no-repression attitude toward sex will, I'm afraid, be interpreted by many heterosexual men as "Oh, now I can do whatever I want!" -- and you can see the results.

Again, I would remind Miss Winters and others that I am not arguing about heterosexual versus homosexual. My point was and is simply that I found the sex column inappropriate. It had nothing to do with whether the sex was homosexual or heterosexual.

I am quite floored by Miss Winters' final paragraph, in which she states, "...the fact is that the dominant culture programs men from birth to be perpetuators and enforcers of that patriarchal culture, and you HAVE to work actively to educate yourself and resist it if you don't want to be a part of it." I agree that societal influences on everyone are significant and often not noticed by the individual (this goes for non-dominant groups as well!). Nevertheless, I think lumping me and all men into a category of mindlessly "programmed" individuals is unreasonable. This is little more than an ad hominem argument -- how can I respond? I would like to believe that I have thought on these issues for a long time and my current position is one that is not programmed into me, but the result of careful consideration.

I appreciate all the responses, and I hope that my very length reply is helpful. It would be wise for us all to recognize that we are most likely in simple disagreement: Some students believe that the Gazette's sex columns are inappropriate, while other, probably a majority, think it is perfectly fine. That doesn't mean, however, that one side or the other has an "out to get you!" attitude or goal.

— Chris Green | Unregistered, Swarthmore

As a linguist, when I see an "idea or social practice with important consequences" that is invalidated by my data and my science, I am compelled to speak out (Labov 1982). As a male linguist, when I see sexist understandings of language and how it works, I am even more compelled to speak out. Let's talk about pronouns.

Lucas Sanders said:
Using masculine pronouns to refer to a singular person of unknown gender is the traditional usage in formal English. It may be less common today, when many writers seem to prefer “they,” which denotes an incorrect number but the proper gendering.

Chris Green said:
"he" is, as was pointed out (Krystyn McIlraith), more accurately described in my usage as an "indefinite pronoun" rather than a "gender neutral pronoun." In the English language. It has been used and accepted for centuries for the purpose of describing someone whose gender is unknown.

It is really quite easy to cite examples of the use of a gender neutral singular pronoun "they" in historical as well as "formal" uses of English.

http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/09/singular-they-in-english-bibles.html
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html

The use of "they" in this way is not a new invention, so deal with it.

Based on these examples (I can find others if you really want--or you could do the research yourself), I hope we can agree that "he" is not the only "traditional" pronoun for "unknown gender," nor is it by any means totally "used and accepted for centuries."

But I think there's a bigger misunderstanding than grammatical usage or style. When writers in the past (mostly men) wrote "he," do you believe they were typically referring to all human persons? The use of "he" does indeed have a long history of being used to refer to a general understanding of people, for example, "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence. But did the writers of the DoI *really* mean to include women? Well, no women could vote, and hundreds of thousands of women were enslaved, so I certainly doubt it. A 1930 case in Canada () was based on a similar question, and several lower court judges ruled that the use of "he" in laws about qualifying for service in the Senate meant that women were not "qualified persons." I believe that "he" was only used to describe a general understanding of humanity because most people writing understood men as the only people worth considering, not because just they thought "he" was grammatically correct, especially because the examples tell us it wasn't the only grammatically correct form.

All language has social meaning; what we say matters. No matter what the established style guides say, the use of "he" is certainly not a value-free or natural or intrinsically decent way to refer to the general population or to a person of indeterminate gender.

— Mark Lewis '10 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Chris, I must say that I'm very disappointed in your comments and despite your claim to the contrary, you are certainly advocating the silencing of a population.

Talking about sex is incredibly important. I've been in a relationship for a long time and I am constantly talking with my boyfriend about sex so that we know exactly what we like, what we would like to do in the future, what we're comfortable with and what we're uncomfortable with. Such conversations are incredibly important to a healthy relationship which includes sex. Unfortunately I know of many individuals and couples that are not able to be frank and talk about their sexual needs and desires, even with their significant others. They are simply to nervous to put words to something that had always been so personal and repressed in almost every avenue of communication that they've had before, and their relationships suffer because of that fear, nervousness, and inability to communicate.

People might say that having private conversations about sex within the contexts of a relationship (or even a hookup) has nothing to do with public columns like M's that appear in a newspaper, but the two are in fact intimately related. M provides an alternative public view of sex that is sorely needed. Our culture is constantly bombarded with sexually provocative imagery and there are societal expectations that get built up around that. All of these public displays of sexuality present a very one-sided view of what sort of sexuality is deemed desirable (mainly men being in a position of power with women being sexually available). This is problematic for a whole host of reasons that Swatties are quick to point out, but there is another, even more insidious danger that is often ignored, and that is that these public displays do not emphasize communication. They do not emphasize safety. They do not encourage individuals to think about what they want sexually and they do not encourage individuals to talk with their significant others or sexual partners to about their feelings. This situation needs to be actively opposed and changed in order to encourage active, healthy, essential individual reflection and communication.

Although actual sex acts themselves should remain private (insofar as those who are present, no matter the number, should each actively consent to being in the situation) talking about it should not remain strictly private. Chris, I think (although I do not know for sure) that you and I generally agree about the problematic nature of how sex is presented in popular culture. What we disagree about is what we should do about it. Your response is to take mention of sexuality (homo, hetero, auto, etc.) out of the public sphere entirely. I think that this is really only an option if everyone were not engaging, or thinking about engaging in sex at all. That is certainly an okay position for an individual to take. (As an aside I would encourage individuals not to think of sex as something reserved only for marriage. I say this not from any dogmatic perspective but just from my own belief that sex is such an important part of any individual's identities and a part that also needs to be explored and interrogated before one makes such a big commitment as marriage. One can of course disagree with me on this point, but I would encourage individuals to think hard about it.) It is not, however, appropriate to make that decision for everyone. To do so is just as problematic as reinforcing the traditional misogynistic and hypersexual portrayals of women in popular culture because you are forcing one expectation of the form that sexuality should take onto everyone else. This results in stifling open, honest conversation among individuals who might not conform to that monolithic expectation of proper sexuality but are unsure of how to start that conversation. If discussions of sexuality are discouraged, then--as is exemplified by numerous examples in our culture--the dominant form of sexuality will get the most air time.

Lucas, the term sex-positive has indeed been a very important part of the sexual discourse at Swarthmore in recent memory. Being sex positive implies that you believe that consensual sex is not a bad thing and that open honest dialog about sexual issues should be encouraged. Sex negativity implies that conversations about sex should not be encouraged. The results of this attitude is either pressuring people to not have sex at all (an option for some but certainly not something that should be expected of everyone else) or perpetuating the misogynistic attitudes about sex that present unhealthy expectations for what sex should be.

That is why I believe sex columns are so important. But I especially think that M's column is incredibly relevant and important, much more so than the Bone Doctor. Chris, I am glad that you are trying to move away from characterizing this discussion as one of homosexuality v. heterosexuality. Just because M is queer doesn't mean that she writes exclusively for queer audiences. And just because she shares personal stories doesn't mean that she's trying to titillate and shock (as you imply by referring to your uncomfortableness with viewing "titillating" headlines in your e-mail and on the student dashboard). She is addressing people of all sexualities and trying to get them to think about their own sexual identity and their own sexual desire. Such thinking is incredibly important because it can lead to such a healthy sex life - for those who want to have sex - but it is so often discouraged in popular culture. However, the fact that M is queer is important because she is also inherently giving voice to sexual communities that are often silenced or are approached in an exploitative way. The common erotic fascination by some male heterosexuals with lesbian sex is a perfect example of what can happen when non queer people approach queer sexuality in popular culture. M is telling everyone, no matter their sexualities, that their desires, as long as they are explored in a safe and consensual manner, are not dirty. They are not shameful, and they are not the only ones who have had the same desire or had the same sexual mishap. In a society that places a premium on sexual conformity such a message is needed. People who have a sexual desire that is not often affirmed in a positive manner - whether that is leather, BDSM, or the most vanilla homosexuality - can often feel scared and isolated because of that desire. In her column M is constantly giving those people a voice, even if she doesn't share their particular desires. It is a commendable service.

