Sex workshop is part of a healthy balance
Regarding '"Femsex" and sex toys' (Thursday, Sept. 25, 2003):As a graduate student who is indeed concerned about issues of high costs, etc., I'm sorry that the writer of Thursday's editorial mocking the sexuality workshops at Princeton and Brown feels that we should concentrate only on 'important issues.' Hell, the world is falling apart — how can you justify having fun at all?
The answer is that in order to lead rich and productive lives we need balance — and healthy sexuality is an important part of that balance. Last week's "Sex Toys for Safer Sex" workshop was an unqualified success, with nearly 100 people attending and most asking for similar workshops. Yet the organizers had a tough time getting permission and funds.
The event was primarily put together by the Queer Graduate Caucus, who were left out of the editorial. Questioning the QGC's use of university funds is not just misleading — it's dangerous. Queer organizations already have trouble getting money due to bigots questioning their right to exist, sexually and otherwise. We don't need people dissuading the University from giving us support.
In fact, the Graduate Student Government sponsors many "trivial" events, including 70's dances, game nights and trips to Broadway. These events help graduate students find community and achieve balance in their lives — both of which can be difficult in graduate school. Sexuality workshops also include potentially lifesaving discussions of safe sex. All of them are important.
No one's asking your editors to attend a sexuality workshop. But what's wrong with other people attending one? Just because something makes him uncomfortable doesn't make it invalid. That's not how things work in a democracy, and it's certainly not how they should work at Princeton. I hope you will consider this.
Anyone who'd like to show their support can write LGBT Student Services at bazarsky@princeton.edu. Betsey Biggs GS
'Sex toys' editorial suggests immaturity
Regarding '"Femsex" and sex toys" (Thursday, Sept. 25, 2003):I hope you won't mind my saying this, but the editorial '"Femsex" and sex toys' reminded me of the giggles that pre-adolescent kids often produce when confronted with the topic of sex.
At that age, making fun of everything sexual poorly conceals a mixture of fear and curiousity that surrounds the subject. Later in life one usually comes to understand that adult sexuality, in all its forms, is part of a healthy existence. If you are lucky enough to attend Princeton, you might even encounter the notion that those early giggles reflect a common rethoric that has been used, in the past, to oppress women, homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered people. If you are at Princeton, and are also willing to look or read around, you might even realize that it is still used today.
Never mind all of this. The bottom line, I think, is as follows. If you want to go to a sex workshop — and from the reported attendance it seems that a large number of students did — then be grateful that there are organizations such as the Queer Graduate Caucus who are willing to endure the scorn of bigots to provide you with such opportunity. If you don't want to go, then don't. It's simple really.
As for the editors of the Prince, who were gracious enough to patronize and mock the extravagance of the GSG in funding such an event, here is a question for them: If the GSG needs loftier causes than to fund sex workshops, then surely the Prince needs better things to write about than its editors' titter at the idea of masturbation, wouldn't you agree? Giulio Boccaletti GS
University should not toy with sex
Regarding '"Femsex" and sex toys' (Thursday, Sept. 25, 2003):The recent "Sex Toys for Safer Sex Workshop" cosponsored by University Health Services, among others, displays an alarming inconsistency and dishonesty. All concerned parties should be committed to promoting a safe and responsible sexual environment. The amount of resources University Health Services, in particular, directs towards sexual matters reflects the serious nature of the issue. Unfortunately, it is self-defeating to promote safe sex by the introduction of and emphasis on something that is in its very phrasing, so trifling. Consider, for example, the irresponsibility of teaching gun safety to an impressionable audience through a workshop devoted to the use, handling and promotion of toy weapons. In both cases, such a methodology — whether it makes use of toy weapons or sex toys — undermines the intended ends by encouraging its participants to view a serious matter in a flippant light. If, as Health Services usually tells us, we ought to be thoughtful and responsible about sexual activity, this cavalier attitude is extremely unhealthy for the university community.
In addition, the advertisement for this event (in the weekly Campus Events email) reads, "A primary objective of this program is to provide information about sex toys that will be relevant for students of all sexual orientations, sexuality, gender, gender expression, and abilities, regardless of whether they are sexually active or consider themselves to be abstinent" (emphasis added). The part of this statement that refers to abstinent students is utterly incoherent; the phrasing is a logical impossibility. Abstinence is — like it or not — a binary state, one is either abstinent or one isn't, and whatever one "considers" oneself to be does not change the fact. Furthermore, using "Sex Toys for Safe Sex" is not only irrelevant for students who choose to be abstinent, but also antithetical to their continued abstinence. As such, any attempt to disguise the "Sex Toys for Safer Sex Workshop" as an educational program geared towards students of all persuasions is patently dishonest. By cosponsoring such an event, University Health Services makes itself party to this duplicity and shows a clear bias on matters of sexual conduct.
As evidenced by the aforementioned inconsistency and disingenuousness, an event such as "Sex Toys for Safe Sex" is clearly unacceptable. For if sex is a serious matter, it is not to be toyed with. Nicholas-Joshua Teh '05
Read More
Princeton, let’s adopt a digital prox
Jorge ReyesTo prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
To prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
What is a Princeton degree really for?
Joel IbabaoSo what, in the end, is a Princeton degree really for? I take a more moderate view: Students should prioritize earning potential — unless they feel irresistibly called to something else.
So what, in the end, is a Princeton degree really for? I take a more moderate view: Students should prioritize earning potential — unless they feel irresistibly called to something else.
If there’s one survey you fill out this year, make it the Year End Assessment
Jerry ZhuThe University cares about collecting good data — but it needs to centralize its efforts.
The University cares about collecting good data — but it needs to centralize its efforts.