Sex is a topic we all think we know about. But how much do we actually know? Well, we know the mechanics, the anatomy involved, its practical applications, and the not-so-practical-but-still-pleasurable ones. However, it seems that we have a difficult time when it comes to sitting down and discussing sex, or how sex should be. It’s as human as breathing and eating, yet why is it so taboo? It’s because sex in its very nature is a relationship, a communication between two people, a sharing of emotions, ideas, and thoughts. By adding one more person, it makes it so much more complicated because morality is brought into the fray. But what is morality anyway?

There is a fine line between morality and what society deems acceptable. Morality is defined as the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong. If this is true, then sexual morality is how we as humans define what is right and wrong to do with a partner when it comes to sex. Of course, we have collectively agreed that, for the most part, things like rape, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia are things that we, as a society, shun and have set up rules against. But there are finer issues at hand – premarital sex, impure thoughts/fantasies, pornography and masturbation, fetishes, homosexuality – these are the core issues. Who are we to judge morality, though? We have eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so we have a good idea for the most part, but this judgment was never meant to be ours. Therefore, these issues need to be discussed, not by us, but with God.

When God is brought into any debate concerning morality, eyes start to roll and ears shut, as what’s coming next is surely “No premarital sex! Abstinence only! No homosexuality! Repent sinners, judgment day is here! You’re going to hell!” It’s a general yeah-we’ve-heard-this-all-before-can-we-just-get-on-with-our-lives attitude. Jesus himself predicted there would be false prophets, such as the people who say this stuff, and told us not to listen to them. What God truly has to say may surprise you. Organized religion doesn’t teach us much about sex in church, so that leaves it to us to decide. For now, I want you to forget all those stereotypes you’ve heard about what God has to say about sex, and let me try to give you a more accurate account (and please do not take this as what God actually said, either; this is how I understand it). The only real way to find out God’s word is to actually read the Bible (and before you freak out: yes, my viewpoint is of the Christian variety, but I would love to hear other viewpoints from other religions).

As a rule of thumb, the way we know something is enjoyable is that God is against it. People like to associate sex and sin very closely, so of course God hates it. I’ll explain later that this is not the case. There are many stereotypes of religion being tied to conservatism, but my viewpoint is not of one of religion, but of logic and faith (not an oxymoron), and nothing to do with politics. The Bible tells us to “flee from sexual immorality.” (1 Corinthians 16:18) What does that even mean? What is this sexual immorality we are fleeing from? Premarital sex seems like the big thing the Bible tells us not to do, but does it really? Well, no, not exactly. But first, what is marriage?

When we think of marriage, we think of white weddings, huge ceremonies, flower girls, receptions and drunken relatives. Marriage was a lot simpler back then, nothing of the highly commercialized stuff we see today. Marriage was just a union of two people, kind of like sex is, and the union would serve to glorify God, just like sex, and if you see where I’m going here, a marriage was only an official union of two people if they had sex. In short, marriage and sex carried the same weight to our Jewish brethren of old; that meant your first sexual partner was your spouse! Imagine if it was like that today – that sex was a binding contract between two people that held legal tenure. We’d probably think more carefully about whom we would sleep with! Also, people were getting married very young back then, so they did not have as long to wait as we do today (on average putting off marriage until at least late twenties; who can go so long without sex?). Indirectly, this means that virginity doesn’t make you any more or less holy than anyone else. God calls us to be in committed relationships; it’s through our relationships that we can become closer to God, so if a relationship does not serve God, then it is not worthy of sex. The reason people tend to not want to get married is that they are afraid of commitment, and rightly so! Marriage is the ultimate commitment and is deserving of sex! Some say, “Oh, well me and my girlfriend have been dating for years now and we are committed to each other, so we can have sex. Right?” Well, how do you know that nothing will happen between now and the time you get married? I’ve seen relationships fall apart after years of dating, even right before a wedding. The only way to be sure of commitment is to marry, but as the saying goes, “Why buy the cow if you get the milk for free?”

Seriously, if you are already having sex, then there is no pressure to commit. If you do wait until marriage then how good that sex would be! It’s pretty much God’s wedding gift. But who can wait until their late twenties now? We push back marriage in order to pursue our careers, but is this right? Is money more important than a relationship with God? Some say yes, but those with money are hardly ever happy, as those with God know, and, unlike money, God never runs out and is non-taxable. Go and seek a spouse, do not be afraid to commit, for if God is there, the marriage will not fail. God made man and woman both in his image; the interface of which is a testament to God’s love, as that is when we most closely resemble God. This is why we consummate a marriage (honeymoon vacations are arguably the best part of a wedding), and in fact the very definition of consummate is to make perfect. “The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:4). Through marriage and sex, two people are one in God’s eyes. Amazing, isn’t it? Through sex, marriage is made perfect.

That being said, sex is God’s invention, his gift to us. It actually means more to him than it does to us; a perfect expression of love. He didn’t even have to make it enjoyable (it isn’t for all animals except dolphins), but he sure did do a good job of that, so much so that we strive for it. Why would God do this if he wanted it only to be used for procreation? It was St. Augustine who came up with the doctrines of missionary position and sex for procreation only, so not exactly the word of God. Studies have even shown that people who have sex more often tend to be healthier and more positive people, warranting phrases like “Man, someone needs to get laid.” However, this does not mean go out and have sex with everything that moves. As with every gift, it can be taken for granted and abused. We have taken this gift and stripped it down, built it up again and painted it so it kind of looks like what it was but with none of the functions in the name of meaningless fun. Those who seek only the pleasure of sex will receive their reward in full on earth, but as God sees you treat his gift with the respect and care it deserves He will reward you even more.

Sex is supposed to be a testament of love for God, so shouldn’t there be love between the people having it? Sex is not for recreation or for entertainment; that degrades sex to its most base physical attributes, into nothing more than a pastime. Sex is supposed to be a tool in building a relationship not only with your significant other, but with God as well. It is the symbol of the deepest commitment one can possibly make with a person, not marriage. You don’t go out and marry just anybody because you think they are sexy, now do you? Treating sex immorally and haphazardly is a shame. Some people go out and are constantly searching for a partner, looking for the benefits they can receive from another person, and they are miserable when they don’t find one. If you have only your own needs in mind, then maybe that could be time better spent looking at yourself to see how you would provide for the needs of your partner. I understand the need to find someone so that we would not be lonely, but there are worse things than being alone. God understands our needs well and will provide for us if we depend on Him. Some cannot wait for just the right one so they will have sex with whomever to fill a void they feel, and that is also immoral. A dependency on sex to fill some part of our lives is like being a drug addict, not healthy for us mentally and thus devoting yourself to a drug rather than to God. Speaking of addictions, this next topic is a bit touchy.

Masturbation’s older definition was self-abuse, but that is a definition that is no longer carried. It may also be the most asked about topic pertaining to what God has to say about it. The main argument for masturbation is that it is natural, just like the sexual urges that come with it. But sexual urges you cannot control as you can choose to masturbate. But isn’t it better to masturbate than to commit adultery, which would jeopardize two people? Actually, the answer is yes, but even though masturbation relieves sexual urges temporarily, it only works to deepen sexual desire in the long run, leading to more masturbation of course. The Bible says nothing about masturbation, or that it is wrong, but I think the lesson here is that you should not fall victim to being addicted to it, and the things it usually comes along with (pornography, sexual fantasies, lustful thoughts). It has been said that “…I [Jesus] tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Obviously this can easily apply to women as well. Those are strong words coming from Jesus, especially since adultery was about the worst thing you could do in those times (on par with murder). Doesn’t that seem impossible? Who can masturbate without lust? Who can control their thoughts like that? Jesus calls us to be perfect like the Father, and alone yes it is impossible. But God does not call us to do things we can’t do, and that is the gospel, or the good news. Jesus came down to tell us how to do the impossible. He came to say that He is “the way” through which we are redeemed. So I conclude this: masturbation is not wrong, but adultery (having sex or thoughts of sex outside of marriage or with anyone not your spouse) is, and through Jesus we can overcome adultery.

