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.

Read the supemacy clause, Art VI.. All States are bound by our "Law of the Land" is pretty forceful language.

---I have, but that clause wasn't extended without the consent of the States until after the Civil War, and thereafter it has been imposed.

[Marshall] pushed no one. The role of the USSC is part of our separations of power doctrine. The three branches are supposedly roughly equal in powers.

---I don't think it was intended to be. I think the miracle of Marbury is that it managed to hold up. After all, Marshall didn't actually do a darned thing to the federal government with Marbury.

---I think the court has let society assume that it was supposed to have been a third branch, but I have not seen substantial discussion about just what that role was to be from the founders. In fact, given their experience with law lords under the UK, it seems unlikely they would have delegated such a court with such a substantial power.

Sorry, that's not the way it worked. The people of the states gave up some of their power to benefit from union under our constitution. They can't change that decision [nullify acts] without amendment.

---I think that would have been the case pre-Civil War, and there are plenty that agreed with me then. Now, obviously, all seem certain of the supremacy of the federal government, and argument by force certainly has the power to claim it is correct. Luckily, having the biggest gun doesn't make you right, or the Germans would have been right during WWI.

Who said limiting fed power is wrong? Not me..

---Sorry to imply otherwise. I just know that the supremacy clause is what allows this monster to grow.

The civil war did not change the power structure that much, imo..I see the major change coming at the turn of the century, when both parties started to support socialistic programs..Party politics have ruled both fed & state since then, and socialism has won.

---Do a little more looking into the federal Republicans just after Lincoln got elected. They gathered at the trough and started this feeding, and mercantilists have been chowing down ever since.

The 'states rights' movement is wrongly blaming constitutionalism for our political socialism, imo.
They should be blaming republocratic 'two party' politics.

---I have no issues with Constitutionalism. I just trust smaller governments more than larger ones. I think the more the federal government gathers power, the less the people have to do with it. And I honestly believe the more people have to do with government, the less government does.

We have no argument about republocrats. I just think that the supremacy clause is a joke, one that is only occasionally cited as a rationale when the SupCt can't extend some other already bloated part of the federal government any other way.

Read the supremacy clause, Art VI.. All States are bound by our "Law of the Land" is pretty forceful language.

---I have, but that clause wasn't extended without the consent of the States until after the Civil War, and thereafter it has been imposed.

That clause was consented/agreed to & ratified by every State as they joined the union.. - Your 'extended' remark is meaningless.
___________________________________

[Marshall] pushed no one. The role of the USSC is part of our separations of power doctrine. The three branches are supposedly roughly equal in powers.

---I don't think it was intended to be.

You don't 'believe' in separation of powers? It's a fact..

I think the miracle of Marbury is that it managed to hold up. After all, Marshall didn't actually do a darned thing to the federal government with Marbury. ---I think the court has let society assume that it was supposed to have been a third branch, but I have not seen substantial discussion about just what that role was to be from the founders. In fact, given their experience with law lords under the UK, it seems unlikely they would have delegated such a court with such a substantial power.

The first two Articles deal with the Legislative & Executive powers, then Art III declares that the Judicial power is vested in the USSC.. Pretty substantial evidence to most everyone, imo.
_______________________________

Sorry, that's not the way it worked. The people of the states gave up some of their power to benefit from union under our constitution. They can't change that decision [nullify acts] without amendment.

---I think that would have been the case pre-Civil War, and there are plenty that agreed with me then. Now, obviously, all seem certain of the supremacy of the federal government,

The supremacy of our constitution is agreed, not that of the feds. They too are bound to honor it.

and argument by force certainly has the power to claim it is correct. Luckily, having the biggest gun doesn't make you right, or the Germans would have been right during WWI.

Who said limiting fed power is wrong? Not me..

---Sorry to imply otherwise. I just know that the supremacy clause is what allows this monster to grow.

