Sexed-Up New Haven (Yale hosts a campus-wide orgy)

Last week, every Yale undergraduate received an e-mail heralding "Sex Week: A Celebration and Exploration of Sex and Sexuality at Yale University."

Imagine a modest student's reaction to "Grandmother of Masturbation" Betty Dodson's impending lecture on the topic, "One Woman's Illustrated Sexual Revolution." Yale sophomore David O'Leary, upon returning from five o'clock mass, found in his inbox the promise of a "Porn Party! sponsored by Wicked Pictures with porn star Devinn Lane."

According to event organizer and Yale senior Eric Rubenstein, Sex Week was supposed to open discussion about issues of love, intimacy, and romance, and was timed to coincide with Valentine's Day, to distract the many unattached Yalies who, Rubenstein says, are made lonely and depressed by the holiday. In truth, however, it was little more than a week-long bacchanal.

It was all under the guise of education, of course: Take, for example, the talk with "Rebecca and Claire from Toys in Babeland: 'Sex Toys 101.'" Or the lecture by professor — yes, that's right, a Yale professor — Naomi Rogers, on the "History of the Vibrator."

Sex Week was run by Students for a Sexually Aware Campus, an officially registered and university-approved "student organization," which (along with Sex Week) got a green light from Yale College Assistant Dean Edgar Letriz, who oversees administrative matters for student organizations (registration, funding, etc.). According to Rubenstein, Letriz knew what Sex Week was about when he approved it, and was "fine with it."

But how, exactly, does Sex Week enrich the quality of campus activity and education? David O'Leary wanted to know; after overcoming the initial revulsion he felt upon receiving the Sex Week e-mail, he was overcome by curiosity. "I went to a Sex Week event to see how offensive it might actually be," he explains. "On my way in, people attempted to hand me condoms and literature about sex-toy cleaning, vaginal and anal-sex tips, and safer-sex tips. When the speaker asked who in the room had never used a sex toy, I raised my hand. When she began to throw miniature vibrators to the people who had their hands raised, I quickly put my hand down and hoped she wouldn't throw one my way."

"Shortly thereafter, she began asking people why and how they masturbate, and read an explicit story about a boy and his mother's vibrator. I left with face red, directly after... I have never been more embarrassed in my life."

O'Leary may have been mortified, but Rubenstein doesn't really care. When asked whether he was worried that people might take offense at the vulgarity of Sex Week, especially as it invaded their inboxes, Rubenstein responded: "No, not really. People might be offended, but they won't openly reprimand me." And about this kind of sexual activity: "People need to accept the fact that it's here, because it is here. And the response I've gotten has been overwhelmingly positive — there were only three people who sent me e-mails back saying 'don't send me any more of this.'" Besides, "If Bush can handle most of the country voting for his opponent and his still being in office, I can handle a few people not liking my emails."

It's not just that Sex Week was in bad taste: It went beyond vulgarity to promote downright pernicious behaviors, and sometimes with odd allies. Take, for example, the seeming obsession with pornography. Strangely enough, Sex Week was put on with the help of Yale's Women's Center, the locus of radical feminism on campus. Feminists are always decrying the objectification of women, and yet pornography is one of the most demeaning and widespread means of objectifying women available.

Or consider that the proceeds from Sex Week's concluding party will go to Planned Parenthood. Or think about Sex Week's promotion of inappropriate relationships: On its website, it has a photograph captioned "Detention will be served in my bed," with an image of a young girl writing over and over on a chalk board, "I will not suck d*** in class." Having sex with a student, at least at most serious academic institutions, is grounds for dismissal; if the student is a teenager, as this girl appears to be, it's grounds for arrest and jail time for statutory rape.

In Rubenstein's eyes, though, nothing depicted on his website was "inappropriate." And again, it's probably true that most people agree with him.

But just because they do, doesn't mean everyone does. And just because people could put on Sex Week, doesn't mean they ought to have. And certainly Yale — insofar as it is a respected institution of higher learning and a supposedly serious environment for a supposedly serious education — didn't need to put its seal of approval on it.