What about homosexuality? I struggle with this issue because I know God loves everyone, and it makes me angry to see those using the words of God to back their hateful rhetoric towards homosexuality. But the question lies, is homosexuality God’s will or humanity’s free will; were they created this way or chosen to be this way? Can a homosexual ever truly follow in Christ? In most cases, I believe it is inherent to a person, that there actually could be a “gay gene” or the lack of a gene that tells you to feel attracted to opposite sex, or even quite possibly homosexuality could be a misinterpretation/distortion of the deep feelings of respect and admiration we do have for our brethren into feelings of love and lust. These things are out of our control, so it bothers me that God would make someone predisposed to sin. He does not, so either homosexuality is not a sin or it is not inherent at birth and is a choice and error by man. This is not a question we can answer, but that’s okay, as we don’t have to. God has it already all planned out and we can love gay people all the same. I’m not saying that you have to agree with homosexuality, but know that if gay people weren’t oppressed and hated, you wouldn’t see advocacy/awareness groups and gay pride parades, but you would see regular everyday people.

But clearly you can argue that sodomy is a sin, and there are various passages in the Bible indicating this, but for what reason? Sodomy back then was not about men loving other men, it was about humiliating soldiers on the battlefield, about disgracing a person you didn’t like. That’s what was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah (two towns God razed after seeing their wickedness) – they treated outsiders with contempt and sodomized them (yes that is where the word comes from). It’s not that they were all gay, but these were generally wicked people. It was sodomy that was being used to mistreat His children that God hates, not the people. But it also says in the Bible “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22). But doesn’t anal sex exist in this world with women as well? Technically, if we are talking vaginal intercourse, then you can’t do that with another man. Of course this could totally mean telling falsehoods out of context if the chapter wasn’t titled “Unlawful Sexual Relations.” So we can in no way say that God hates gay people. However, if marriage is the union of a man and a woman, does that mean all homosexual acts are counted as adultery? Does this mean that homosexuality is okay if they do not engage in sodomy? I don’t know.

What is sex anyway? Does oral/anal sex count? This is what I mean by, “we have taken the gift that God gave us and modified it for our own personal gratification,” for this does not please God. You could argue that this is our gift and we can do whatever we want with it, and that is true – God intended sex to be enjoyed – but it’s not sex anymore after you change it. Sex perfects a marriage; not blow jobs, not sodomy, – those are perversions. We messed up sex and these are just examples.

I don’t mean to preach like I know everything. I do know what I believe though, and it’s more than enough for me. There are so many more questions I have, now that I tried to answer just one, and I can only ask God to answer me. I see sex today as much more relaxed, more casual in the media and more nonchalant attitudes towards it. I don’t mean to sound like a prude, but one who values sex on a much deeper, more meaningful level. One could say I was putting a certain something on a pedestal, but it’s not what you think. I have God on a pedestal. My only hope is that we as a society continue to talk about sex and have discussions of sexual morality, and not let what we perceive to be truth around us lead us to lax standards of sex. Yes, it’s uncomfortable to talk about, and yes, it’s personal. However, if we don’t get over these hurdles, then how are we going to cope with these issues of morality?

You cannot grow if you are stagnant in your comfort zone. I do not preach abstinence, nor do I condone sex without God, (by which I mean without his love present). Sex perfects, so it’s natural that we seek it, but the only catch is that you are only perfected with another person, so choose carefully. If you want to know more without reading the Bible, try asking your local priest about it. Please, if you enjoyed this article, feel free to share it, and if you disagree with me, that’s fine as well. Actually if you hate what I have to say, that’s alright too, because in the end, it all comes down to what you believe. However, judgment day does seem to be right around the corner… just kidding. I would really like to talk about this with anyone, and I’m very open-minded. I want to know what Lehigh thinks.

Lehigh University was founded in 1864 as an all-male institution with the mission of molding immature high school boys into well rounded, scholarly young men ready to make their mark in their chosen field and ultimately provide for a strong, healthy family. At the time, that was Lehigh’s ultimate goal, whereas today it probably ranks somewhere behind creating the most 1. diverse, 2. tolerant, 3. politically correct campus. Then came 1971 and the admission of women into the undergraduate program – a trend that was sweeping academia nationwide. On the surface, how could anyone argue with the decision? Women were finally allowed access to a higher education. The overall intelligence of our society would surely improve.

Now Lehigh had another goal to focus on: creating the most able women who could not only excel in their fields, but, more importantly, become better mothers and wives (If this offends you, ask yourself why? Is there a more important role one can play than that of a mother?). Anyone who dissented was immediately labeled a chauvinist, intent on keeping women ignorant and “in the kitchen.” As is the case with most accusations of bigotry in the past 40 years, those voices opposed to a liberal cause are drowned out by cries of sexism, racism, or any other -ism, with the intent on smearing the individual to a point where he or she is left defending themselves and their own reputations, as opposed to expressing their opinions. This Presidential election proves you don’t even have to be a conservative to have these tactics used against you (as the Clintons used to call their opposition racists, and now the even more liberal Barack Obama campaign is using the smear tactic against the Clintons). The people who opposed opening college doors to women were not chauvinists. They were simply traditionalists who were afraid of the loosening of the strict gender roles of our society. These same people would have been perfectly happy with women being educated, yet what they were afraid of was what this education would lead to. They realized it could go one of two ways: either they would use their education to become better mothers, wives, and more functional members of society, or abandon these roles, which are, unequivocally, the most crucial responsibility of any human being.

Fortunately for America, the former was true about the decades following women’s widespread admittance into colleges. While only a few were being indoctrinated by the progressive, feminist agenda on campuses, most stuck to their strong moral and family values that their parents worked so hard to instill in them. It initially seemed as if the opposition to female acceptance into colleges was unwarranted; Americans weren’t ready to give up on the basic family structure that has been ingrained in humans’ DNA since our days as hunters and gatherers (that role being the man as the provider and protector and the woman in birth as the nurturer). As time progressed, however, the fears the early dissenters had about women’s enrollment in college began to materialize, which brings us to today.

First of all, a distinction needs to be made between the women entering college today and in the 1970′s. The most important characteristic is the vast increase in the number of women choosing to attend college. This alone magnifies the impact that colleges’ stance on gender has on society as a whole. Where it used to be true that only a small percentage of women were exposed to liberal and feminist “enlightened” views, now almost all women are lucky enough to hear about how the family holds them back or they don’t have to have children to live a fulfilling life.

Another important distinction is that now almost all mediocre to highly intelligent girls go on to college. College used to be a lifestyle decision for women; either a girl was happy marrying and starting a family like most women throughout history, or she wanted to become a professional. This change is both the most understated and most important difference between women’s college enrollment now and then, and is the main reason why the focus of female education needs to be altered across America. Whereas the very entrance into college was the decision, now the most important decision in women’s lives takes place during and after college, and is greatly influenced by the gender attitude on campus. This decision is not a simply A. marriage and family, or B. job; it is more like a scale with each life-choice on opposing ends. However, the scale is not naturally balanced; much more must be placed in the family side just to keep it afloat, and there aren’t an unlimited amount of weights (i.e. time and commitment). Much more time, energy, patience, and commitment must be placed on the family side relative to other options. Simply put, there is just something about the family that can’t be analyzed, can’t be explained; something so natural and fulfilling that it crops up across the globe, across cultures, even across time; if it weren’t, from a purely economic sense it wouldn’t exist.

No one understood the family better than the greatest leader of the past 100 years, Ronald Reagan, who said, “The family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms.” Thousands of years of male-female interaction have provided us with the perfect blueprint for the role of each gender, yet similar to most progressive ideas, time-tested experience and historical understanding is no match for the concoctions of a few PhD collecting, intellectual liberals. What can Lehigh and campuses across the country do about this trend in order to preserve America’s backbone and greatest asset, the American family? Well, in the authoritarian politically correct climate most campuses foster, her hands are surely tied.