Similarly, Sasha's sex toy workshop was also incredibly useful and needed. There are many individuals who might be considering purchasing a sex toy but who don't know information about how to buy one that is both safe (meaning that it's non-toxic and won't cause cancer) and appropriate to their desires. Surely those who oppose Sasha's workshop don't advocate baning sex toys completely (and if you do then that is a whole different problematic issue to talk about), so what would you recommend to individuals considering making a purchase? The information that Sasha provided was invaluable and in all likelihood wouldn't have been obtained in another manner; most people who are interested in sex toys don't even know that many of them are dangerous.

I hope that I have done a good job of explaining why substantive conversations about sex, and columns like M's in particular, are so needed in the Swarthmore community and the world in general. Resources like M's columns need to be broadly available because there are many people who might not know where to actively seek out such information and they are in many ways the people who need access the most. That being said, I fully support your desire not to read M's column or other sexually explicit material. However I cannot agree with you that your desire not to be exposed to such material should be honored by removing M's column from the Gazette entirely. You claim that you are not silencing M because you are being polite about it. Although it is true that you are not being angry and offensive in the manner that the parent whose complaint sparked M's current column was, yet the end result is that your desire is the same. Your desire for censorship and silencing is so extreme that even reading certain titles is offensive to you. (I would like to point out that this week's title was the non-offensive "M: A Rebuttal".) One cannot live in such a sheltered world that removes every mention of anything that one might find objectionable, provided that those views are well-considered and formulated in an intelligent manner. The desire to do so is simply ignorant of reality. Such a desire also places a huge burden on everyone that you encounter in the name of making you happy. Additionally, attempting to remove mention of all 'titillating' things from prominent public spheres can lead to Victorian levels of ridiculous and harmful prudishness. For every person who is offended by merely reading the title of one of M's columns I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more people who were intrigued and read the column who might not have read it otherwise and thereby gained some valuable information or perspective, or thought about their own sexual desires in a positive manner as a result. It is these chance encounters that must be encouraged by M's column. And for individuals like you who don't want to read that type of material, then don't. Let those of us who recognize the inherent positive benefit - or those of us who are merely curious - read it. Our lives will be greatly enriched by the experience, and I'm sure that you can survive reading the word masturbation once or twice throughout the course of your day.

— Mark Kharas | Registered, Swarthmore

Chris--
I am glad that you did not intend you comment about bestiality to be regarded as homophobic. However, I stand by my opinion that it was nevertheless in extremely poor taste and both homophobic and sex-negative, regardless of your intentions. I think it's important for people to understand the context in which discussions about sex take place. Given the past history of openly homophobic persons and organizations saying that acceptance of homosexuality (or other non-mainstream sexualities and sexual practices) will lead to acceptance of bestiality, I think that your example was properly placed in a context of overall misinformation about non-mainstream sex and its proponents. You should be more careful with the language you choose. Furthermore, to say that a frank, positively-focused discussion of sexuality (hetero-, homo-, or auto-, as you say), as M's column is, will lead to a frank, positively-focused discussion of bestiality, as your comment implies, is to degrade the position of the people holding that discussion. There has been no indication in M's column (or in any other sex column in the Phoenix or the Daily Gazette) that bestiality is on the agenda.

I'm not particularly interested in getting into a long, drawn out discussion about why bestiality is bad, but the physically-damaging part comes from information I have read in Dan Savage's sex-advice column (thestranger.com/savagelove), in which, when it came up, physicians and vets or whatever have written in and noted the health hazards. (Dan Savage, it should be noted, is anti-bestiality.)

I also disagree with your assertion that M's articles are particularly shocking if you don't actually click on them. You say that students are "confronted with the titillating title of a sex article" when they innocently check their emails or the dashboard. So far, the titles of M's articles have been: "10 Things I Hate to Hear People Say About Sex," "The Lube Lad/y," "Open Letter to Margaret Cho," "Masturbatory Mishaps," and "M: A Rebuttal." Are words like "Lube" and "Masturbatory" really so very shocking? So shocking that you feel attacked when you check your email? And are they really that hard to avoid? I don't know about you, but I glide over uninteresting-looking headlines in the newspaper all the time. Newspapers don't intend that every article or column be for everyone. They hope that everyone will be able to find something they like. The fact that you find reading about sex distasteful is not cause to categorize it as "inappropriate." It is a newsworthy topic and one about which there is precious little information available in mainstream forums to people who seek it. I know that I would rather have an informative Daily Gazette column about sex delivered to me than have to do an internet search and wade through piles and piles of porn in order to find any information I thought trustworthy, interesting, and well-informed.

Finally, I want to address your comment: "I'm not sure, however, that increasing the sexual atmosphere of our lives will make heterosexual men more respectful towards women and homosexuals. From what I can see, the more exposure to sexual content, the more likely heterosexual men will make sexual advances wanted or unwanted. A liberating, freeing, no-repression attitude toward sex will, I'm afraid, be interpreted by many heterosexual men as 'Oh, now I can do whatever I want!'" There are two issues here. The first is that you are assuming that the purpose of frank discussions about sex are to create "an increasingly sexual atmosphere in our daily lives." That is not my purpose in making sex an open topic for discussion, nor do I think it is the purpose of M's column. Just as openly discussing religion does not make our daily lives more religious, openly discussing sex does not make our daily lives more sexual (unless you want it to). The purpose of these discussions is not to free everyone of inhibitions, but to free people of judgement, both of their own sexual needs and desires and those of other people. It is to say that you should not be ashamed of safe, healthy, consensual sex (and it's fine if you want safe, healthy, consensual sex only in marriage--people who are sex-positive aren't out to push promiscuity). The purpose of these discussions is also to be informative. If we can't discuss sex in the open, if we relegate it to roped-off corners of the internet to be explored in your darkened basement, then we can't send the message that this information is credible, necessary, and, frankly, okay to want to know. How can we teach people about safe sex, about consent, about how to take care of their bodies if there are no open, respectable, mainstream forums in which to talk about sex? Why should information about maintaining sexual happiness be taboo? Finally, most of the information a person picks up about sex in everyday culture is directed at men. (For example, everyone in high school knows men can masturbate and it's talked about openly, but I had not even heard of female masturbation until I got to college; everyone knows how (most) men achieve sexual pleasure--vaginal intercourse--but many women cannot orgasm from vaginal intercourse and don't know how to find their own sources of gratification, because that is not talked about openly.) Relegating sex discussions to informal, hidden channel helps perpetuate our sexist society. Women aren't born knowing how to talk about sex. (Neither are men, but society gives them a more complete education.) We can't learn how to discuss sex responsibly in the private realm if we don't know that our desires are valid, that there are ways we can protect ourselves, that there are sexual possibilities we might enjoy, etc. Women should be able to find out from credible sources, like newspapers, how to have a more fulfilling sex life and how to assert power in their sex lives (how to say no or demand a condom, for example).

This brings me to my second problem with your statement, which is that it displaces a problem in the male, heterosexual community onto the sex-positive community. If straight men are incapable of hearing sex discussed openly without thinking that this means that they can take advantage of women, the solution is not to shut down open discussions of sex, but to re-educate straight men (and, to be fair, anyone else, queer, straight, male, or female, who thinks that way). Your statement that we should keep talk of sex private because "the more exposure to sexual content, the more likely heterosexual men will make sexual advances wanted or unwanted" can be easily turned to such abhorrent ideas as blaming women for sexual assault: She was wearing a short skirt, officer! The exposure to her legs made it irresistible for me! Women should be allowed to wear short skirts and society should be allowed to talk about sex. We should not let potential sexual assailants control society; society should control potential sexual assailants.

Sorry this was so long.

— Abby Graber | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Chris says that: "I am not suggesting that heterosexual or "normal" sex is appropriate to discuss while homosexual, masturbatory, or "abnormal" sex shouldn't be discussed."