You "know" wrongly.. Misuse of power by political parties allowed this abuse of power at all levels of government.

The civil war did not change the power structure that much, imo..
I see the major change coming at the turn of the century, when both parties started to support socialistic programs..Party politics have ruled both fed & state since then, and socialism has won.

---Do a little more looking into the federal Republicans just after Lincoln got elected. They gathered at the trough and started this feeding, and mercantilists have been chowing down ever since.

You prove my point.

The 'states rights' movement is wrongly blaming constitutionalism for our political socialism, imo.
They should be blaming republocratic 'two party' politics.

---I have no issues with Constitutionalism. I just trust smaller governments more than larger ones. I think the more the federal government gathers power, the less the people have to do with it. And I honestly believe the more people have to do with government, the less government does. We have no argument about republocrats.

I just think that the supremacy clause is a joke, one that is only occasionally cited as a rationale when the SupCt can't extend some other already bloated part of the federal government any other way.

Blaming the constitution for political failure is a weird argument, imo. -- Do you want to amend it to give States even more power over individual rights? -- IE, CA claims the power to prohibit assault weapons, and they are supported by the USSC.. -- Do you appove? - The 'states rights' movement does.

hedgetrimmer wrote:

I don't think libertarians are being bashed per se.

From post #22:

Libertarians are hypocrites. To hear them say that they are the party of "small government" is laughable. They will use the full force and power of the FEDERAL Government and the FEDERAL courts when it suits their underlying ammoral agenda. Then they will sit back and claim that anyone who opposes them also supports "Big Government." They have been quite effective in silencing many conservatives with this propaganda tactic.
The fact remains that libertarians have no problem with a small minority in a small state forcing it's values on the entire nation through the Federal Court system, in a manner that is completely incompatable with the founders intent.
The simple fact that the libertarians are Ok with the idea of an Activist Court inventing a new right out of the blue with no basis in law, no basis in common sense and no basis in the Constitution, Shows that they do not support limited Government at all. The libertarians support perversion and immorality, not limited government.
To even suggest that John Adams intended for Homosexuals to be married when he wrote the Constitution of Massachusetts is laughable. Anyone seriously suggesting such nonsense probably needs to quite smoking the crack. The libertarians will line up lock step behind activist judges inventing new rights when it suits their agenda, then they will sit back and claim that it is "Big Government" to oppose this garbage. Problem is if you can invent a right out of thin air, then you can take away a right just as easily. We shouldn't be needing a Constitutional Amendment to BAN sodomite marriage, the perverts should have to propose an amendment CALLING for it. Not one of the Founders intended for marriage to be open to degenerate sodomites. In the entire history of our nation to just bring up something so stupid would have gotten you laughed out of any conversation now look where we are. The libertarians are so bent on destroying society's morality and pushing an AMMORAL code on everyone else, that they cannot even see how pro big government they really are. IF it suits their agenda.
TRUE liberty is not LICENSE.

______________________________________
hedgetrimmer wrote:

The point is, to have and to keep liberty, individuals must set limits on themselves and be responsible keepers of the trust the forefathers handed us.

Libertarian philosophy entirely agrees.

That trust is based on the idea that men are basically good, and that they can be trusted to be moral and responible to the rest of society. The framework that men use that makes them virtuous, and trustworthy is a belief in the Creator which helps them to set natural limits, without coercion from the government or other people, to their individual behavior.
It may be the idea behind the post is even though the Constitution says you are free to do whatever you like, in order for a Constutional government to flourish, you must have a natural set of brakes you apply within yourself that restrains your behavior from harming others and from harming society. Beyond that, having the type of character that people would call moral or virtuous, is the ideal character for a citizen of a Constitutional Republic.

I have no problems at all with your beliefs, as you express them above..
Why did you agree with the bashing as in post 22?

"That clause was consented/agreed to & ratified by every State as they joined the union.. - Your 'extended' remark is meaningless."