Just for an instant, imagine that there was a slightly different emphasis in women’s studies from that of men. Everything from our appearances, anatomies, and interests are so different, is it such a stretch to suggest men and women generally have a separate set of skills? Standardized tests certainly seem to back this theory up. Liberals on campuses love to preach about openness and understanding; just go to the UC and look at the hall of tolerance. Yet when an idea that favors a more traditional approach to subjects such as gender roles or each sex’s strengths is set forth, the response is anything but one of understanding and tolerance. Consider the events involving Harvard President Lawrence Summers. This was no average Joe talking; a brief list of his accomplishments should quickly establish his credibility: Managing Director of D.E Shaw & Co, Chief Economist of the World Bank, and Secretary of the Treasury. Summers had the nerve to propose an explanation other then the innate sexism of our society to explain the lack of women in high-end science and engineering positions. He said “innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers.” Immediate red flags: an attempt to explain a group’s position other then bigotry of mainstream America; how dare he. Nothing could have ignited the feminists in attendance like a well-thought-out, scientifically backed assertion. MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins walked out on the lecture, later saying that if she hadn’t left, ”I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.” Not exactly the ideal reaction when your main case is the lack of biological difference between men and women. The purpose of this section is in no way to suggest that women are, in fact, less able in any non-physical activity then men. The reason this section has been included is to show the complete unwillingness of academia to treat, or even suggest treating men and women differently in any imaginable way. Getting through this barrier is the first step in saving the gender roles that have structured the American Family for generations.

What can campuses do to preserve our way of life for future generations? The first step is to change the atmosphere toward the family on campuses. Expressing to women that taking the corporate route is an option that one can elect to follow, and not necessarily an end-all, be-all life goal. Important to this teaching is making sure women are aware of the ramifications of their choice. Most girls are oblivious of the nature of this decision; many women get caught up in their professions, ignore their biological clocks, and by the time they realize the implications of their social disconnect, they are no longer attractive mates and potential mothers in the eyes of most desirable men. They are left turning to dating websites, searching for divorced men, or are left settling for a man simply because he will have her. All three are better than the final realization that they will never have family, and the emptiness and depression that follow.

A class dealing with these issues would be ideal for freshman girls. It would not be taught by some “girl power”, family-structure-hating feminist, but by a happily married mother. The class could focus on issues dealing with the importance of a family; such as the effects of raising a child in a single parent home (statistics like college attendance, crime, suicide, joining gangs, etc.), how unmarried men are responsible for almost all the crimes committed in America, the effects of having children later in life, etc. An optional follow-up course should be offered helping women with issues such as family planning (as in having a family, not stopping one), buying a house, child nutrition, and (brace yourself) the most effective methods of caring for her husband and children. Classes like these would enrich women and society as a whole significantly, as opposed to classes other groups have proposed; such as the mandatory diversity acceptance classes put forth by multicultural organizations. Taking into account Lehigh’s current views, which of these proposals would more likely become mandatory? Most colleges would rather have a woman be able to sensitively communicate with an intersex, Hispanic, or Muslim than understand and be ready for her role as a mother and wife.

The intent of this article is not to demean women or to suggest they should not go to college; it is merely to point out the decaying of our nation’s greatest institution. Undoubtedly, the quickest path to the breakdown of our society is the deterioration of the family, and any action that stalls or reverses the process should at least be considered. If there is one thing that I have learned as an Economics major at Lehigh, is that there are consequences for every action and decision, both positive and negative. Far too often, we look at the short-term positives, completely ignoring the long-term consequences; we have become quite a live-for-the-moment culture. All I can ask is that along with celebrating the positives of women entering the workforce, like rejoicing when the statistics come that “female employment in so-and-so field rises x%,” we can acknowledge the effect this has on the long-term stability of our culture and on the children we raise. (Imagine picking up the NY Times and reading “white-male employment in X field soars.” It would probably be followed with “…and what we can do to combat this alarming trend”). There can be no debate if only one side is presented; a crowning achievement of the feminist movement in the past 20 to 30 years. The debate needs to be re-opened. Not the debate about women’s entrance into college; no one could make a convincing argument denying entry. However, people need to be allowed to freely express their anti-feminist, pro-family views about the irreplaceable role women play in the family, and how high-pressure, high-responsibility jobs undermine these roles. If there was such an environment on college campuses today, with a free market of ideas flowing from all perspectives, this article wouldn’t sound quite so extreme.

Around lunchtime one day back in February I wandered into the Lower UC as I would any other day. I was somewhat engrossed in my own thoughts as I walked over to the silverware and tray stand. Here I was confronted with a student, standing guard over the tray stand. “It’s No Tray Day,” he proudly proclaimed, convinced that his message was one of ultimate truth and importance, and pointed to the sign on an easel, written in chalk, as if I was a bad person for even having walked over to the tray stand. He then launched into a lengthy diatribe on the purpose and benefits of No Tray Day, at which point, despite the nuisance, I was more hungry than interested in debating someone on the pros and cons of not permitting the use of trays to fellow lunch-goers.

All students that went to lunch at Rathbone or the Lower UC experienced the zealous promoters of No Tray Day. Most students, however, cannot recall the particulars of why trays were not allowed, but do remember that day as one of special inconvenience. To the best of my knowledge, I understand that trays were not to be allowed in order to reduce excess consumption of food. The theory behind this was that, if students do not have a tray, their food-carrying capacity is reduced and thus the student will have to be more conscious of what they take off of the serving dishes in the first place. This assumes that, because a student has a tray, he or she will take more food, which is a questionable assumption at best. A standard Lehigh lunch tray can barely fit two large plates on it as is and it is unusual to see this arrangement on a tray. For most students, a tray is a convenient means of carrying silverware, a plate, and a beverage. Another small plate could potentially fit on the tray, but other than that, students must go back in order to pick up additional food. The vast majority of students know how much they want to eat and don’t need to be watched in order to make sure they take appropriate servings.

No Tray Day’s purpose was to reduce wasted food and combat wasteful behaviors in general. It was highly ineffective at achieving this goal. If Lehigh students are especially concerned and committed to reducing waste, perhaps there are more efficient methods to go about this. The take-out dining option alone produces a significant amount of waste. Styrofoam is a material that does not decompose with time and simply sits in landfills. In addition, the Styrofoam is in boxy shapes that take up a lot of space in trash cans, filling them faster than would ordinary waste. Many universities simply do not have take-out as an alternative to eating in the cafeteria. If Lehigh students are serious about reducing waste, they need to stop with gimmicks such as No Tray Day and put their focus where the waste is really happening.

I am now a registered Democrat. There is a sentence I thought I would never say. However, this year, with the GOP nomination already decided and the Democratic race in hot contention, I decided to switch. As a Pennsylvania voter, I have a unique opportunity to make my primary vote count, even if it is not in my party of choice. Most of you know that, by the time a Presidential primary reaches Pennsylvania, the nomination is always well in hand, if not clinched already. This year, Pennsylvania is pivotal in the closest and most exciting primary battle in decades. (Incidentally, it is ironic to me that the one state that did not move up their primary this year to “have their votes count” is now the state with the most influence. Pennsylvania now has 6 weeks with the candidates all to itself; no other state in the picture, but that is another topic.) Some would say it is unethical to switch parties simply to influence the other party’s primary. I dismiss this as both untrue and irrelevant. This assertion is irrelevant because legally I can do it. It is untrue because I have a right to vote. I have a right to express my vote in whichever way I choose to elect the person I want. In this Presidential election, I want to get John McCain elected. Therefore, I will be casting my primary vote against Barack Obama. Yes, that does mean that on April 22 I will actually enter a voting booth, close the curtain, and pull the lever for Hillary Clinton. Then my goal will be to make it to the restroom before vomiting. Voting for Hillary is something I see as a necessary evil in order to get Senator McCain elected President. There are three main reasons why I will be voting for Hillary.

She will be easier to beat in the general election than Barack Obama. This is true for many reasons. The first is that the Democratic Party will be more deeply divided. Barack Obama is in the lead at the moment, and this nomination will almost certainly be decided at convention. The only foreseeable way for Hillary to win the nomination at that point is if the super-delegates vote for her by a wide margin. Blacks are currently voting for Barack Obama at a rate of 10 to 1. Being that Barack is the first black man with a legitimate shot at winning the Presidency, if he lost the nomination at convention, right or wrong it would be seen as racism. They would see it as the establishment once again screwing the black community. Many blacks would be incredibly angry at the Democratic Party and the Clintons. Even if they did not vote for John McCain, it would give McCain an easy win in November.