Equating normal with heterosexual sex and abnormal with homosexual sex or masturbation is incredibly problematic and offensive. It undermines your assertion that you are "not arguing about heterosexual versus homosexual."

— Sasha Raskin | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Mark K. and Abby, I applaud your detailed and articulate treatment of the issues here. I wish I had the knowledge and patience to respond in the manner that you chose. Pronouns are, I admit, somewhat of a low-hanging fruit, but one that I felt capable of addressing.

— Mark Lewis '10 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Let's take a step back -- am I the only one who finds M's column generically unobjectionable and sometimes (sorry, M) kind of boring? I must just be jaded from my generation's incredibly disturbing and Dionysian sexual practices, which have sadly become the norm (thanks, Wendy). From now on I will make sure to remind myself to be appropriately shocked, titillated, and/or offended.

— Perspective | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I’m addressing my more straightforward concerns while I re-read the excellent contributions of Mark and Abby. I want to particularly thank Mark for directly answering the question I asked.

[Sasha:] “Equating normal with heterosexual sex and abnormal with homosexual sex or masturbation is incredibly problematic and offensive.”

Well, yeah. But Chris wasn’t advocating this position — in the context of this conversation, it is clear that this statement was written to describe the way that other people had been misrepresenting his views. Again, this is his summary of what other people said he said, not a part of his own stated views. He even indicated this just before the point where you started quoting him. There’s plenty of material in Chris’ argument for you to argue against without unhelpfully distorting his rhetoric. I don’t mean to suggest that you meant to defame him, but his lengthy, carefully written reply deserves more respect than this. That’s just like Mark Kharas and Abby deserve better than the off-the-cuff remarks I might be able to produce on their essays at this point, since I would almost certainly end up wildly distorting what they actually said.

[Mark Lewis:] “It is really quite easy to cite examples of the use of a gender neutral singular pronoun "they" in historical as well as "formal" uses of English.”

[[[Mark’s claim and my rebuttal (below) are both verging into ridiculous territory, in that they are mostly off-topic for this discussion. Even so, I feel that his argument is too problematic to avoid providing a proper rebuttal to any interested readers, especially since certain aspects of the argument do remain relevant. This, too, is unfortunately verbose; feel free to read the next paragraph and skip the rest.]]]

Fine. I’ve actually heard that assertion before, though I hadn’t bothered to look at the evidence before this. (Instead, when the issue came up, I assumed the evidence existed.) But this still does not contradict the claims made by Chris and I in defense of Chris’ original language. Our claim was that the masculine pronouns have been and are still used in historical and formal contexts as an indefinitely-gendered singular pronoun, and you have not refuted that point. Indeed, a careful reading of your sources supports our claim as well as yours.

From the first cited source: “Because English has no pure gender-inclusive third person singular pronoun, English speakers over the ages have used various solutions to meet the need for a generic singular third person pronoun. One solution has been generic ‘he’ which is still in use by some English speakers and authors. Another solution has been singular "they" which has been in use since ca. the late 1200s.”

The second source notes that this usage of “his” emerged a little before the corresponding singular usage of “their,” then observes that “from the fourteenth century on, both ‘singular their’ and the pronominal generic masculine existed in English, and were two competing solutions for the same problem.”

The third source does not address the comparative issue, but it contains a link back to your second source (which was published by the same person).

Your real argument against the use of “he” appears in your next-to-last paragraph. Let me quote again:

“But I think there's a bigger misunderstanding than grammatical usage or style. When writers in the past (mostly men) wrote ‘he,’ do you believe they were typically referring to all human persons?”

Again, this is not the question under discussion. I presume that on the “typical” occasion where the mostly-male writers of the past wrote ‘he,’ they were talking about a specific man who was clearly identified by context. Even if most writers spoke of humanity as “man” because they had an unenlightened view of women’s role, that does not address the question. The question is whether the gender-ambiguous usage has been generally recognized in the past and, more importantly, whether it is still recognized today. At this point, Mark’s historical argument rests on the notion that when historical writers said they were talking about all of humanity, they almost never were. It seems to me that he has the burden of proof for that assertion. As for the present, I was introduced to this usage by a prescriptivist teacher in grade school, so clearly she thought the rule was in common use today. I have since encountered plenty of examples of such usage, including such use in academic writings by female and/or queer Swarthmore students.

Even so, Mark has a point if he meant to imply that masculine pronouns could be objectionable in gender-ambiguous situations because the word has a much stronger association with a clear masculine identity. While I often try to avoid the exclusive use of masculine pronouns in uncertain-gender situations for exactly this reason, the fact remains that Chris’ language was not particularly unconventional or objectionable by most current linguistic standards.

Finally, Mark later commented that “pronouns are … somewhat of a low-hanging fruit.” I’m unclear as to what his exact intended meaning was, but the tone of that statement seems a bit like he is not just arguing for his own preferred grammatical style, but that he is also presupposing its obvious universal superiority.

— Lucas Sanders | Unregistered, Swarthmore

@Sasha:
I interpreted Chris's normal/abnormal wording as part of what he was rejecting. He uses those words within what he says he's "not suggesting...".

— Jeff Kaufman | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I have just re-read my posts, and I regret much of the confrontational tone in my most recent one. I should have waited and edited a bit more before submitting the comment, I suppose. I also acknowledge that I was thinking of Chris’ wording more than my own when I argued for our defense of “he,” and that my wording could legitimately lead to a call for nuance from Mark. Still, for many native English speakers, the word “they” is strongly associated with a plural numbering, even if that association is less strong for others.

All that said, I continue to stand behind my general reasoning on all points in this discussion.

— Lucas Sanders | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Lucas,
I thought that both you and Chris were asserting a traditionalist argument for the use of "he" in gender-neutral situations. My examples were intended to point out that this argument for tradition and use in history was flawed, because *actual* gender neutral language ("they") has existed for quite a while. I have strongly oppose the use of "he" in gender-neutral contexts. A history of alternate forms means that the appeal to standards and traditions is untenable. But even if these standards and traditions were "real," I would still indict them as sexist and exclusionary, on account of my belief that most writers using them historically had little intention of including women.

As for the "low-hanging fruit" comment, I meant that the issue of sexist pronouns might not seem as pressing as the other objectionable opinions and statements. But these other things seemed in capable hands such as Mark K., Abby, Sasha, and others, and sexist language is something I thought I could handle.

And Lucas, if you feel this discussion is getting off topic, then feel free to email me any further comments, or send me notes through student mail. As a member of the liberal fascist conspiracy, I'm always looking for new recruits.

— Mark Lewis '10 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Um, hey Lucas, just letting you and others know I posted my response without seeing your 7pm-stamped message, on account of the moderation delay. I think it's generally still applicable, though.

I'll add though that in the case of singular "they," it is not always an anti-oppressive choice going over and beyond a strong association or less strong association with the plural. Some native (American?) English speakers (like myself) use singular "they" as part of their native dialect.

— Mark Lewis '10 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I am deeply offended by everyone who has responded to this article so far, as well as by the article itself, the e-mail that inspired it, the rest of the Gazette, and what I had for breakfast two days ago. The extent to which Swarthmore attempts to perpetuate the evil white-male-hetero hegemonic patriarchy of heteronormative anti-masturbatory neo-post-sub-pseudofeminist conspiracy that sex-positive queer crusaders like myself must suffer under on a regular basis is atrocious. I am disturbed, outraged, and currently sitting in my room in the fetal position attempting to cry myself into a magnitude of quiet whilst typing.
I would appreciate it if the virulent homophobes that make up the entire Swarthmore population excepting myself would cease and desist with this flagrant usage of the pronoun 'zie'. I was once verbally traumatized by a man whose name began with the letter Z (he was a fantasy book illustrator and used the word 'fairy' in my presence on several occasions: any intelligent, open-minded person like myself knows the proper term is 'sprite'), and every time I hear or read this wretched phonon, I experience an attack of PTSD. Whilst perusing these horrendous remarks, I had to pause several times so as to writhe in torment while dry heaving and hearing Tinkerbell screaming out against her oppression. When the tears dried from my face, I resolved to speak out against this sickening linguistic trend.