No, the force of the supremacy clause, the reason Leviathan has sprung up, is that where it formerly extended to limited areas and states jealously guarded their powers, today it extends to all areas, including what were formerly state prerogatives. States may have signed on to a federal Constitution, but then it was federal. It did not include broad federal powers, but very limited ones.

The nullification crisis under Jackson was resolved with the same attitude you have, the same attitude the government takes today: Under the Confederation, then, no state could legally annul a decision of the Congress or refuse to submit to its execution; but no provision was made to enforce these decisions. The Constitution remedied this.

This is simply false. The States were then States, separate but aligned. It may be that I'm fighting a lost cause, again, but separate States may agree on a compact without agreeing to surrender their sovereignty in perpetuity. And the Constitution certainly never said 'States can't ever back out.' It would be as if England wanted to withdraw from the EU after the EU decided to force it to build a land bridge between it and the Continent.

The simplest argument as to the 'extension' of the supremacy clause is this: old States and new have separate Bills of Rights that guarantee the same rights as the Constitution, even after the supremacy clause was long standing. Why, if the supremacy clause extended to them already?

"You don't 'believe' in separation of powers? It's a fact.."

A simple misinterpretation that shows you don't know what I'm trying to explain. In England, judges don't have the power to interpret the SupCt does. There is very little difference between the Constitutional exposition of the SupCt and the English courts; it is not difficult to see that Marbury is such a huge precedent because it's the only thing giving the SupCt this power. Ever law book cites it because it simply IS the only thing the SupCt hangs it hat on.

I am merely stating that we've had the separation of powers drummed into us re: the SupCt since we were kids. It's not too unlikely that part of the separation was unintentional, that it took a rather weaselly federalist decision to establish it, weaseliness worthy of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, in that neither actually did anything, but both exposited high principle and established that for their cause.

"The supremacy of our constitution is agreed, not that of the feds. They too are bound to honor it."

Semantics. The supremacy of the States in some areas was agreed. That's been abrogated. The rights of the people to some things was agreed. Those have been abrogated.

"You "know" wrongly.. Misuse of power by political parties allowed this abuse of power at all levels of government."

Again, you are putting it to the parties, when we don't really disagree. If the supremacy clause didn't allow political parties to intervene in the states, the Constitution would rather limit their interference. Political parties have used it to go where they ought not to. If there were no evil men, it would never have been used this way, but that it is able to be used this way doesn't mean it's the fault of the parties but of the drafters. The Constitution simply should have been more limiting to begin with.

"Blaming the constitution for political failure is a weird argument, imo. -- Do you want to amend it to give States even more power over individual rights? -- IE, CA claims the power to prohibit assault weapons, and they are supported by the USSC.. -- Do you appove? - The 'states rights' movement does."

I do. I think people have the power to civilly disobey and I think they have the power to move. Some states were near theocracies during the pre-Civil War period, and people moved to more freedom. I think any time government tries to impose freedom instead of people imposing it on government, the result is government using that power wrongly instead.

Witness the EEOC and OSHA. Great ideas, but the result is that government develops its own notions of 'freedom' and 'rights' that average people would never accept or demand.

If we are to say that rights come from God, and I do believe this, it is equally certain that God helps them that help themselves and if the people want to exercise those rights, they have to want them enough to take it from government and guarantee it. It has never been and never will be that things humanity has been given they appreciate.

That clause was consented/agreed to & ratified by every State as they joined the union.. - Your 'extended' remark is meaningless.

No, the force of the supremacy clause, the reason Leviathan has sprung up, is that where it formerly extended to limited areas and states jealously guarded their powers, today it extends to all areas, including what were formerly state prerogatives.
States may have signed on to a federal Constitution, but then it was federal.

Sorry. You are losing me in your 'style'.. -- Again, in that last sentence you made a meaningless remark.

It did not include broad federal powers, but very limited ones.

Yes, powers were limited for ALL levels of government, and those not enumerated were reserved to the people.