The Democrats have exactly zero chance to win without the black vote, which they have had in their hip pockets for a generation. Young people are voting for Barack by a 2 to 1 margin. This is the first candidate most young voters have ever been excited about, and his losing could quite possibly turn them off to politics forever. How amazing would that be? Hopefully they would at least stay away long enough to grow a brain and become conservatives. Also, half the country absolutely loathes Hillary Clinton. That half of the country would be energized to stop her from getting elected. That would provide John McCain with a much-needed base and voting bloc. Again, it would be easier to beat Hillary. For some reason, people seem to be in love with Barack Obama even though they know nothing about him. That’s scary. All these theories are confirmed by the latest polls, which show McCain running about 10 points better against Hillary. I would say he would be favored against Hillary and an underdog against Obama. It is essential that she win the nomination.

Even if Hillary does not win the nomination in the end, the closer it is the better. The more infighting that occurs within the Democratic Party, the better it is for the Republicans. The Democrats will trash each other while Senator McCain gets a free pass. Also, Senator McCain gets to raise money while the Democrats spend it. Hillary and Barack are set to spend about $100 million in Pennsylvania. During that time Senator McCain will raise about $50 million. That $150 million swing is an incredible advantage when it comes to the general election. Also, after the nominations become official at convention, the candidates are subject to federal spending limits. This will create an even bigger money advantage for the Republicans. In a down year for the party, this advantage is crucial to victory.

The last reason Hillary should be nominated is that she would be a better President. The bottom line is that if I had to choose between Barack and Hillary, I would be forced to choose Hillary. She is less liberal, less scary, and more qualified. Barack Obama is the most liberal Senator in the United States. Hillary is ranked somewhere in the teens. Could you imagine if we actually elected the most liberal U.S. Senator President? That would be a horrific error. We always talk about the lunatic liberal fringe and how they are so far off the deep end. Now imagine if we put those loonies in the White House. Barack Obama is part of the liberal fringe, my friends. No one realizes this because he screams “change” and Chris Matthews “got shivers on his leg.” No one ever actually researched his positions or his record. He is a media darling. It is impossible to even predict what this man would do if he got into office. That is a risk we cannot take. The damage to this country could be irreparable. The best conservatives have been able to attain in recent decades is slowing the progress of liberalism. We have never been able to roll it back.

For all these reasons and many more, Hillary must win or at least closely contest the nomination. I encourage all Republicans to make their vote count and switch parties. It is also imperative that you vote for Hillary, not Barack. Do not be blinded to the liberalism of Obama by your hatred for the Clintons. You can switch parties up until March 24. The Pennsylvania primary is on April 22. Let’s deliver the state and nomination to Hillary and, in the process, put a conservative that much closer to the White House for another four years. We are only one vote away from a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, after all.

Sam Wechsler, ’08, is a soft-spoken person. You’d be surprised to learn that, at his command, is an organization that I have previously described as being the most dangerous near-paramilitary group on campus, the Progressive Student Alliance. The PSA, known for their occasionally fringe-level activism, is planning to march a mock wooden coffin from the Maginnes political science building to the Stabler Observation Tower at Iacocca Hall, to symbolize the cumulative American and Iraqi death toll, on the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

Naturally, I was drawn to such a story. A coffin? Clearly, the symbolism made sense, but why even bother? Protests, like many long-standing traditions of the American left, have a habit of getting out of hand. Motives start innocently enough, but the consequences are what make front-page news. My concern centers around the fact that the consequences aren’t typically rally cries of support or newfound unity in a cause. Rather, someone typically gets hit with too much tear gas, or the fire hose pressure is a bit too high, and someone screams another classic battle cry of the militant left, hate crime!

What I found to be most refreshing was Wechsler’s attitude toward the whole affair. Rather than galvanizing himself in a position, donning the classic pin collection of upside-down American flags and other anti-establishment paraphernalia, and calling for direct and immediate action, he stated that, “Things take time. Up and out might not be the best strategy for pulling out of Iraq. Ending a war takes time, beginning a war takes time. What our goal is is to symbolize casualties that happened throughout the occupation of Iraq.”

So, why bother with the coffin? “It’s not like it’s completely like, gory. I don’t think it would be that shocking. It’s to bring back awareness,” said Wechsler. “…when people see the actions of others doing things like this, then they may want to participate in it themselves. And eventually you …get more people to participate, and it’s kind of a snowball effect, and that’ll carry – it can carry, all the way to the White House or Washington or whatever,” said Wechsler.

Aside from my immediate apprehension with regard to the notion of anything the left produces “snowballing,” the truth is that a coffin is nothing that the generation of overtly sexualized music and blood-smeared profane television and film couldn’t handle.

Though, if it were merely the act of a funeral procession that concerned me, there would be very little to be concerned about at all. The left would be supportive, and the right would be critical, and neither would likely incur any pragmatic visionary degree of change. Rather, such an act would merely bolster the confidences of both sides of whatever factor of the Iraq war is brought to question.

While I’d like to believe that such a march could remain peaceful, factors that Wechsler clarified lead me to muse otherwise. “We haven’t really planned dress or chants. That might happen; that might not happen. I don’t know,” said Wechsler. Such planned facets could drastically alter the nature of such an event, if properly leveraged. Yet again, my fear of discreet PSA uprising was quelled, when I began to draw comparisons to the ill-fated Diversity Signs project, which was deployed onto the lawn of the University Center last spring.

These signs, with phrases such as, “She looks like a whore,” and “You reek of Jew,” aside from crafting new bigotry that I never believed to be possible (how does one “reek” of Jew?), really only highlighted the overemphasis on false diversity that certain members of the community have been trying to push on the student body for several years now. Likewise, such a project was visually offensive, and likely distraught the visitors, one of which remarked that such signs only heighten the likelihood of latent anti-Semitism.

Said Wechsler, “They certainly invoke thought, and that’s one of our goals – to invoke thought in a person. They would probably be about as effective, however, we’re not writing things like ‘whore’ or ‘Jew,’” I followed up with the obvious: was he offended? “I was not offended by them, no,” noted Wechsler. “It depends on the people that are coming it see it, there are people who might be offended, and there are those who might think it’s funny. I would not support it if someone was seriously offended by it. If there were people that would go to whoever created it, and [the protesting group] kept it up, I would not support that. However, if people just see it and think it’s interesting and it provokes thought, then I think that it may be appropriate to do something like that. So, that’s – I guess there’s a thin line there.”

After speaking with Wechsler, I’ve come to the conclusion that he, like his organization, remains classically left of center. Motives or beliefs about the end of the Iraq War aside, his use of the verb “occupation” to describe the U.S. military presence in Iraq is disheartening and subjective. Likewise, I still cannot completely comprehend the logic of marching around campus with a coffin – I see it as being gently playful, almost absurd. It’s the sort of thing that one sees in bad music-television adaptations, and while I see his symbolism and his logic behind the mentality driving the coffin protest to fruition, I’m struck by the fact that students participating in this march, or witness to this march may not entirely find this demonstration very innocent, or may be offended, had they recently lost a loved one in Iraq. They may even see it as I do, and find it mildly amusing.

Protests are a holdover from the primitive student activism of the nineteen sixties. Even Wechsler agrees, stating, “A lot has changed since then, too, especially with the advent of the internet. Maybe some of those things don’t work so well.” Wechsler isn’t quick to make any draws between Vietnam and Iraq, which I find to be both admirable and intelligent, nor was he quick to exploit any of my questions for the purpose of furthering some browbeaten, oft-dismissed, debatable point of contention, such as the questions underlying the initial invasion of Iraq.

In my considerations, protests have never had a very high level of admiration. We have the God-given gifts of speech, of reason, and of basic communication skills. As a child, if you weren’t satisfied with the way that things went, and you approached your guardians, were you more successful when you articulated your grievances in a rational, calm manner, or when you threw things at them and yelled over top of them in a futile attempt to impose your will upon them?