In the e-mail and on its site, Sex Week was touted as "the only event of its kind on any college campus." That's a relief — there are at least a few Sex Weeks to go before Yale introduces the Janet Jackson Chair in Cultural Studies.

Below are some of the Communist Goals for destroying America (published way back in the 60's) look how closely they mirror the libertarian/liberal agenda today.

--------------------------------------------

Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch.

Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." Recall article 52 of the Soviet Constitution: "The church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state and the school from the church." (Article 52)

Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

Let's compare the list with the Libertarian party platform. If you can't see anything similar then you are smoking too much crack.

--------------------------------------------

Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch.

Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

Compare the above list to some of the libertarian party's platform: -----------------------------------

the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals;

the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards";

We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning: Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women;

We advocate a strict separation of church and State.

We condemn the attempts by parents... to force children to conform to any religious views.

Let's compare the list with the Libertarian party platform. If you can't see anything similar then you are smoking too much crack.

OOH! LET'S! It will be SUCH fun! And of course you ignored my comments to your original post in your cute little rote response. Nice sticking to talking points, Mr. Daschle.

Let's start with the obvious problem with this comparison before we go there, though. If having the same beliefs in one area as the Liberals makes libertarians Communist, then since you have the same beliefs as libertarians, er, Communists (according to you) in other areas, and since anyone who has beliefs similar to a Communist must be (according to you) a Communist...

You must be a Communist. Oopsie. Sorry--your logic, not mine. Time to go buy yourself a hammer and sickle, Karl.

But let's go on to the REALLY fun stuff. Because I looked, and I see similar words, but not similar meanings at all for the most part. Some are obviously very close in wording--but most are quite different in meaning, and your spinning to get your own interpretation is obvious.

Here's a difference, for example:

Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

Those aren't at all the same things as the libertarian party platform, which says that government should stop getting involved in those areas. You are saying that anyone that doesn't want the government fighting against all the things of which you personally disapprove is the same thing as having it support those things, which makes you either incredibly biased or stupid. You sound like a real closet liberal case, promoting government intervention where it's good for you and not looking at the possible repercussions down the line. So probably the latter, or a combination of both with a heavy tilt to the latter.

We advocate a strict separation of church and State.

The latter is very different from 'Eliminating any prayer,' in that being against theocracy isn't the same as being against Christianity or religion or for Communism. But you knew that. You just toss that in because you love the idea of placing libertarians in the woodhouse with all the other negroes (though I'm sure you use another n-word in your head).

And in fact, you don't really care at all whether they are different in meaning or not. Your opinion on this was locked up from the getgo. You want people to think like you do, so demonizing the opposition is your objective here. Peachy. Call libertarians Commies or Liberals for thinking that people who don't believe in your religion shouldn't have to pay for the pet projects of religious backers of Jehovah or Jim Jones or whatever nutjob cult you are a member of. Enjoy drinking that koolaid, too.

But as you vilify and slander people like me, though, recognize that we have the right to do the same to you, and that we will and should do the same to you, because unlike libertarians, you WANT more government. You want the accretion of power that will ease the transition of a republic to a theocracy. Only you'll end up with an authoritarian dictatorship, probably ruled by someone who gives a lot of lip service to your self-styled 'Christian' ideals.

I imagine you'd be happier with that than the current political situation. Again, peachy. But most people disagree with you. And of those of us who do, some of us will remember forever the insults you lay out on the basis of your bigotry when others who are similarly bigoted run for office, and choose the other candidate. Maybe you should try a little less demonizing if you want to make your case and convert others to your cause instead of preaching to the choir.

And speaking of demonizing, since it's my turn, you are a Pharisitic parasite, sucking on the government teat for your preferred intervention into people's religion and crying about anything else that might take your tax dollars. You want to believe that Jesus turned water into grape juice, or told you that God hates fags, fine. Just don't expect me to subsidize you teaching that crap to other people, or take it lying down when you try cementing your creche in the courthouse. And don't expect me to care that people like YOU are unhappy with what stupid schools like Yale are doing, since it's obvious you'd be forcing them to do your preferred stupid thing if you could.

And that's what you're really mad about, Pharisee, that you aren't leading the mob. That you don't get to yell 'Crucify Him!' or 'Stone Him!' must be KILLING you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.