The nullification crisis under Jackson was resolved with the same attitude you have, the same attitude the government takes today:

I have an "attitude" about a nullification crisis under Jackson? Bizarre line.

Under the Confederation, then, no state could legally annul a decision of the Congress or refuse to submit to its execution; but no provision was made to enforce these decisions. The Constitution remedied this.

This is simply false. The States were then States, separate but aligned.

Here again your sentence is meaningless. What more can I say?

It may be that I'm fighting a lost cause, again, but separate States may agree on a compact without agreeing to surrender their sovereignty in perpetuity. And the Constitution certainly never said 'States can't ever back out.' It would be as if England wanted to withdraw from the EU after the EU decided to force it to build a land bridge between it and the Continent. The simplest argument as to the 'extension' of the supremacy clause is this: old States and new have separate Bills of Rights that guarantee the same rights as the Constitution, even after the supremacy clause was long standing. Why, if the supremacy clause extended to them already?

Sigh, - there are debatable bits in that last paragraph, I quess, -- but trying to decipher your overall point is beyond my pay grade.. Sorry..

"You don't 'believe' in separation of powers? It's a fact.."

A simple misinterpretation that shows you don't know what I'm trying to explain.

Obviously, -- I have major problems with your explanations.

In England, judges don't have the power to interpret the SupCt does. There is very little difference between the Constitutional exposition of the SupCt and the English courts; it is not difficult to see that Marbury is such a huge precedent because it's the only thing giving the SupCt this power. Ever law book cites it because it simply IS the only thing the SupCt hangs it hat on.

Beats me what your last few comments mean.

I am merely stating that we've had the separation of powers drummed into us re: the SupCt since we were kids. It's not too unlikely that part of the separation was unintentional, that it took a rather weaselly federalist decision to establish it, weaseliness worthy of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, in that neither actually did anything, but both exposited high principle and established that for their cause.

Same comment, -- I'm at a loss to comment..

"The supremacy of our constitution is agreed, not that of the feds. They too are bound to honor it."

Semantics. The supremacy of the States in some areas was agreed. That's been abrogated. The rights of the people to some things was agreed. Those have been abrogated.

Some areas? -- The rights to what "things" ??
<
"You "know" wrongly.. Misuse of power by political parties allowed this abuse of power at all levels of government."

Again, you are putting it to the parties, when we don't really disagree. If the supremacy clause didn't allow political parties to intervene in the states, the Constitution would rather limit their interference. Political parties have used it to go where they ought not to. If there were no evil men, it would never have been used this way, but that it is able to be used this way doesn't mean it's the fault of the parties but of the drafters. The Constitution simply should have been more limiting to begin with.

"Should have been"? Great argument.

"Blaming the constitution for political failure is a weird argument, imo.
-- Do you want to amend it to give States even more power over individual rights? -- IE, CA claims the power to prohibit assault weapons, and they are supported by the USSC..
-- Do you appove? - The 'states rights' movement does."

I do. I think people have the power to civilly disobey and I think they have the power to move. Some states were near theocracies during the pre-Civil War period, and people moved to more freedom. I think any time government tries to impose freedom instead of people imposing it on government, the result is government using that power wrongly instead. Witness the EEOC and OSHA. Great ideas, but the result is that government develops its own notions of 'freedom' and 'rights' that average people would never accept or demand. If we are to say that rights come from God, and I do believe this, it is equally certain that God helps them that help themselves and if the people want to exercise those rights, they have to want them enough to take it from government and guarantee it. It has never been and never will be that things humanity has been given they appreciate.

I give up. You agree that CA has the power to prohibit 'assault weapons' and say that my best recourse to that violation is to move. -- BS.

See you around kiddo. -- Please, drop the bit about being libertarian..