— ArgosTheLemon | Unregistered, Swarthmore

1) To Chris, who writes that the pronoun he “has been used and accepted for centuries for the purpose of describing someone whose gender is unknown,” and Lucas, who states that “Using masculine pronouns to refer to a singular person of unknown gender is the traditional usage in formal English.” Indeed, many things have been “traditional” and “accepted for centuries” as appropriate, valid, and legitimate, including slavery, prostitution, wife-beating, and feudal tribute. I would encourage you not to accept this as your standard for what kinds of practices are “appropriate,” and consider rather whom they might injure or disrespect.

2) Chris, when you write, “as a society we do make decisions. The decision-making process occurs as everyone expresses his own view and from the mix comes compromise,” I couldn’t agree with you more. But indeed, your question, “for whom is it okay, then?” is a very important one. Is it OK for a majority, either a statistical or a cultural majority, to banish any discourse so long as they cannot prove that such discourse is harmful to society as a whole? And does not the suggestion by a majority individual that perhaps a minority discourse should not be allowed constitute and exercise of power that is a judgment against that minority’s “legitimacy” and therefore its right to exist? Maybe an analogy will help: I have many friends at home who are committed atheists. To many of these people, God-talk is offensive and uncomfortable, because it goes against their system of values. If they had their way, they would like to banish God-talk from the public discourse entirely and keep it marginalized in churches, religious websites, and other “appropriate” venues. I think this is wrong. Religion, like sexuality, is very much tied up with a person’s identity. If someone told you it was “inappropriate” to discuss your religion or your relationship with God in public would you not take that as an insult to you as a religious person? According to the most recent Pew study on Religion in America over the last couple of decades the numbers of non-religious people in the country have grown substantially. If this trend continues, it is possible that within our lifetimes you will become part of a minority discourse. Therefore I would argue that it is in your interest not to suggest limitations on what subjects are or are not “appropriate” to discuss in a public forum so long as those discussions are not objectively harmful.

3) “I am suggesting that public sexual expression of any type through sex articles in the Daily Gazette is inappropriate. I also don't agree that "private" equals "shameful". There is much that remains private in my own life of which I am not ashamed.” I’m glad you’re not ashamed of your private life. Unfortunately, a lot of other people are. This is why women have orgasms at such abysmal rates compared to men and a highly disproportionate number of queer people commit suicide. See, the only way to combat these evils and ameliorate the shame that causes them is to have open and honest discussion about sex in the public sphere, because excluding such discussion from the public sphere just reinforces all the other messages that tell people that their bodies and their sexuality are shameful.

4) “But I don't mind people making assumptions and judgments per se: we cannot live in a world in which no assumptions or judgments are made. We should be clear that everyone, without exception, makes assumptions and judgments in everything we do.” Again, I completely agree. As I clearly stated in my Phoenix Op-Ed, I am against relativism. When I said M’s column makes no “assumptions or judgments about it's intended audience (consenting adults, like us),” I meant precisely that. It makes no assumptions or judgments about that critical mass of people who choose to read it and find it helpful. Yes, there is an assumption being made that this “critical mass” of people exists, but I believe it is a correct one.

5) “A liberating, freeing, no-repression attitude toward sex will, I'm afraid, be interpreted by many heterosexual men as "Oh, now I can do whatever I want!" — and you can see the results.” I think you are mistaking correlation and causation. I have been in many “liberated” sexual environments where respect for women and queer people was maintained. I think what rather contributes to the, "Oh, now I can do whatever I want!" attitude is a cultural permissiveness towards oppressive and exploitative behavior when it comes from the dominant demographic. If one subscribes to the essentializing idea promoted by Wendy Shalit, that men are “naturally” unable to restrain themselves from acting inappropriately in the presence of partially exposed female bodies, or that men “just can’t help themselves” from using and abusing women in contexts designated as culturally non-normative, i.e., permissive, then why should men bother to try? Furthermore, who decides what contexts are non-normative or what constitutes a situation when a man “just can’t help himself”? I maintain, as I think most reasonable people do, that sexual harassment and assault is wrong in any and all contexts and that men along with everybody else must take full responsibility for their behavior. Just because they “interpret” a liberated context that way doesn’t make it right, it doesn’t absolve them of any responsibility. I’m sure you agree with that statement. What I’m trying to get at is that beyond that, when a heterosexual male presence in any “liberated” sexual setting makes everybody else unsafe, it either denies women and queer people the right to engage in consensual activities in a liberated environment, or it marginalizes and excludes them, forcing them to live in fear and isolate themselves from heterosexual men wherever these activities take place. As someone who likes to engage in sexual activities with heterosexual men, that takes away my right to engage with them on equal terms, and it takes away the right of heterosexual men who don’t engage in this kind of behavior to be accepted without fear and suspicion in female and queer communities that participate in “liberated” sexual activity. There is a big difference between the inhibitions that prevent one from engaging in consensual sexual activities and those that prevent people from engaging in harassment and assault. This is a very important distinction and one that I don’t think gets made nearly often enough.

6) “Again, I would remind Miss Winters and others that I am not arguing about heterosexual versus homosexual.” But don’t you see the inequality inherent in protesting respectful discourses with such inoffensive titles as “Masturbatory Mishaps” and failing to protest oppressive discourses such as those I see every time I channel surf past MTV or wait in a check-out line? Why does M’s column merit your protest and indignation whereas the discourse that pervades most aspects of mainstream society, the ones that say women’s sexuality exists for men’s benefit and say queer sex is dirty, do not? Maybe you do think queer sex is somehow immoral, but even if you do, you have to admit that there are far worse and more damaging messages being propagated about sexuality than those in M’s column, even if you see the messages in M’s column as somehow damaging. Singling out M’s column among all these other sexual discourses is itself an enforcement of “normative” sexuality.

7) Unless your main objective is piss me off, don’t Ever refer to me as “Miss Winters.” You are free to indicate the formality of your address at any time by using the title “Ms.” However, your use of “Miss” is dismissive and demeaning in the extreme. I’m not going to cut you slack on this one, because, unlike gender neutral pronouns and terminology like “sex-positive,” “Ms,” as most of us learned in our decidedly un-progressive elementary schools, is the proper form of address for any unmarried ADULT woman, woman of unknown marital status, or woman who marries and chooses to keep her birth name. “Miss,” if it still has any appropriate usage at all, is only suitable for YOUNG GIRLS. If you intend to use your male privilege in a chauvinistic attempt to dismiss me by employing a form of address for which there IS NO masculine counterpart in the English language, then you’re doing a pretty good job. But don’t think that you’re going to get away with it. Again, while the title Miss “traditionally” HAS been a proper title for any unmarried woman, during and for short duration after a time when unmarried women were expected to be depended on their fathers, brothers, or other male relatives until marriage regardless of their age, it HASN’T been a proper title for an adult woman for some decades now, just as “colored” and “negro” may have “traditionally” been appropriate terms for a black person, but today are not and haven’t been since before the Civil Rights Movement. I maintain it’s an appropriate analogy, since the usage of “Miss” for an adult women hasn’t been appropriate since before the Women’s Rights movement of the following decade. I find it disheartening that it seems you haven’t taken advantage of the ample resources here for educating yourself about issues of gender and sexual oppression, but I find it even more disheartening that you seem not to acknowledge these significant advancements made in respect for women and autonomous sexuality since the days of “Father Knows Best.”

8) “I think lumping me and all men into a category of mindlessly "programmed" individuals is unreasonable… I would like to believe that I have thought on these issues for a long time and my current position is one that is not programmed into me, but the result of careful consideration.” I would like to believe that too, but I’m afraid that your many, I’m sorry to say, and quite frankly, ignorant comments and use of language indicates that while you may well have considered these issues carefully, you haven’t stepped far enough outside the bounds of your own ideological community to see why these seemingly anal-retentive concerns about language and “appropriate” spheres of discourse might be important. My comment about “programming” wasn’t intended to diminish male agency, but rather to point out the importance of utilizing that agency to expand one’s horizons beyond that which the circumstances of one’s birth inclines one to hear and see.