The highest irony that I see is that liberals gush for protests because they see it as the apex of a means to an end. Yet, in reality, the large-scale government wrapped like a Christmas present in red tape and inaccessible to the common man is the very product that they seek to create. They won’t say this outright, but by undertaking the responsibilities of medicine, or law, or in the case of Pennsylvania, the liquor control board (and an entire market share monopolized with no reason), the government will consistently find a way to bungle management and alienate the aforementioned common man by their usurpation of power in a particular industry.

Furthermore, protesters often point fingers at the radical marches of the 1960s. They state that the civil rights movement would never have occurred, had protesters not marched upon Washington and Selma and Montgomery, and anywhere else that we’ve had branded on our frontal lobes by the American left during our primary school “social studies” courses. I truly do not believe that racism is overcome by demonstrations. Consider that the American Asian population has incurred much of the same denigration that the American Hispanic and African-American population has similarly encountered. Yet, we have very few examples of Asian uprisings in boroughs of New York City and otherwise. Why? I believe that this fact is explained by culture. The Asian population had it right – wait it out, let it pass, and prove the inequities of bigotry by behaving in a manner that has more, not less class than the elite who disenfranchise them.

People have a natural aversion to the appropriate channels of communication. They have predefined notions of the way the system should work, and when they encounter a single roadblock, they chalk this up to rationalize a protest. Ultimately, protests hinder progress, impede other neutral entities’ abilities to carry on their lives, and anger those whose lives are disrupted by them.

This planned protest seems manageable enough, particularly when contrasted to some of the direct activism that takes place at universities such as Columbia, Emerson, or Vassar. Yet, as stated before, it’s not the message that makes it into the news; it’s the consequences of that message. Will Lehigh embrace reason, or bury it altogether?

Don’t have sex; you will get depressed, and you will die. Or you’re sure to contract an STD or two, and consequently die. This may seem like an eccentric claim, but parents and abstinence advocacy groups are pushing for a revision in sex education in elementary and middle schools that would make such teachings routine. Fueling the ado are the disconcerting findings of several recent psychological studies. These studies have identified adolescents’ sexual activity as a direct precursor to increased levels of depression. Such begs the question, is sex increasing your likelihood of depression?

The short answer? Yes, if you are a teenage female. And for guys? No. For males it’s binge drinking and habitual marijuana use that lead to higher levels of depression.

Don’t believe it? Well, it’s the conclusion of one recent, leading study (1). This article will review those findings, briefly examining both facts and possible reasons.

In the mid-1990s the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, along with seventeen other federal agencies, funded the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health. It was the largest, most comprehensive survey of adolescents ever taken. It took the form of two interviews, cited as Waves I and II. The study sample included over 13,000 youths, grades 7 to 11, who after the first interview were classified into groups based on the level of risk of their current lifestyle. All the conclusions published were controlled for race, age, and family income. So dismissing the findings as a statistical fluke or being due to other variables is unjustified, unless you are especially prone to ignoring reality.

The facts culled from the study are as follows. Abstainers, (those individuals who choose not to partake in sex, drugs, or drinking), comprised 25% of the survey subjects. Out of these students about 4% were classified as depressed in Wave I. When re-interviewed a year later in Wave II, the individuals comprising this 4% had not gone on to experiment with drugs or sex. Thus initial depression was in no way foretelling of self-medication by means of high-risk behavior.

For those who were classified in Wave I as “experimenters,” the study revealed girls who drank were over two times more likely to be depressed than abstainers, with a depression rate of 8-10%. Girls who experimented with sex were three times more likely to be depressed, with a 12% depression rate. Their experimenting male counterparts, on the other hand, did not show higher levels of depression compared to the abstainers.

Furthermore, a satellite study conducted by The Heritage Foundation found that 25.3% of sexually active girls reported feeling depressed “all, most, or a lot of the time,” whereas 7.7% of girls who were not sexually active felt the same. In line with this trend, depression rates rise in girls who have multiple sex partners to an alarming 44%. This Heritage Foundation study, which utilized data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, was designed to examine suicide rates as well. They, in turn, found that about 14% of girls who have had intercourse have attempted suicide, while only 5% of sexually inactive girls have. Similarly, about 6% of sexually active boys have attempted suicide, while less than 1% of sexually inactive boys have.

Common to both studies’ findings was the transcending theme that, “sex and drug behavior predicted an increased likelihood of depression, but [as exemplified by the depressed abstainers] depression did not predict [such] behavior. Among girls, both experimental and high-risk behavior patterns predicted depression.” (1d)

But what about the gender difference? Why do the percentages vary so much between the sexes, and for that matter, why should they vary at all? Psychologists have related that, “the studies’ findings are consistent with existing theoretical perspectives that suggest girls’ greater interpersonal sensitivity contributes to higher levels of interpersonal stress during adolescence. Therefore, the greater exposure to stress due to risky behavior, as well as girls’ more negative reactivity to interpersonal stressors, may partially account for demonstrated gender differences in rates of depression” (2). Relating to this view is the fact that girls who engaged in the high risk behavior of having sex for drugs or money were less likely to be depressed in Wave II than those who had multiple sex partners just for fun, (2.71 and 10.9 odds ratios, respectively). Dr. Meg Meeker, a specialist in adolescent medicine, explains that, “teenage sexual activity routinely leads to emotional turmoil and psychological distress. [Sexual permissiveness leads] to empty relationships, to feelings of self-contempt and worthlessness. All, of course, precursors to depression” (5). So it is appropriate that when sex can be justified as a job, and not just an empty relationship, girls seem perfectly capable of dismissing their promiscuous actions. Apparently able to turn off their instinctive “greater interpersonal sensitivity,” girls who have sex in exchange for money or drugs manage to preserve their feelings of self-contempt and worth, and thus, like guys, have fewer regrets about it later.

It should be noted, however, that neither the studies mentioned nor this article are averring that guys are unemotional clods compared to girls. Nay, take heart; a second (3) and third (4) study show that guys’ depression rates increase by 2.5% with 5 or more sexual partners, and as mentioned above there are increased rates of suicide attempts in sexually active compared to sexually inactive males.

These studies have shed some new light on the long observed correlation between individuals’ involvement in sex, drugs, and alcohol and the occurrence of depression. While this correlation was often assumed to be an attempt by the depressed to self-medicate, an analysis of the data collected shows the reverse as more likely to be true. Future research is needed to better understand the mechanisms of the relationship between adolescent behavior and depression, and to determine whether interventions to stop risky behaviors and a conservative reform of schools’ sex-education programs will reduce the risk of later depression.

Teens’ families could also get involved in the process. When faced with a depressed, sexually active teen, adults commonly excuse sexual behavior or drug use with the hope that it will cease once the depression has. Now, according to these studies, it appears likely that such a hope will ultimately be in vain. Also, parents rarely neglect to protect their children physically, preaching at an early age habits and rules to keep their children out of physical harm (“Always look both ways before crossing the street,” “Wear your helmet when biking,” “You’re not going outside without a coat on!”), but what about the emotional needs of children? Emotional scars, although intangible, are often longer-lived and deeper-cutting than a scrape on the knee. A failure to ingrain a sense of self-worth or watch for reckless behavior could have dismal repercussions in later years.

It is undeniable that our generation is a liberated one. Technologically savvy and pushing back the frontiers of human freedom, with access to the world at every waking moment via the Internet and television, youth are clearly growing up faster. And yet, it is somewhat depressing that this modernity has not served to make us wholly happier. But then, this growing up too quickly, making risky decisions, and getting depressed couldn’t happen to you, right? Or to your younger brothers or sisters? And if you choose to have children, it definitely won’t happen to them either. If that’s the case, let’s hope they have a good sex-ed teacher.

This article was written in collaboration with Dr. Keith Schray

References.

1. a. D. Halifors, et al. The American Journal of Preventative Medicine 29, 163-170 (2005) and b. Walter, M. et al. Archives of Women’s Mental Health 9, 139-150 (2006). For reviews in the general literature see c. W. Throckmorton, The Washington Times, Dec. 12-18, 2005 and d. www.pire.org/print.asp?detayl=y&core=17603
2. C. DeFranco, NeuroPsychiatry Reviews 6, December, 2005 (www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/dec05/adolescentdepression.html)
3. R. Rector, et al www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda0304.cfm and a general literature review in USA Today, www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-06-03-teen-usat_x.htm
4. E. Kosunen, et al. Child: Care, Health, and Development 29, 337-344 (2003).
5. M. Meeker, Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids. Regnery Publishing Co. 2002, p. 12.

