A University center supporting the chaste lifestyle would be an important addition to our campus community. The University has recognized that sexual minorities require institutional support when it established the LGBT Center. On the same grounds, and to correct in ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Just because it's not constructive doesn't mean it isn't accurate... Good point earlier about the (neo-nazi) strawmen in the article to make it seem like the author is not categorically denouncing an identifiable group (and is therefore "reasonable").
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I'm afraid you're mistaken on this one-- it is reasonable to point out that some posters were asserting opinions without supporting arguments. The evidence for my claim is found in the posts themselves, which manifestly do what I claim they do. One poster simply claims what I said was untrue, and the other bases her/his claim on the assumption that her/his interlocutors are discriminatory bigots. This is not a constructive style of argument.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Um... pot calling the kettle black I think: "I'm not sure why they merely state their opinion and expect it to argue for itself." Um, that's quite an opinion about what those posters said, and without an accompanying argument... hmm.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I don't have a very strong opinion here, but I have to say that the comments of "Science," "Sexual Positions" and "GaysArePeopleToo" are some of the most embarrassingly incoherent statements I've seen come out of Princeton students. If they have an argument, they should make it. If they don't, I'm not sure why they merely state their opinion and expect it to argue for itself.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Woh, woh, woh. Science. Calm down. "[P]romoting marriage as only a man and a woman" is not "obscenely discriminatory" -- let's be reasonable and leave those positions to the racists and the neo-nazis like the author did.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Tom, you're once again missing the point. You claim that the LGBT center is clearly promoting 'progressive' liberal sexual values because they have not hosted events promoting "the chaste lifestyle [as] the proper avenue for personal (and thus sexual) fulfillment" and that "marriage should be the union of a man and a woman..." Let's see: why would the LGBT center have an event promoting chastity as the 'proper' (btw, what a puritanical word!) way to fulfillment? The LGBT center does not take any position whatsoever on whether or not students should be having sex. It doesn't promote sex not does it discourage it. It provides neutral support should they want to engage in sex or think about it or talk about it. 2nd point: you actually think the LGBT center would host an event promoting marriage as only a man and a woman? Are you serious? That position is obscenely discriminatory.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Ah Godwin's Law, alive and well. Well played. Imminently reasonable in fact. Good thing you used that word so often, otherwise your article wouldn't have convinced me.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"At the moment, there's only one group whose position on sex is not supported by the University: abstinent students." Soooooo not true! There are countless "positions" to take during (woops I mean on the topic of) sex. And the University doesn't sponsor all of them. To be clear, LGBT doesn't take a position on sex... it takes a position on the rights of persons who may or may not be having sex with people of the same gender or who may be questioning the concept of gender, itself.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Traditional ethical norms are not "eminently reasonable" as Tom suggests. These norms posit that (1) sex should be reserved for marriage and (2) marriage should only be between a man and a woman. This inherently discriminates against gay people - why should gays be marginalized from the pleasure of sex, when heterosexual individuals are not? The belief that black people and women were inherently inferior has only become unpopular in the last hundred years or so - just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it is right. The University should not support discriminatory groups. Abstinence itself is not necessarily a bad thing, and promiscuity is probably not such a great thing - but by confusing the practical arguments for chastity by bringing in religious issues like marriage, Tom makes it clear that he wants an Anscombe Center, not an Abstinence Center.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Very good point. If the U gets involved in an issue like sexuality, it should be open, tolerant, and supportive of the diverse opinions about it. At the moment, there's only one group whose position on sex is not supported by the University: abstinent students.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Thanks for all the comments - I had a quick thought that might prove helpful. With reference to the notion that the LGBT center is NOT ideologically motivated, perhaps the following question will clear the air. Can anyone provided a SINGLE example of an LGBT sponsored event that supported (or hosted a speaker who supported) either of the following two ideas 1)the chaste lifestyle is the proper avenue for personal (and thus sexual) fulfillment 2)marriage should be the union of a man and a woman If such an example should prove impossible (or a mere singularity), and judging by the preponderance of events directly denying the two previous claims, it should be obvious to every Princetonian that the LGBT center is motivated by a progressive sexual ideology. Institutionalized progressive and libertine ideological commitment is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does demonstrate that such a center cannot provide the necessary resources for those Princetonians who adhere to traditional sexual values and seek assistance in dealing with issues of sexuality within their own lives. Fairness demands an institutional balance between reasonable ideologies. And as a final note - if you think the traditional sexual mores are so unreasonable that they should be silenced (like racism), please consider that millions of reasonable people for the past two millennia have disagreed with you, and millions of reasonable people today still find traditional sexual ethics persuasive. This is not to prove the validity of such traditional claims (that is where reasoned discourse enters the fray), but merely to demonstrate their seriousness and rigor. A University would be poorly served to ignore such serious and challenging ideas about life, love, family, and true human flourishing.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I bet you that most LGBT students on this campus are abstinent anyways. Isn't it very presumptive of you to assume that because they're gay they're also promiscuous?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
do you have some first-hand experience with LGBT? or are you just pulling all of these assumptions out of your a$$? and "sex obsessed SHAs"? are you serious? they are sexual health advisors! should they be talking about something other than sex?!