9) “It would be wise for us all to recognize that we are most likely in simple disagreement…That doesn't mean, however, that one side or the other has an "out to get you!" attitude or goal.” I don’t think that you’re “out to get” anyone, or, like I said before, that you have any malicious intent – If I did, I wouldn’t glorify your comments with a point-by-point response. The fact that I am spending my Precious Time making these comments is a Profound statement of my respect for you as a human being. (Despite the fact that I get pissed off when people refer to me as “Miss.”) I like to err on the side of optimism and faith in humanity, and I continue obstinately to believe that if I present someone with a rational and thoughtful argument they will at least be able to appreciate my point of view, if not change some aspects of their opinion.


To “Perspective”: I note yours is the first provocative comment (to differentiate you form “Lonely Falcon,” whose comment I would alternately characterize as “defensive” and “supportive”) since this discussion became heated to post anonymously. From your content it seems clear that you are a student. Is there a reason you would rather not put your name behind your point of view? If anyone would like to come forth and claim “Perspective”’s comment as their own or provide some credible rationale, please do. Otherwise, your “perspective” has been duly noted once again, Justin.

To Argos: I’m sorry, I must have temporarily forgotten that oppression of and disrespect towards women and queer people is funny! How silly of me! I should just go back to reading tips in Cosmopolitan about How to Please Your Man and forget about the whole thing! Would you also like to put a name behind your hilarious morsel of satire? Or are you afraid that it might reveal that you happen to be a privileged heterosexual man with a really bad sense of humor and a serious case of Empathy Deficit Disorder?

— Amanda Winters | Unregistered, Swarthmore

While I can see how Argos's comments might be construed as offensive, I do think that he/she was trying to defuse a situation that was becoming rapidly heated up, and while it was perhaps in poor taste, I also think that occasionally humorous remarks are extremely important, as they allow us to step back and think about something we might be taking too seriously. I think that Argos might have come up with a better form of humor, especially for this particular topic, but again, I think that sometimes a humorous view of things is rather important.

— Rachael | Unregistered, Swarthmore

From the recent NYT op-ed, "The Last Wish of Martin Luther King":

"More than once, the dominant culture has turned history upside down to make itself feel comfortable. And when a civil rights movement rose from the fringe of maids and sharecroppers, making it no longer respectable to defend racial segregation, wounded voices adapted again to curse government as the agent of general calamity. We have painted Dr. King’s era as a time of aimless, unbridled license, with hippies running amok."

Gee, folks, any of this language sound familiar? I especially like the parable told by Jesus about Lazarus at the end. Allow me to quote, from my New Oxford Annotated Bible:

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores." (Luke 16.19-21)

When the rich man (Dives) was later in hell, he looks up at Abraham and Lazarus in heaven, and twice asks Abraham to "send Lazarus," first to bring him water and second to warn his brothers so they could avoid his fate. According to Dr. King and his predecessor Dr. Johns, he wasn't in hell because he was rich or because he failed to give Lazarus alms, but "because he never recognized Lazarus as a fellow human being." My point is that in order to fully recognize someone as a human being you have to recognize their right to exist, and in order to recognize their right to exist you have to let them have a voice in the public discourse. If you are the rich man, the one with the power and the dominant culture on your side - if the entire discourse (the feast), essentially belongs to you, the least you can do is let Lazarus have the scraps off your table, even if his person, as a dirty and sore-covered beggar, offends you (and even if you somehow think he deserves the position he's in). It's worth noting that Jesus didn't find the presence or undoubtedly "coarse" speech of sinners and prostitutes offensive - in fact, he befriended them. This is in No Way intended to compare queers and sexually liberated women to sinners and prostitutes (all too easy and simplistic), but to point out that Jesus didn't marginalize, exclude, or exile anyone because they or their speech offended him.

We all know the message about the equality of all souls: "Dr. King said Dives was a liberal. Despite his own fate, he wanted to help others." So what was the problem? It seems to be that he knew the teaching intellectually but never really took it to heart. He had heard the message of the Torah and the prophets, but continued to act as if Lazarus the human being, the one who felt pain, the one who was sitting outside his gate and begging and pleading to be heard every single day, didn't have a right to have his existence recognized, to have his pain recognized, and to be treated with respect and compassion.

That's all the marginalized communities of the world ask of anyone.

— Amanda Winters | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Rachel: I to agree that humor is important and that satire on these issues can be valid and important forms of humor. While some parts of the campus were offended by the Identity Studies piece done by the DG last year for April Fools Day I found it to be very funny and not to offensive given the context of April Fools. However, context is incredibly important to any episode of humor and the context of this discussion made Argos' comment incredibly inappropriate. One does not interject in an argument to purposefully mock some of the individuals engaged in that heated discussion. Given the context, I have to conclude that Argos' comment was prejudiced and totally inappropriate and that it should not in any way be defended.

— Mark Kharas | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Rachel,

I don't think I "construed" Argos's comments as offensive, I think they quite blatantly ARE offensive. You say while his comment was "perhaps in poor taste" that he was merely trying to point out that all this heated, uncomfortable discussion is "something we might be taking too seriously." I indeed found it to be in extremely poor taste (consider the insulting and demeaning picture painted of people like me), but, while the discussion has been heated, I think I and most others have been extremely politic and civil. Moreover, I take great exception to the idea that I or anyone else is taking any of this too seriously. This is an extremely important discussion, and these are extremely important issues, because they relate to respectful treatment of women and queer people and the right of said people to have a voice in the public discourse. The idea that I'm taking it all "too seriously" is precisely what offends me. It's just another way of saying, "I don't want to hear about it," or, "I don't want these issues shoved in my face." Even if "shoved in my face" means I have to click a link on the Daily Gazette and scroll and read through an extremely lengthy thread of comments to get to it. What in the name of the Infinite Universe gives Argos the right to anonymously jump into the discussion and tell me that I'm being a whiny, angry feminist-queer and I should just shut up because nobody (read: people like him) really wants to hear about it.

Amanda

— Amanda Winters | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Amanda,
I'm awfully sorry, and I wasn't trying to offend you or really even to defend Argos (though rereading my post that is what it looked like). But I'm not saying I don't want to hear about it--I do, I've been following this discussion closely and it's been very interesting. And upon rereading the discussion, I realize that you're probably right that Argos shouldn't have interjected at that point. On the other hand, what I was really trying to do was defend humor as an important mode of expression. Funnily enough, I think I take humor too seriously. Humor to me is extremely important, and sometimes it actually serves the purpose of getting a new viewpoint on a situation that can be difficult to see when one is viewing it from a nonhumorous perspective. Let me reiterate: this is a defense of humor in general, and not of Argos' comment in particular. I was merely trying to say we shouldn't reject the fact he/she used humor as a medium for his/her expression, though again, upon rereading I must certainly concede your point that in this case the humor that was used was in poor taste and offensive.

— Rachael | Unregistered, Swarthmore

@Amanda:

A few things from your most recent comment bother me a bit. The biggest is your division of this discussion into two groups,
'provocative' and everyone else. On one hand, I would not be
surprised if chris is the only student posting who thinks the gazette should not carry M's column. While I've not read her column, as one of the most read ones on the gazette it clearly fills a community need and it's good that she writes it. On the other hand, I also disagree with many of the arguments made by the 'defenders' of M. I read them as being grounded on many premises I've not accepted and sometimes reflecting a worldview that seems quite foreign to me. On the gripping hand, people are annoyed at eachother partially based on
misunderstandings of points. So while I write more below, I hope not to be viewed as an enemy.

About the identity of 'perspective': I know a large number of people for which it would not be out of character to write that comment. So attributing it to justin (shaeffer?) until someone else claims it seems unreasonable. I think having names attached to posts is good, though, and would encourage everyone to do so. I, at least, find it much harder to be rude or inconsiderate to named entities.