“Lehigh Men Are Vegetarians!” proclaimed the headline. It was in my early days as a Lehigh student, somewhere in the Paleozoic era, and the headline was for a letter to the editor in The Brown and White. A Lehigh coed had just fired the first shot. It wasn’t exactly the Shot Heard Around the World, but it was certainly heard (and read) around Lehigh. The shot was a complaint about Lehigh men; in particular about how they always moan about not having enough women at Lehigh and at the same time ignore the ones who are here! The men were good at complaining, but never seemed to get around to asking the women out on dates. Lehigh men might claim to like meat, but they were really vegetarians.

As you can imagine it didn’t take long before the men fired back and then the women returned the volley. For a while, the letters page of the B&W was starting to look like the Battle of Gettysburg. It was jolly good fun. Both sides eventually got tired and the campus settled back into its normal quiet routine, but a lingering question remained: what was the underlying cause of this conflict? Were Lehigh men just wimps or did Lehigh women have unreasonable expectations of them? It’s a difficult question and to answer it fully would take many more words than I have available in this article. So let me just try to scratch the surface and perhaps provoke some further discussion. One warning – I realize that some of you are going to be offended by what I have to say, but I would encourage you to read on anyway. We all occasionally need to read some things that offend us in order to challenge our beliefs. Sometimes this results in a change of mind and sometimes it simply confirms what we already knew. In any case, it’s worth the effort.

For decades, Americans have been bombarded with a message that has sunk into our collective mind. We watch it on television, read it in books, and hear it in classes. It’s been repeated enough times that many just take it for granted – the message is this: that men and women are the same. Not just equal under the law, which has been true in Western societies for a long time. Not just equal in talents and abilities. Not just equal in honor and dignity, but, except for a few unimportant biological and anatomical differences, men and women are interchangeable. Or if there are some apparent differences between them, they’re due to societal conditioning and not to any fundamental distinctions.

This is all well and good except for one thing: it’s not true! It’s a misconception that has caused much confusion in our society and has contributed to innumerable conflicts, including the battle of the sexes on the B&W letters page. Men and women get into scrapes in part because they don’t understand what makes them different.

Pop-psychology writers like John Gray (with his Mars and Venus series of books) have provided some worthwhile insights into the differences in the way men and women communicate, but what I’m talking about runs much deeper. It goes to the core of what masculinity and femininity are about. Far from being just social conventions, these distinctions are at the core of what makes the universe tick.

Medieval Scholar, novelist, and apologist C. S. Lewis once said that God is so masculine that by comparison the entire creation is feminine. Why is this so? Because the essence of masculinity is to initiate and the essence of femininity is to respond and God is the Great Initiator to whom the entire creation responds.

Author and speaker Elisabeth Elliot calls this the “glorious harmony of differences”: leading and following, operating and co-operating, initiating and responding, ebb and flow, protecting and nurturing1. It’s one of the basic principles upon which the world functions and it applies at different levels including the relations between man and woman.

The most obvious place where these distinctions play out is in the family where the man is a father and the woman is a mother, two distinct, non-interchangeable roles. The father’s primary responsibility is to provide for and protect the family where the mother’s primary responsibility is to cooperate with the father and nuture the children. Does this mean that mothers should never make money? Not necessarily, it’s just not her primary area of responsibility. The righteous woman of Proverbs 31 certainly engages in commerce. Should fathers be cold and unfeeling toward their children? Of course not, even if the nurture of the children is primarily in the mother’s sphere.

Men and women, both being rebellious sinners tend to reject their responsibilities. Men tend to be lazy and abdicate their responsibility to initiate, protect, and defend. Why not send the women to war so they can fight the enemy and sometimes be killed (or worse) while we sit at home, guzzle beer and watch ESPN? Take time to discipline our children? Let their mother do it; I’m already late for my golf game. And, God forbid, we should be asked to take responsibility for a child that we hadn’t planned on fathering. It’s much easier to send the little woman to the abortionist with a few hundred dollars and get that little problem taken care of.

Women almost always instinctively understand the responsibilities mentioned above. Most women in a time of danger would protect their children without a moment’s thought, even in the face of their own death. Instead, woman’s sinful inclination is to try to usurp the leadership responsibilities of man. Who needs them? Men are lazy and irresponsible anyway, right? Or, as the bumper sticker says “Women need men like fish need bicycles.”

The truth, of course, is just the opposite. Men and women always have been and always will be mutually dependent. After all, we’re created that way; there’s just no avoiding it.

So what about our dust-up on the letters page? Are Lehigh men really vegetarians? Not really, but perhaps some are a bit confused about what it means to be a man. That’s not too surprising, given the level of confusion on this topic in our society.

So men, take the initiative! Ask the women out. Don’t be wimps and wait for them to ask you (and yes, getting them to drop not so subtle hints is the same thing as asking you). And when you do go out, show them the proper respect. That includes not asking for things you have no right to ask for.

And women, when one of the men asks you out and he’s not exactly your idea of a Justin Timberlake clone, remember that this isn’t a marriage proposal, it’s a movie and a soda at the Hawk’s Nest. Also, remember that he thinks enough of you that he just did something fairly difficult. Finally ladies, show the man some respect and give him the opportunity to exercise his responsibilities as a man. I’m sure you’ll be happy you did.

Editor’s Note: James Femister will return next month with a humorous look at internet dating and self-perception

References:

1. Elisabeth Elliot, A Harmony of Differences: Real Men and Real Women, Ligonier Ministries, 1991

Valentine’s Day means that, for many colleges, sex will be front and center. Lehigh, like many colleges and universities across the country, had a full slate. The sexual celebration started off relatively slowly. The sexiness was heightened the Friday before Valentine’s Day, however, when the Dirty Drown Writer’s Series was showcased by the university. The ad for the series gushed, “Join us for salacious scintillating stories of licentious lustful lewd lechery!” How charming.

Things really started heating up the week of Valentine’s Day. On Tuesday, February 12, “All are welcome!” to attend a question and answer session on sex at an event that was dubbed “Ask the Sexperts!” At the event, “A panel of experts will host a lively discussion and answer ANY questions you may have about SEX” (emphasis in the original ad). As with the Dirty Drown Writer’s Series, this event shows the lack of sexual bashfulness at the modern university.

On Wednesday, the day before Valentine’s Day, the university encouraged all students to bring their “partner or friend” to the Health Center to take their free STD/HIV tests. Also, all throughout the week and a half leading up to Valentine’s Day students could visit the University Health Center, and “For just $1, buy your Valentine a condom rose or a love pop (condom lollipop)!” With all the university-sponsored sex priming, these tests and trinkets may have been particularly necessary in the decision-making process of the big day.

It is degrading that the university expects us to gratify our every sexual desire. The attitude that we college students cannot help ourselves, that we have no self-control, and that we are so sexually depraved that we need the university to protect us and that we want it to help stimulate us is belittling. I would hope that most college students are adult enough to make wise decisions and moral enough to make right ones, and I would hope that the university would support both. Sadly, that is not the case.

The climax of this Lehigh sexual extravaganza, of course, was the Vagina Monologues. The Vagina Monologues is the Women’s Center sponsored theatrical performance that frees women from the male and sexual oppression they have faced throughout history by allowing them to monologue on their most feminine sexual organ. This is such a popular event that it was held two nights in a row, opening on February 16 with an encore performance on February 17, in one of the largest venues on campus. Lehigh students, faculty, and staff could view these liberating sexual diatribes for $7. However, “Vagina Loving Patrons” could pay $25 and receive “[the] best seats in-house, [a] t-shirt, [a] goodie bag, and [a] dessert reception.” Proceeds from this most sexually titillating event went to the Turning Point of the Lehigh Valley, a non-profit organization that deals with domestic violence. It is the hope of all involved that by drawing attention to the exact place that has caused women to be so objectified over the years that they can reduce the objectification of women.