"See you around kiddo. -- Please, drop the bit about being libertarian"

We disagree about very little but the means to the ends of a libertarian government. You seem to prefer the extraconstitutional extension of government power to enforce those rights it sees fit to federalize, and dislike the fact that I preferred and still prefer the federal government gain the consent of the governed before extending its power over them, whether its extension is nominally for their benefit or no.

You see, just because I think that government in California SHOULDN'T be banning assault weapons, that Texas SHOULDN'T be banning gay marriage, and many other states SHOULDN'T be doing lots of things doesn't mean that the Constitution was ever acceptably extended to mean that the federal government to intervene, which is all we're discussing. Just because I want the right to bear arms to federally extend to the states doesn't mean that I think Constitutional extension was legitimate initially. I do think if any such faux-federalism applies, the entirety of the Bill of Rights all should. But I think because government power once permitted tends to remain it is dangerous, and a Leviathan national government is far more dangerous than that of the states.

All I was doing here is trying to discuss this minor doctrinal difference and perhaps exchange thoughts on the matter, and it is extremely disappointing to read your comments, which are at best dismissived and at worst insulting. I thought you might enjoy a fair discussion of political philosophy instead of an irrational exchange of insults for once. I have been disabused of that notion. Sorry to bother you. Go back to your regular abuse of those against liberty.

"You have admitted that you do not agree to the basic principles of our union of states, united under our common constitution."

I have admitted no such thing. Just because you say something over and over again does not make it so. I must have credited your debating skill too highly.

"Here is the silliest comment you make:

I do not think that the Constitution or extension of federal power were imposed in following with [the] principle [that men ought to be free to decide for themselves how they will be governed].

Here again you have admitted that you do not agree to the basic principles of our union of states, united under our common constitution."

No, again, you can say that I've 'admitted' that, but frankly, you repeat this only because you simply have no notion of the history or reality of the Constitutional ratification and extension of Constitutional supremacy. If you want to tell me something is 'meaningless,' or 'wrong,' you might want to have a reason for it. Words mean things, and if you don't understand them, consult a dictionary.

"The rational mind boggles that you are apparently unaware of the import of what you write."

Everything I've said has had a point and is stated clearly. You are the ignorant chap who repeatedly claims my words are meaningless to you. If my words are of such import, maybe there is some meaning...but you refuse to address it, claiming instead that I am unaware of what I write. I mean what I said. You just prefer to imagine your righteousness will wave o'er me and I'll be converted simply because of the repetitive nature of your assertion.

"A nasty & inane platitude. You haven't established that I have EVER made any such 'end=means' remark."

Nor have you established that I admitted a darn thing, but you keep saying it. I have plenty of support for my assertion that the union was of independent States, that the States had plenty of reason to demand their rights of nullification, that the States were forced into agreement instead of consenting. You, on the other hand, maintain that the extension of federal rule over ALL the States was legitimate under the Constitution.

That sure sounds to me like the ends justifies the means. That to you, as long as the Constitutional protections are allowed, the government should be able to 'protect' everyone regardless of the original terms of the compact.

"You're dismissed.. -- Find someone else to bother with your weird ideas."

Gosh, I'm sorry I bugged you. It only resulted in a demonstration that you can't discuss rationally differences in opinion. I had thought prior that your debate tactics were respectable in light of your goal, but now I see that your comments aren't turnabout, but your only tactic at all. Enjoy your fantasy of libertarian...dictatorship. I didn't realize that anyone was for something so absurd, but I guess I've found him. Small wonder that I hear that comment from the neoprohibitionists as if it will stick to me. You must radiate that as your end goal throughout other debates to which I have not been a party. How sad, that you do not trust your fellow man to choose wisely and well. I would have expected better from one who purports to value liberty.

And calling my ideas weird does not mean that they are wrong or yours more creditable. The Western world used to think unequivocably that the moon was made of green cheese. Your ideas are certainly weird compared to others, too. Does that make us both wrong? No, it just makes you wrong about how to go about getting the libertarian paradise we both want.

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.