About the use of 'miss': I believe chris was trying to be respectful and polite. He used a title because he often indicates respect with formality and the specific title 'miss' because he thinks of it as correct. Your claim that it is no longer considered correct seems dubious to me. Asking the first four people to walk by my computer (two male, two female, all seniors) what title they would use for an unmarried female college senior [1], all four said 'miss' and would be ok with 'ms'. Looking some online, emily post [2] says 'miss' is "usually for girls under 18". Usually isn't only, though. Correctness in a style guide sense aside, I think you may have read too much into this specific usage.

Damn, I need to do work. Perhaps more later.

Jeff

[1] I asked about a specific personr who they knew to be unmarried so
as not to prompt 'miss' by using the word "unmarried".

[2] http://www.emilypost.com/everyday/forms_of_address.htm

— Jeff Kaufman | Unregistered, Swarthmore

@Amanda:

In your 2pm comment I read you as using 'he' for a person of unknown gender. Given that this usage of 'he' was hotly contested by you and several other people earlier in the thread I find it a little puzzling.

— Jeff Kaufman | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Argos, who has been temporarily spirited away by her cohorts, who fear for her life, would like it to be known that she is in fact a queer woman and not a heterosexual man. She has, however, given no official statement as to whether or not she is vigoriously supporting her own beat down, or simply responding to a community that willingly brands anything and everything as homophobic. Argos has, however, hinted to me, Jeeves, that, having grown up in a community where one occasionally finds oneself surrounded by real homophobes armed with large, hard objects, she may have a different sense of perspective than her compatriots, whose idea of homophobia is when the kid at Starbucks sees some gay people making out and then gives them 2% milk in their lattes instead of skim.
However, she was in a slightly odd state of mind after having been called 'he' by this Amamda Winters person, who clearly has a problem with making assumptions about the sexuality of others. She admitted to me that this example of homophobia certainly is disturbing.
Argos will be returning to this discussion when she ceases to be catatonic.

— ArgosTheLemon | Unregistered, Swarthmore

OMG! I burnt my clit again.

--Joe

— Joe | Unregistered, Swarthmore

@Joe:

Damnit, I was mostly really impressed by how respectful people were being of each other and their opinions. I was finding the discussion really informative and interesting. And then you go and waste our time, probably setting off a series of (reasonably) angry replies and pulling us away from the real issues.

Begone, troll, and darken this board no further.

— Jeff Kaufman | Unregistered, Swarthmore

To Amanda, Mark, Krystyn, Sasha, Abby, Laura, and of course M: Thank you for publicly standing up for safer, happier, and more sex-positive world. I didn't read the DG much while I was on campus and still don't check it out as often as I might, but I will say that when I do, it's primarily for this column (which I find quite useful and even entertaining at times) and especially the conversation it often sparks. You all have done a great job of advocating for sex-positivity, etc. so I won't get into all of that. But I did feel it might be useful to say a bit more about why these discussions should and must happen in public.

One, even though there are lots of elements of sexuality that are instinctive and in-born, much of our sexual behavior is learned. We have natural impulses and biological needs, but we can't appropriately act upon them without some education as to how to go about it. True, this conversation could happen solely within a family's home, but unless you're only having sex with people in your own family-- eww-- it's actually quite useful to have a general understanding of how others in the world feel about sex and sexuality, and what their expectations are. That's probably why that conversation often leaks out of the home and into schools, houses of worship, television, etc.

Two, because much of our "education as to how to go about it" has been oppressive and unhealthy-- most obviously for the majority of us who aren't white, straight, and/or male, but for them as well--breaking the cycle of oppressive and unhealthy sexual behavior requires that people have some inkling that alternative ways of approaching sexuality exist. That wouldn't happen if we adopted this call to be publicly silent about sex. We'd be stuck with the limitations of our existing knowledge and experience, without the benefit of others' insights.

Even though some of the people who are advocating for silence have good intentions, I wonder if you've considered the extent to which your own positive beliefs about sex (that it should be consensual, that it should feel good, that people have a right to decide for themselves how and with whom they'll conduct their sex lives) that you are assuming we should or could be expressing in private result from public discussions of this very nature that occurred in previous generations. It's nice to assume that, if left to our own devices, we'd stumble upon the idea that sex can and should be non-exploitative and enjoyable and whatever else, but that might be wishful thinking.
-Sabrina

— Supportive Alumna | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Rachael,
I completely agree that humor and satire are important and completely valid rhetorical forms. (I tried to be funny in my recent Phoenix op-ed, anyway - though it seems that the joke about intellectual masturbation was lost on a lot of people.) I wasn't criticizing Argos's comment because it was satire, but because it was offensive. I'm sorry that's how you took it - it wasn't meant to be read that way.

Jeff,
I wasn't dividing the discussion into two groups. Clearly that would be a vulgar oversimplification, as many different viewpoints are represented here. I was merely differentiating "Perspective"'s comment from the comment of "Lonely Falcon." It seems to me that there are valid reasons for someone who wants to stand up for a friend who has been disparaged for hosting a sex toy workshop in a public online forum to post anonymously. They probably fear exposing themselves to similar insult by standing up in support of said friend and, understandably, not wanting their good name to be slandered in a public forum the way Sasha's was, they choose to use a pseudonym. I differentiated this from "Perspective"'s comment because, i) there appeared to be no legitimate reason for "Perspective" to post anonymously, and ii) it was what I would characterize as "provocative" in the sense of "deliberately causing annoyance or anger." Allow me to quote:

"I must just be jaded from my generation's incredibly disturbing and Dionysian sexual practices, which have sadly become the norm (thanks, Wendy). From now on I will make sure to remind myself to be appropriately shocked, titillated, and/or offended."

This is not only rudely sarcastic, but "Perspective" says he (yes, I am going to make this assumption here) has become "jaded" by the "sexual practices" of his generation which he characterizes as "Dionysian" (which alternately means, "pagan" or "un-Christian," and by extension "immoral") and "incredibly disturbing." He also says the fact that these type of "sexual practices" have become the "norm" is "sad." Clearly there is a huge amount of judgment and condemnation going on here. If "Perspective" wants to pass judgments on other people, including people in this forum, and their "incredibly disturbing" sexual practices, then he should do so without hiding behind a pseudonym.

The reason I attributed this comment to Justin (yes, you have the right one), is because this kind of "provocation" is a pattern of behavior I have seen coming from him repeatedly over the course of the year (see my Phoenix op-ed). The fact that he credits Wendy Shalit, the speaker whose lecture Justin Shaffer organized, is merely additional evidence for this theory.

As far as making such assumptions about the identities of the posters goes, including names and gender identity, while I agree this may seem to contradict my support of the use of gender neutral pronouns and respectful commentary that does not "make assumptions" about its readers, there is a reason for and a logic behind this that I believe is valid. That is, it's important not to make assumptions about your readers when you write a column, express an opinion, lecture to a class or workshop, or otherwise exercise the power of language in a way that is either rhetorical or edifying. When you use language to try to convince or educate someone, that constitutes an exercise of power that you intend to influence the people to whom you are speaking in some way. If you make assumptions about the people you are trying to influence, then that exercise of power becomes coercive. E.g., if I assume all female-bodied persons want to be referred to as "she," it sends the message to my intended audience that all female-bodied persons are female-identified, a position I neither have to support or defend unless someone calls me out on it.

This does not mean that I think identity is unimportant or irrelevant. I think the tendency to take a healthy skepticism about assumptions and identity to this extreme conclusion is the result of certain pernicious Postmodern discourses that result in a paralyzing relativism (if you are interested in more of the details of my position on this, you can check out next week's Phoenix). Identity becomes Especially important when one is trying to parse out who is exercising power on whom and for what purpose. I think the fact that the vast majority of criticisms of queer and feminist discourse about sex comes from heterosexual men is extremely relevant, especially considering that this is the dominant power-holding demographic. The picture looks very different when you see a bunch of heterosexual men ganging up on a queer-feminist discourse than when you see a bunch of anonymous posters ganging up on it, about whom we are not allowed to make any assumptions. By calling out those posters who would pass judgement on or say disparaging things about queers, feminists, and people who engage in "disturbing" sexual acts, I am attempting to unmask the forces that would engage in this kind of coercive and, insofar as it is insulting and degrading, violent exercise of power.