The only well advertised event that dealt with the romantic rather than the sexual was not even sponsored by the university. The Goose hosted the first ever Valentine’s Day Dinner on February 14 and 15. This ticketed affair allowed couples to enjoy a pleasant Valentine’s Dinner together.

Lehigh’s Valentine’s Week Bash is mere child’s play, however, when compared to another school’s much more prolific lewd lineup. Lehigh is known as one of the “baby-Ivy” schools. In keeping with that theme Yale University made sure that Lehigh is also the home of “baby sex.”

During a bi-annual, 9-day sexual extravaganza aptly named “Sex Week,” Yale hosted events such as “The Female Orgasm” and “The Business of Pornography: How Vivid Made it Mainstream.” In fact, Vivid was honored with an entire day’s worth of events, including a Q&A with two Vivid models (the advertisement assures us that “Yes, there will be a screening”).

According to the event’s official website, “Sex Week is an interdisciplinary sex education program designed to pique students’ interest through creative, interactive, and exciting programming.”

Beyond that there is no agenda. They say that “There is no ideology behind Sex Week. Its mission is simple: present students with a range of perspectives about sexuality to get them talking, so that they can begin to reconcile serious issues of love, sex, and relationships in their lives. Let the discussion begin.”

I guess that by allowing a religious pornography counselor to appear in “The Great Porn Debate” alongside a porn star and by offering events such as “God and Sex” that they do allow for diversity of opinion in this blatant sexfest. However, it is hard to maintain a level of ideological neutrality when the main sponsor of the week’s events is Pure Romance, a sex toy company, and the only other recognized sponsor is Vivid Entertainment, the porn company that one of the week’s own events boasts made porn mainstream.

To help advertise the week’s events, the organizers produced a magazine, which can be viewed on their website. However, before proceeding to the contents of the magazine, the reader is greeted with this message: “WARNING: Some of the content in this section of the site may not be suitable for visitors under the age of 18. If you are under 18, please click HERE to exit.” After choosing to view the magazine in either PDF or plain text format you can peruse such articles as “The Hottest Porn Star We’ve Ever Interviewed” and “Thinking Outside Her Box: A Primer on Sexual Cliteracy.”

Surely to the delight of the organizers, the week was amply covered by the media. Yale Daily News, the nation’s oldest college daily newspaper, had at least 11 articles or opinion pieces about the events, and Nightline ABC videotaped “The Great Porn Debate.”

However, most of the media scrutiny centered on the screening of a violent porn movie. According to a Yale Daily News article, the event’s hosts invited porn director Paul Thomas to screen a pornographic movie. They also decided NOT to pre-screen the movie. It turns out the fantasy rape scene portrayed in the movie was too much even for these hardened sex educators. The movie was stopped mid-showing.

During the question-and-answer time that followed, however, Sex Week coordinator Colin Adamo “described the images as sexually unhealthy and disrespectful to women.” “Thomas’ response [to Adam] insinuated that he was a prude and just needed to watch more porn.” Despite the reservations of some Sex Week organizers, “Sex Week Director Joe Citarella ’08 said he thinks the event was positive overall because it gave people the opportunity to speak out against violent pornography and the effect it can have on the public’s conception of women.” Somehow inviting a porn seller to come show porn seems like a bad way to discourage porn viewing.

As can be imagined not all of the reactions to the week were positive. Two women wrote into Yale Daily News decrying the week’s events. In the article, the women pointed out that advertising sex in a glamorized, pornographic way focuses attention on the physical. This leaves women with less-than-stellar bodies feeling inadequate, and it tricks guys and girls alike into seeking perfect sexual satisfaction every time.

Victoria Wild, director of public relations for Sex Week, responded to their concerns thusly: “Reading Virginia Calkins and Callie Lowenstein’s article ‘Sex Week at Yale promotes hypocritical image’ (2/13), it is clear to me that they have not yet had the pleasure of attending any of our events. While they make a valid point that our advertising is sexy and catchy, it certainly has not deterred a large and extremely diverse group of students from showing up to our events. I would venture to say that the diversity I witnessed at these events is greater than at any other event I’ve seen on campus.”

Now there is a comforting thought: Ms. Wild is pleased by the massive attendance at these crude events. Her basic message is that there is nothing like shocking sex to bring a diverse campus together. That sure speaks volumes about our most highly educated citizens. They need flashy sexual charades and pornography to get them to attend university-sponsored educational events. It is a shame they require such explicit sexual perversions to learn about proper love, relationships, and sex.

Despite her reveling in the gratifyingly high attendance, though, Ms. Wild fails to really address the concerns of Ms. Calkins and Ms. Lowenstein. Thankfully, we are told by a Yale Daily News article, their concerns for female body image were assuaged by another Sex Week gem. The article describes how the “Yale Lingerie Show – one of the most popular events in past Sex Weeks -” allows women to feel better about their bodies. As they say “The Lingerie Show is also sending a very powerful message about body image. [Two event organizers] have both continued to stress the fact that this show will teach people to be comfortable with their bodies – both the models and the audience. [An event organizer] said that they did not cast anyone based on body type, shape, or size.” Have no fear Ms. Calkins and Ms. Lowenstein. A Victoria’s Secret-style lingerie modeling walk will make even the simplest girl look and feel sexy.

At the risk of being a complete curmudgeon, presenting this much sexual stimulation to a group in their sexual prime seems sophomoric. Bad things are bound to happen. It is ironic that at the same time the university is showing a fantasy rape scene, the Yale Women’s Center is going after the fraternity system for their culture of sex. According to Yale Daily News, the Women’s Center issued a 26 page list of demands in response to one fraternity’s rush photograph entitled “We Love Yale Sluts.” The article quotes the report saying, “‘Fraternity parties with sexist themes are a fixture of undergraduate life,’…and dress codes at the events ‘exclusively encourage women [particularly freshmen] to dress in a sexualized way.’” It’s funny how the word “Fraternity” could be replaced with the phrase “Sex Week” and the statement would still ring true. The Women’s Center has no problem with the latter, but spends time writing a 26 page tome to chastise the former.

Inside Higher Ed recently did an interview with Kathleen A. Bogle, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice at LaSalle University, on the topic of her new book entitled Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. She relates how college students have all but completely abandoned dating relationships in favor of hookups. In a campus culture that is so fixated on instantaneous sexual pleasures rather than long-term intimate relationships, it is a shame that the most important institution of authority over that culture propagates such shallow sexual gratifications. Valentine’s Day should be about loving, committed relationships. It is a shame that the modern American university has used it to promote, and indeed celebrate, all kinds of sexual perversions.

Sex is not something to be taken lightly. It is an important topic to understand. Orgasms and pornography, though, are not the means to properly understanding sex. Unfortunately, Yale and other colleges, in all of their enlightened splendor, fail to recognize this.

Fireworks, parties, pools, family and friends, a warm summer night, and beer: all of these combine to represent a holiday that truly expresses America’s greatness. July fourth, Independence Day, is a great holiday. I don’t know too many people who have a problem with it. Who can complain about mixing alcohol and explosives? I know I sure can’t. But I do have a problem with Independence Day, or more particularly, the hypocrisy that its name is beginning to represent. Can Americans still celebrate Independence Day in good faith? Does the average American still want to be independent? My thesis is no, but I should probably explain where I’m coming from first.

Forget the historical backdrop of July fourth for a minute. What does the word ‘Independence’ mean? Independence is defined as freedom from influence, support, or aid of others. As a college student, I’ve come to understand what it means. While learning is a critical part of college, an equally vital element is learning how to be independent. The freedom of college results in an equal amount of responsibility, but I think we can all agree that this is a good thing. I know sometimes it’s a pain to always be responsible for your own decisions, but think about it: is there anyone you would rather rely on other than yourself? In case you can’t decide, some very brave colonists very considerately made that decision over 200 years ago. That decision maintains its relevance to this day.