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
To respond to the claim that other campus groups have "covered" students who abstain for moral or health reasons, we need to look at the facts. The LGBT Center was founded, among other reasons, because the University thought that LGBT concerns were NOT being met by the existing structures (the Pride Alliance, College Democrats, the Office of Religious Life, etc.). In the same way, there are various student groups that might cater to abstinent students in different ways, but the needs are not being met in an institutionalized way. In addition, there are plenty of abstinent students who are not religious, republican, or politically conservative. This is because students choose abstinence for a whole range of reasons. In addition, there are plenty of students with same-sex attraction who don't feel at all comfortable with the LGBT Center and its policies, which involve heavy politicization of gay issues, an overwhelming focus on sexuality, and what can be perceived as a coercive agenda: gay students are made to feel that there is only one way to live if they have same-sex attraction: the way the LGBT Center says is the right way. This new center, if it works out, would cater to all kinds of people who don't feel comfortable with the LGBT Center inner circle, the sex obsessed SHAs, or the various other campus groups which, in addition to supporting certain political agendas, tend to oversexualize students and their time at Princeton.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Everybody wants to be the victim. Poor traditional people, always getting the shaft.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Tom, Colonial's rockin' party was "CEO's and Office Hoes." Please get it right.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
There are many conservative extra-curricular activities on campus (religious groups such as Aquinas, the Anscombe society, the College Republicans and the James Madison program among others) that already serve to shelter and mentor conservative students. No such programs exist for Women (no, sororities do not count) or the LGBT community.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"It would be a counterweight to the permissive sexual norms institutionalized - as at the LGBT Center - and supported - as by SHA - at Princeton." This is what your whole argument rests on, but it's inherently retarded. You're a smart guy Tom. Promoting safe sex does not mean promoting promiscuity. Reminds me of the Francisco Nava article from a few months ago. "OMG, teh condoms are making me feel like an oppressed minority!!111"
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
The biggest difference between the LGBT center and a Chastity Center is that a Chastity Center embraces a certain, very specific, moral position, whereas the LGBT center is completely morally neutral - no moral position whatsoever is endorsed by them. Their members are free to have whatever morals they want.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Glad you brought all of this up, even if I must respectfully disagree with you. I do, however, definitely appreciate your evenhanded take on the issues and your respectfulness towards gay people in the text of this article. (1) LGBT is not an ideological position, it is a sexual orientation. Gay people, just like straight people are free to have whatever 'ideological orientation' they wish about sex, be it chastity, monogamy, promiscuity, whatever. (2) To conflate homosexuality and chastity as equivalent sexual minorities is absurdly misleading. Gayness is a pretty much innate characteristic of an individual, while chastity is a choice based on one's personal morals and upbringing. While I personally feel that the choice to be chaste is very naive and misguided (you're missing your best years! Would you wait until age 40 to start to play sports? Would you wait until age 25 to learn a foreign language? Enjoy the beauty of being young while you can!), I won't stand in anyone's way of being chaste as that is a personal decision. I may respectfully try to convince them that they should change their beliefs, but they can do whatever they want. I think there *should* be more challenging of beliefs on this campus. Not every belief is as good as every other belief and too often people keep their opinions and reasons for their morals to themselves. We should talk more and try to convince each other of stuff. (3) If anything, Princeton students need to be having *more* sex. Didn't that Point poll a while back show that 55% of us have never had sex? That's absurd. We need to get over our nerdy fears and go talk to that hot boy or girl and have some fun! (4) I take issue with your characterization of the LGBT center as embracing 'permissive' sexual norms. Of course it's permissive. We're all adults here and should be 'permitted' to sexually do whatever we want (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone), including chastity. Nobody is telling anyone to have sex. Nobody (other than me maybe, hehe, definitely no institution) is even encouraging people to have sex. They discuss it simply factually, i.e. these are the things you should know if you choose to do it. No value judgment, other than that it's okay if you want to and it's okay if you don't. It's a shame that you interpret this freedom as a pressure to engage in something you apparently don't want to engage in. (5) Want a chastity center? Fine by me. Whatever. University has enough money. Frist has enough rooms. Might as well, I guess.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I am fairly conservative myself, especially in matters of sexuality, and yet I don't think that being L/G/B/T is an "ideological position"
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Hi Tom, Unfortunately you have overlooked a key reason why the LGBT and Women's Centers exist: LGBT and Women students have been the subjects of hatred and institutionalized discrimination for a very long time. We all know from recent bathroom vandelism, for instance, that hatred of LGBT students is alive and well. When was the last time someone was attacked, tortured, killed, not allowed to come to Princeton, denied a job etc because they were "chaste"? Being a woman is immediately apparent to the outside world, and holding hands with someone of the same sex in public "outs" someone as lesbian or gay. But you can keep your lack of sex life completely secret without any difficulty. Also, thanks for the shout-out for Princeton Pro-Choice's Sex Toy Party. Our second annual Sex Toy Party is coming up soon, everyone... get excited!
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Seriously. What's the problem with having a sex toy party at Terrace? Why does that need to be balanced out? Because you find masturbation "icky?" Come on. Also... you're drawing on Plato for your sexual ethics? So then I assume that this new center will be a place where older male professors can go to sleep with nubile young male students...
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!