However, while I feel I have every right and reason to make assumptions about the identity of these posters, I certainly cannot Know, which is why I first asked the posters to come forward and identify themselves. If they do come forward and it turns out I was wrong, I would graciously apologize for my mistake. It might actually be a pleasant surprise. But I have become "jaded" enough by oppressive sexual discourses to know that I'm not likely to encounter may surprises. The center of gravity from which this kind of thing exerts its pull is and has always been, sadly, from the demographic of heterosexual men. I'm perfectly happy to sit here and wait patiently for somebody to prove me wrong.

About Chris's use of "Miss": You're probably right, and he probably was trying to be respectful and polite. If I really thought he was just trying to be a chauvinist asshole I wouldn't have bothered to respond with anything but something like, "you chauvinist asshole." Rather, I was trying to drive home the point that ignorance of what language is dismissive, offensive and demeaning does no immune one of responsibility for that language. My grandmother might have thought it was a perfectly inoffensive and legitimate usage to call Brazil nuts "nigger toes," and she might have also believed that "colored" and "negro" were polite and respectful terms of address for a black person, but she would still be wrong, and she would still be saying something profoundly offensive and ignorant, for which she would have to apologize, and she would hopefully agree to educate herself so that she would not make the unfortunate mistake of saying similarly offensive things in future. Your very small sample of ML seniors may indicate that many people are in fact comfortable with the traditional usage of "Miss," but context and again, identity, is important. Calling me "Miss" in the middle of a heated and charged discussion is implicitly dismissive and demeaning. Also, as a queer feminist woman, I object to being identified with the term "Miss" because of its connotations of female inferiority and dependance. Emily Post is a relatively conservative source, and if even she agrees that "Miss" is generally only appropriate for Dependent Girls (which I am not), then I hope you can agree that I'm not exactly out to lunch here.

I my purpose isn't to come down on Chris or make him feel bad, but to strongly and without caveats encourage him to re-evaluate some of his more problematic uses of language. This is completely different from my approach to "Perspective" and "Argos" who are not writing because they have real concerns that they want to discuss honestly, but as far as I can tell have written in only to try to insult and discredit those speaking in support of open and honest sex-positive discourse and otherwise bring everybody and the entire conversation down.

Respectfully,
Amanda

— Amanda Winters | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Amanda,
I think both of us just misinterpreted what the other was trying to say; thanks for talking to me so we could clear it up. I take humor too seriously.

— Rachael | Unregistered, Swarthmore

@Amanda,

Quickly, before my work-focused conscience catches up with me: you object to perspective's use of the word 'dionysian' for sexual practices with the parenthetical '(which alternately means, "pagan" or "un-Christian," and by extension "immoral")'. This is not my understanding of the origin of the term. Britannica online says "characteristic of the god Dionysus or the cult of worship of Dionysus; specifically, of a sensuous, frenzied, or orgiastic character." Dionysus was a greek god of wine and madness with much interesting history. The modern english meaning of "dionysian" comes directly from the god and the actions of his followers. There are definitely things in our culture that associate pagans with immorality, but I don't believe this usage to be one of them.

I'm sorry to be quibbling with only a side point and leaving the rest of your well thought out reply. Writing a proper response to that requires a good deal of time and consideration.

— Jeff Kaufman | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I, Jeeves, am greatly angered by Amanda Winter's assumption that my client is not genuinely concerned about the issues at hand. She is a busy woman, currently being chased through the Crum woods by an angry, pitchfork-wielding mob whilst dictating her memoirs to Sir Wallace of the Galloping Typewriter (who is not, in fact, a knight, but rather a roughly mannered lady from Yeadon clad in aluminium siding). Had Argos not been truly concerned with being the only non-homophobe on campus, I highly doubt she would have written anything in the first place.

As it was, she merely wanted to point out, through the medium of satire, that some individuals on this campus may have a slight persecution complex, which makes it difficult to function in normal society or communicate anywhere. Swarthmore, even with the roving mobs with torches and farming tools, is really a utopia compared to places like Philadelphia. Zounds!

Joe - I believe you've told me in the past that you have a tendency to masturbate with large pieces of heated iron. I am beginning to think that perhaps this is not wise, especially in light of your previous comment. Always trust a butler's insight.

I remain,
Jeeves Thadeus William Norbert Hawkins Equ.
a.k.a. Baron von Nichts
formerly of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, Wales
now of O, Denmark

— ArgosTheLemon | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I'm really sorry, "perspective" was me. I'm embarrassed that people think I was Justin. I was being sarcastic at what I took to be near the end of the conversation, and I didn't realize how much more serious debate was yet to come. What I was trying to express is my surprise that Standard Deviations is coming under so much fire, since as campus sex columns go, even at Swarthmore, it's pretty typical and often pretty tame. I couldn't imagine why any parent would take it upon themselves (singular "them") to get this worked up over this. I was still really, really pissed off from the Shalit lecture and its coming at the same time as this whole argument, and I probably shouldn't have clicked "add your comment."

Carry on everyone, I'm on your side. I'm sorry to have disrupted things. And I'm really sorry individually to anyone who took my comment literally or seriously at all.

— Sophie | Unregistered, Swarthmore

PS -- Wow, I just read another response to my comment, which took it totally literally. I'm so so so sorry that anyone took it that way. Seriously. I thought it was so over the top as to not be believable. That this wasn't obvious is kind of scary in its own way. (Also, I said "Dionysian" because to me that just means "orgiastic," etc. And I was... angry and not considering the possibility that someone might take me seriously.)

Also, I posted anonymously because I have some minor insecurities about being Googleable for ever and ever. That's why I'm only using my first name now (although I'm the only Sophie at Swarthmore).

I guess sarcasm is not appropriate in this forum. That's okay and I'm really sorry. Next time I'm mad at Wendy Shalit/Chris Green/Curtis Roberts, I will just go on the Jolt, where everyone is an asshole.

— Sophie | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Well, I AM pleasantly surprised! There you have it: I was wrong, Justin's name is cleared (from this at least), at there's one less offensive comment on this board.

To Jeff: I wasn't saying that "immoral" is the only, definitive, or even primary meaning of "Dionysian." However, this is the meaning I was getting out of it when I had reason to believe it was coming from a fundamentalist Christian as a term of condemnation. Indeed, my comments have been long, as these are complicated issues.

Argos - OK, so people are upset because 1) There was an utterly unacceptable level of sexual harassment, assault, and homophobic behavior at the Sager party, 2) A speaker came to campus who made condemnatory statements about the private lives of many students, particularly women and queers, without being able to back up, and 3) Comments were posted to the Daily Gazette message board that were offensive, sexist, and homophobic, not only by outsiders but also by our own fellow students.

And you're telling me those who feel the way I do have a "persecution complex"!!??

Once again, I think you need to work on exercising your capacity for Empathy - it seems to have withered away and become unable to do the slightest bit of heavy lifting. And if you're so busy, maybe you should find something more constructive to do with your time then demeaning and making fun of people who have less power than you for your own self-serving entertainment.

Yes, of course, I will openly acknowledge that this has been a very fraught week for sexual and gender issues at Swarthmore. There are those of us who quite understandably feel that we have been under attack from all sides, in a community where we expect to feel, if not comfortable, at least safe and respected. As a result of this, some people, including myself, have been in a something of a heightened state of sensitivity regarding these things. This probably has something to do with why I did not interpret the "Perspective" comment as sarcastic, nor did it ever occur to me that it might be sarcastic the other way around. (However I do think that sarcasm of this kind is best confined to the Jolt, especially where such fraught and sensitive topics are involved.)