On July 4th, 1776 a large group of America’s founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence. America had finally concluded that running its own show would produce far greater results than someone else doing it for them. We decided to rely on ourselves first and foremost, above anyone else. The rest of that story is history, and we remember that with a celebration on the very same day every year. Is the independence of a state any different than the independence of a person? In some respects it is, but in many ways they are one and the same. Colonists first came here seeking religious freedom, and our initial problems with the British occurred when excessive taxes were placed upon us, and trade was restricted. At the time, it wasn’t just the colonies that were dependent on the British. Every single colonist was dependent on the British government. We, understandably, didn’t like that too much.

Now, 232 years later, we are forgetting this vital lesson. Dependence is a term thrown around a lot – dependence on foreign oil, dependence on drugs or alcohol, dependence on cheap foreign imports – you get my point. The dependency I’m worried about is different, but much more dangerous and insidious. Americans are becoming dependent upon our very own government. How are most Americans planning for retirement? The government takes care of it. How do many Americans hope to get their healthcare? Why, the government should take care of that as well! The list goes on and on. The great irony here is that the politicians absolutely adore having a bunch of whiny babies at home in need of constant attention. In case you missed it, we are the whining babies.

The saddest part of the story though, is that we weren’t always like this. It was only 40 some years ago that John F. Kennedy told all Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Today, his self-proclaimed protege, likely Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama, is calling for the government to provide health care for everyone. In fact, he’s calling for the government to intervene in almost every aspect of the economy that you can imagine. This isn’t conservative propaganda – just take a look at his own website, ignore the rhetoric, and ask yourself, “If we implement what he suggests here, will the government be in charge of more, or less?” Overwhelmingly, the answer to that will be more government-run programs, funds, and regulatory commissions. John McCain isn’t free of guilt either, since he’d love to have the government be in charge of more aspects of Americans’ everyday lives as well. However, he does earn some points via his proven record of fighting against pork-barreling. Still, all we get from our leaders are promises of how the government is going to help us. Isn’t that an ironic turn from JFK’s attitude just over 40 years ago? The worst part is, we are gobbling this up. We love it! And why shouldn’t we, right? We’ll get all this cool stuff, and we don’t even have to pay for it!

Well, just like all those free laptops that you always seem to win on the internet, this is too good to be true as well. The first lesson that I learned in life is that nothing good ever comes free. But it’s true. It applies to those laptops and iPods, and it most certainly applies to all these government programs too. Even worse, the cost of government programs for us isn’t flat. As everyone knows, increasing taxes places a large burden on the economy. So too, as we’ve seen, does a monstrous deficit, rather like the one we have right now. That’s just the flat cost.

The real harm comes in the future. When kids are given everything they ask for by their loving parents, is there an incentive to work hard for something they want? Why work hard? They know with a little bit of whining, or sweet-talking, or another persuasion method, they can get whatever they desire without lifting a finger. We, as Americans, are becoming these spoiled kids, as we are ‘given’ more and more by our government. That is the problem with the government ‘giving’ us more and more. We will lose our incentive to work. Human beings are rational creatures, and we will work for what we need to be happy, and not much more. So when we give people most of what they need for basically nothing in return, the incentive disappears. With lost incentive comes lost productivity. Look at the fall of all the other great civilizations in history – it seems to be the fate we are destined for.

So here is the hypocrisy to which I alluded at the beginning. How can we continue to celebrate Independence Day in good faith, when all we do is ask for more and more from our government? We hear promises from our politicians, and we just give them our votes. When was the last time you ever heard a politician saying ‘no’ to expensive ‘solutions’? America’s celebration of Independence is becoming a celebration of being In Dependence. Foreign oil, foreign goods, and alcohol – sure, we can celebrate those. But our new idol of dependence will be our government – there to solve all of our problems. Uncle Sam has decided it’s time for him to play Daddy Sam. Thank God too, because we’ve got a lot of problems. But seeing what our government has done in the past to fix immigration, social security, and our education system makes me feel so much better.

My point, basically, is this: America is the greatest country in the world today because we have had a government that DID NOT solve our problems for us. We had to figure things out for ourselves. Just like a child needs to learn to do things on their own, so do the citizens of a nation. We need this to be the attitude of every American. But it’s not, and we are moving further and further away from this ideal. So this Independence Day, before the beer and the fireworks, take a few steps back to ensure that you won’t be forced to be dependent on our government. Write a letter to your local Congressman, wish him a happy holiday, and tell him politely to stop making a bunch of new programs, and that you can handle these problems by yourself. Maybe even remind him of what JFK said a while back, and tell him that THAT is what you want.

Recently, we have heard names such as Green Action, Green House, the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group (LEAG), and the Environmental Coalition (ECo). These groups have a variety of goals dealing with environmental issues on campus, one of the most successful and evident of which is the advocacy of recycling.

Certain student groups have taken it upon themselves to provide methods for students on campus to recycle. Others have placed well-marked recycling bins in their own residence halls to encourage recycling as well. Green Action sponsors a recycling drive in the Upper UC on Mondays and Thursdays from 12 to 1 PM. Everything collected is then brought to Green House and taken, by bicycle, to the recycling center.

Green Action also was responsible for analyzing the recyclable content of UC trash bins just a few months ago. While this action may have been intended to cause a reaction (which it undoubtedly did), it threw into perspective the extent to which the university and the campus participate in recycling.

However, these clubs and organizations do not have the capacity to provide recycling services to the entire campus at nearly the level that they feel is optimal. Natalie Smith, a proponent of a University-sponsored recycling program and a member of Green Action, mentioned that what the environmentally-centered clubs have been doing is meant primarily as a temporary solution, in the hopes that the University will adopt a more widespread policy.

In addition, Leadership Lehigh recently attempted to measure the recycling done in Ulrich Student Center and Linderman Library, finding (to their disbelief) that Linderman was severely lacking in the number of recycling bins. In fact, the only place available to dispose of the glass bottles served in Lucy’s Cafe is the trash beside the door.

One new organization, the Environmental Coalition, has been actively involved in discussing how a University-sponsored program would manifest itself. The Environmental Coalition was formed as a student umbrella organization encompassing the goals of all the environmentally-focused clubs. As one of their first actions, ECo took an inventory of the recycling done in the Academic buildings, locating bins and determining the extent to which people were actually recycling. ECo also recently met with the administration with a plan to expand on the current distribution of recycling facilities.

One of the major issues with placing bins in certain buildings was the aesthetic character of the bins. It seems unanimous among the advocates of recycling programs that bins for the various types of recyclable material should be color-coded, and uniform around campus. For example, a bin for glass in E. W. Fairchild Martindale Library should be the same size, shape, color, and carry the same signage as the equivalent bin in Packard Lab.

Tony Corallo, Vice President of Facilities Services, supports the placement of recycling bins around campus, but disagrees with the uniformity of the bins. From an architectural standpoint, he feels that the type of container that would fit with the color scheme and layout of a building like Brodhead would not fit well with that of a building like Linderman Library. Instead, he proposes that the signs used to indicate the various receptacles be uniform in color, design, and message, though the bins to which they refer may be different to fit the surrounding areas.

In addition to ECo, the President’s Office recently created LEAG as a committee of students and faculty to, among other things, “ratify and carry forward the importance of environment as an obligation of the university to not only be a responsible steward of our own role in the common good, but also to educate, and ‘teach by doing,’ future generations of citizens,” as set forth in President Gast’s official goals. According to Alice Kodama, student representative from the Class of 2009, LEAG has approved ECo’s efforts in reviewing and revising the University recycling program with help from Facilities Services.

Kodama also said she believes that “the University should begin implementing the recycling plans that the Environmental Coalition has come up with as quickly and efficiently as possible.” She feels that although initial costs may be expensive, the efforts will decrease contamination and potentially reduce trash removal costs.

“I am hoping that the recycling system will change in the near future and that trust will be brought back into the system.” Kodama noted that, as LEAG has only had two meetings since its inception, the committee is still defining themselves.

Jessica Engle, the Senior Class representative to LEAG, added that there are four main focuses in the recycling issue. One is the concern over what locations currently have recycling bins and which buildings need them. Another is that of informing the students about the recycling program and creating appropriate signage. Also, LEAG is focusing on reducing the amount of waste that is generated and working toward purchasing only plastics 1 and 2 (the types Lehigh currently is able to recycle). Finally, they are concerned with providing accountability and training for OneSource, the company charged with taking care of recycling.