It seems some of the conservative media are getting all hot and bothered over sex on the campus. If the allegation that tax payer funds were used were true, I would agree on that very limited issue. Universities should not be State funded. Period and full stop. In any case, the University of Arizona event in question apparently wasn’t campus funded:
The university insists none of their money went toward promoting the controversial festival. It was underwritten by a public-funded arts council and held both off- and on-campus.
Another even less objectionable event occured in Indiana:
Other universities have also lately had trouble maintaining the line between sex and education. At Indiana University, officials are probing whether any laws were broken when pornographic filmmakers from Shane’s World entertainment, based in Van Nuys, Calif., used a campus dorm to make an adult movie last month.
It’s hard to see what laws could be broken. I don’t think any force was used by the filmmakers. Hell, if you were an undergrad and a porn starlet hopped into YOUR bed, which of the following would you say?
- Help, Police! I’m being attacked by a sex goddess!
- Thank you God!
Why does sex seem to be such a hangup for so many of the conservative orientation?
Hey LS,
I betcha this guy was on a naughty web site at the time….
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/22/health.laptop.reut/index.html
The social conservative view is not that sex is bad but that:
1) sex and sexuality outside the realm of a secure, intimate relationship is bad;
2) the only reliable vehicle for establishing those two goals is marriage;
3) the vehicle must be driven properly, i.e. partners in a marriage must undertake activities that promote security and intimacy and abstain from that which subtracts from them.
Oh come on, its easier to just generalize the lifestyles of conservatives than to actually find out what they actually do. Thats what being a libertinantian is all about.
I never cease to marvel at conservatives’ (or, at any rate, neoconservatives’) contrasting attitudes toward sex and war. It’s as if God had more dogmatically “fix’d His canon” against fornication and adultery than mass murder. It’s more than a matter of granting the State too much wriggle room vis-a-vis the “Thou Shalt Not Kill” commandment: American neocons see a *moral* obligation to support the Empire’s endless wars. They point to the specks their brothers’ eyes and see not the plank in their own.
Hey Pivetta, is killing also defense? So if someone also says defense is killing than everyone is killing even if they are tyring to save their own lives? Screw you deigo bastard!
EDITORS NOTE to franks@yahoo.co.uk: feel free to express your views in a forthright manner but please remain civil or we will ban you from making further comments here.
Only neocons are capable of this kind of self-delusion. The U.S. dropped 8 million tons of bombs–four times the entire Allied total of World War II–on tiny Vietnam, incinerating 2 to 3 million civilians in the process. In the last 20 years, the U.S. has bombed or invaded Grenada and Lebanon and Libya and Panama and Iraq and Somalia and Haiti and Yugoslavia and the Sudan and Afghanistan. So who’s the threat to world peace? Saddam Hussein, of course, because he attacks three nations–Iran (with a nod and a wink from the U.S.), Kuwait and Israel–during the same period. Not only that, but he has the nerve to shoot at British and American planes invading Iraqi airspace! Clearly, naked aggression is self-defense is peacekeeping–so long as the American state and its lackeys do the killing.
This is all getting a bit far afield from sex and the campus…
My only comment on the forgoing is that I was against many of those interventions but strongly for a few of them, as I am strongly behind my country in these early days of WWIII.
I would also point out that a few of the above list, even some which I disagree were our business, had very low casualty rates and an outcome of a democratic government where a murderous dictator had stood, whereas Saddam’s activities have included poison gas and bio weapons on his own people and a current internal regime that includes a personal army of Uday who perform public group behindings. A BBC Correspondent recently got the verification of this activity. The actually beheaded someone in a shopping mall in Baghdad. Just dragged the person in and did it.
I’ll also not get deeply into the nuclear threat. There are things I’d rather not talk about. Lets just say it is actually worse and more dangerous than you have been led to believe.
We’re just opposed to sex because those danged Democrats get all the chicks.
But seriously…I know a few conservatives that are vigorously opposed to pre- and extramarital sex, but most of those same people are much more forgiving of male acquaintances involved in premarital sex than of females. So I think it’s one part religious and two or three parts sexist.
Could be complete bullshit, but I’ve never let that stop me before.