But note that I say "heightened state of sensitivity," and not "persecution complex." Telling me that I have a "persecution complex" is, again, (and I'm going to say this hopefully for the last time), just another way of telling me that my concerns are not valid or welcome and it would be better if I just shut up and kept it to myself. Well, guess what - as you've hopefully learned by now, I'm Not Going to Shut Up!!! There's a lot of sexist and homophobic sh*t that goes on in the world, Even at Swarthmore, and I'm not going to be silent and let it go by unchallenged, nor will I be silenced by attempts to insult and demean me. Silence is complicity!!! I refuse to be complicit with sexist and homophobic language and behavior. Period.

Now that the mystery of "Perspective" is solved, hopefully we can wind this debate to a close on a positive note. And hopefully those who have read and engaged will find something of "ethical intelligence" in all of this.

— Amanda Winters | Unregistered, Swarthmore

The lesson to be learned is:
If you want to avoid a riot, don't burn your genitals.

— ArgosTheLemon | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Amanda,

While I agree that open discourse about sex is necessary, I ask you to reconsider how you are expressing your reasoned opinions to other people. When you say that you are very offended by someone else's comments (as you have the right to be), you will make one of three things happen: they will argue back with just as much fervor and emotional investment as you have, they will apologize and agree with your views, or they will apologize and continue to disagree with your views. Someone not emotionally invested in the issue will not find it as important, and will not find it more important after you have become offended. They also don't want to upset someone over something they don't find as important. So they will apologize for upsetting you, but will not attempt to explore the arguments any further. They will leave, agreeing to disagree with you.

Though being non-confrontational may not always broaden one's mind about a subject, it does maintain an agreeable level of decorum.

If you want to show someone that their point of view might be harmful, becoming angry and displeased does not make you more persuasive. If you only want to engage in a discussion with someone just as emotionally invested as you are, be aware that the conversation will often reel away from reasoned discussion and become a series of ad hominem attacks that serve to little to educate anyone. Granted, the discussion here is still useful because Swarthmore students are usually devoted to productive discussion.

— Vy Vo | Unregistered, Swarthmore

yo, maybe people would be more willing to listen to each other and more meaningfully respond to stuff if we avoided the "you said x and that is hateful and i am offended" sort of comments. Calling people out is necessary sometimes. However, I feel like we come very close to demonizing particular individuals as examples of really awful shit, rather than more generally talking about a mode of discourse that might cite specific examples from the thread. That probably derails dialogue about the specifics of the substance at hand.

Meh, at least we talked about shit. Rock on.

— dweeks | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Dear all,

I appreciate reading your comments, however, I would also appreciate it if we could remain civil and not attack other posters on this forum.

— student | Unregistered, Swarthmore

The above article states: "This year's party didn't seem to celebrate anything but booze and boobs..."

I do believe that this is what occurs at every Sager party, and as far as a party with free flowing alcohol and scantily clad co-eds is concerned, I don't understand how anyone expects this party to be anything different. I personally believe that every year, while the Sager symposium is one step forward, the party is two steps back.

— Sami | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Vy Vo,

Well this discussion didn't "reel away from reasoned discussion and become a series of ad hominem attacks," now did it? I appreciate your attempt to enlighten me to more constructive methods of discourse, but I think I have managed to express my offense and "emotional investment" (as you acknowledge I have a right to do) without "demonizing particular individuals" as "dweeks" seems to think I have come close to doing.

"If you want to show someone that their point of view might be harmful, becoming angry and displeased does not make you more persuasive."

True. But this is also true: After reading some of these comments, I was going to be angry and displeased no matter what. As far as I'm concerned expressing these feelings in a public forum helps to expel those feelings and move on from them. Moreover it demonstrates that what people say and the language they use has an impact on others.

I continue to stand by everything I've said. But thanks for reading!

Amanda

— Amanda Winters | Unregistered, Swarthmore

As a closing note, I would like to add some thoughts I had in a private email exchange with Chris:

"If you take one thing from this discussion I hope it is that as someone who feels that sexual shame and repression is harmful, I in no way think sex is trivial. In fact, I think sex and sexual politics are extremely important and serious issues. I think it's damaging the way that sex is being commodified in our culture. However, I also see this trend where queers and feminists are being blamed for the "debasement" of sex to an empty gesture, when I think that the blame in fact belongs with the [media and corporate culture that only wants to sell products and get higher ratings]. Ultimately, I think sex is always meaningful, but what meaning it has depends on the meaning that you let it have - or, if you're invested in it and thinking critically about it - the meaning that you give it."

— Amanda Winters | Unregistered, Swarthmore

"I think sex and sexual politics are extremely important and serious issues."

"it's actually quite useful to have a general understanding of how others in the world feel about sex and sexuality, and what their expectations are. "

“I am suggesting that public sexual expression of any type through sex articles in the Daily Gazette is inappropriate."

I agree with these statements. Would be great if M's and Bone Doctor's columns moved to a separate publication. It could be kind of like Swat's version of Cosmo magazine.

— Rasa Petrauskaite | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

ArgosTheLemon: If you don’t mind, I’d very much appreciate it if you could get in touch with me outside these forums, since I’d like to ask you a couple questions privately. Feel free to use an anonymous e-mail account or to work through an intermediary if you don’t trust me with your real-world identity. Thanks!

— Lucas Sanders | Unregistered, Swarthmore

You know, I thought they actually posted our e-mails along with our names, but apparently they do not. Feel free to grab me at...convolutedtoast@aol.com.
And you're welcome.

— ArgosTheLemon | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Um...don't click on that. the "at..." is obviously not part of my e-mail address. Sorry if that caused any inconvenience.
Regards.

— ArgosTheLemon | Unregistered, Swarthmore

"Even if most writers spoke of humanity as “man” because they had an unenlightened view of women’s role, that does not address the question. The question is whether the gender-ambiguous usage has been generally recognized in the past and, more importantly, whether it is still recognized today."
Yeah, I agree, I really don't think anyone cares so much that women are being dehumanized, excluded, and deleted from our discourse, so much as whether or not this follows precedent. Thanks to a number of you for making sure it stays that way!

— Amalia Tsiongas '11 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Wow,
So I have to say that after reading this, I am able to see the usefulness of the Gazette's commentary board.
As a student abroad, I realize how helpful the gazette has been, whether to expose the abuses of the majority, to promote good sense, or to exemplify the need for dialogue. I'm not defending or attacking anyone, just commending Swarthmore students for thinking about the issue from all sides.
As someone who believes that dialogue about sex is necessary, it is always important to give it the proper context. That is, to respect the rights and opinions of all concerning their sexual behavior and practices. If two people of any gender want to express their love, I'm not bothered, I just ask that our society be better informed, and keep an open mind.
It's ignorance of these issues, and fear of the unknown that can lead to hate crimes.

— Stephanie | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

"It could be kind of like Swat's version of Cosmo magazine."

While I don't believe this comment was intended to trivialize the discourse of the columns, comparing them to Cosmpopolitan is conflating the (clearly) very complex issues that are under discussion with a magazine that perpetuates a variety of unfortunate stereotypes, ranging from heteronormativity (sorry, I know, I know, but it's the right word!) to promoting a type of sexuality that is not sex-positive but oppressive (a discussion that I hope was what the sponsors of Shalit's lecture were expecting from her). This may seem harmless at first glance, but it leads to more troublesome conflations like the idea that personal expression of sexuality somehow results in sexual assault.

Moreover, I frankly don't understand why this material is different that any other opinion piece. I frequently read opinions that I don't like all that much. As others have pointed out, M's column in particular is not some light "10 Things that will make your partner go wild" (or worse, "your man"): it addresses substantial questions of social and political importance, as well as questions of personal importance to individuals on campus and our community dialogue. The fact that her column has provoked such a generally thoughtful discussion suggests to me that the Daily Gazette is exactly the rght place for it.

— Lesley McNiesh | Unregistered, Swarthmore