Letters to the Editor: Feb. 19, 2008

Column mistakes traditional sexual practice

Regarding ‘Double standards on a divided campus,’ (Monday, Feb. 18, 2008):

You know your political cause is in a rut when the best example of political oppression against your group involves a voluntary convert to Mormonism beating himself up with a bottle of Orangina.

In his column, Brandon McGinley ’10 used a peculiar rhetoric of history and tradition while failing to address Jacob Denz ’10’s central argument. McGinley seems taken with the idea of “traditional” morality, but the sexual ethics that the Anscombe Society and similar groups push is hardly traditional. Recent works of 20th-century gay history like historian George Chauncey’s “Gay New York” have demonstrated that our ideas of bipolar sexuality, of “straight” or “gay,” need reworking, and modern psychology like the Kinsey Report, suggests that surprising amounts of “straight” men and women react erotically to homosexual experiences. Go further back to 18th- and 19th-century European court life, and you will find tales of sexual intrigue racier than anything in the halls of Ivy come Bicker. Even in 13th- century Montaillou, an Occitan village in what is now France, adultery and sexual exploitation by heretical Catholic priests was the order of the day.

Now, the point is not so much that adultery and slipping off to the Hall of Mirrors with a duchess or to the third floor of your club with that sophomore girl are such great ideas. Neither is the point that any program of mass abstinence is bound to fail because nine centuries of experience show that just isn’t how humans work. The point is that it is inaccurate for McGinley to dub the sexual ethics cooked up by late 20th- and early 21st- century American (Catholic) thinkers like Robert George, Hadley Arkes, Richard John Neuhaus and Christopher Tollefson as “traditional.” I think that it is more accurate to depict this movement as a reactionary one; it seeks to erode the modicum of acceptance that gay leaders prior to Denz have won in the United States over the past 20 years in the name of a “traditional morality” that is, as we see from history, neither traditional nor, if we can judge by Mr. Nava’s death threats, moral.

Timothy Nunan ’08

Columnist’s proposal has merit

Brandon McGinley’s proposal to start a new campus center for morally traditional students is a very interesting one. From my observations, it seems that conservative ideology is often kept on the low; that is, those who hold traditional beliefs tend to keep quiet about them. Why is that? While there are several harmless reasons, it is also obvious that our culture today subtly put down traditional beliefs; for example, it is quite common nowadays to call someone putting sex off until marriage a prude and brand someone who disagrees with gay marriage a bigot, without even thinking twice and without repercussion. It is not surprising, therefore, that conservatives often leave their voices unheard for fear of public outcry and derision.

If this scenario sounds rather familiar, it is because this is the same explanation that LGBT supporters would give in their fight for gay rights, and justifiably so. Then why not be equitable and grant the traditionally-minded students a center as well as a mark of the establishment of freedom of belief on our campus? I might not go as far as to say that the University holds a double standard by not having a center like the LGBT or Fields center for students who hold traditional values, but I would say that it be perfectly fair to grant morally traditional students one if they asked.

Alexander Hwang ’11

From the reader love department

Regarding ‘Color in your cup,’ (Monday, Feb. 18, 2008):

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

I’m not quite sure whether The Daily Princetonian’s staff enjoys getting such letters or whether one careless set of editors is replaced by a set just as bad.

Yesterday’s front page shows that your reporters and photographers are just not interested in getting the basics right. The Mug-painting event was “sponsored” by the Alcohol Initiative Commitee (which you seem to have gotten right.) However, it was not AI’s event. The event was very much Murray Dodge Cafe’s. In other words, the cafe was the host not just the location.

In future, if not for your own self-respect but to give credit where it’s due, please try to get your sentences right.

Maryam Khan ’08