Jordan River Forum

The dialogue lives I would like to thank J. Marty Cope for his letter of April 6, in which he calls for an open dialogue on issues of sexuality. Hurrah, I say! I fully agree with the need for an open mind when discussing these issues, and I would like to disagree with Mr. Cope's implication that I -- by virtue of the vocabulary in my original letter -- am not willing to listen to both sides. On the contrary, not only were both letters (Mr. Wilson's and mine) published in a newspaper that is free to the public, but Mr. Wilson and I met the week my letter appeared to have lunch and discuss our differences. I sincerely believe in "embrac(ing) and promot(ing) the freedom to disagree," as Mr. Cope puts it so nicely. In fact, that freedom is one notion upon which my argument rested. Certainly, one can argue that it is a common mistake among liberals to demand freedom for others while at the same time denying their opposition the same right to voice their opinions (however wrong we may find them to be). So, I can only agree with Mr. Cope's call for dialogue. I do, however, stand by my vocabulary, which I felt was warranted in response to Mr. Wilson's essentialistic vocabulary, which I found -- personally (and it is an "opinion" column) -- to be morally reprehensible and, to be honest, pretty hateful. I do think that Mr. Wilson believes himself to be loving the sinner while hating the sin. However, I also reserve the right to find that rather hard to believe. On the other hand, again, I do not reserve the right to deny him that belief. Mr. Wilson and I talked for about 45 minutes, and despite the fact that neither of us agreed with the other's opinion, we did have an open dialogue, of which I think we can both be proud. So, I think that Mr. Cope's labeling of our published discussion as a "closed debate" really misses the mark -- not only were we both open enough to make our views available for public scrutiny, we were also both willing to put our differences aside and have an amicable conversation. The issues are far from resolved, so I would encourage such debate in the future and hope that this dialogue will continue outside the pages of the newspaper. Kris Thomas
Graduate student Fair debate benefits students When reading "College politicians debate gay marriage" (April 4), I was glad to see that the Daily Student presents both sides of an argument (and well I might add) for students to consider. Living on a liberal campus is entirely too difficult for young conservatives today; they have become a minority on college campuses all across the country. This stifles an intellectual environment rather than encouraging it, which should be the goal of all learning institutions. So a big thank you to the Daily Student for a fair representation of different ideologies and to the organizations in their respective corners for encouraging debate amongst students. Adam Wilson
Athens, Ohio Re-thinking Republican To be up front, I am a registered Republican and proudly voted for George W. Bush in 2000. But, I'm going to be honest here and say that I disagree with how the Republicans are handling the issue of gay marriage, precisely because it stands in the face of why I chose the GOP in the first place. It claimed to be strict upholders of the Constitution and this won me over because, in sincere apology to my Democratic friends, the Democrats only seemed to pick and choose what amendments fit their agenda. Tuesday night when the College Republicans showed their support for a Federal Marriage Amendment -- effectively banning gay marriage -- I began to question my support for the GOP for all these years. In my eyes, a Federal Marriage Amendment spits in the face of the ninth and 10th Amendments. Not only would this action overrule the very precious notions of states' rights, but it would be the catalyst for a shift in the very nature of the U.S. Constitution, in that this would be an Amendment that would deny rights, as opposed to ensuring rights held by the populace. I would hate to see the days come when American law focuses on the denial of rights, not the protection. Further, why are we allowing the government to endorse marriage in the first place? Is marriage not a sacred bond between a loving couple and God? Why would we want a bumbling Leviathan like the United States government playing the middle-man in our romantic and religious lives, whether or not you agree with the sentiments of a certain Texan President? Dalton Finney
Senior Nudity without negativity Recently there has been a lot of controversy about "Teen Keira," the freshman girl with a pornographic Web site. Being the founder of the IU Student Nudist Society, I thought it would only be appropriate for me to weigh in on this matter. In addition to facilitating outdoor nude recreational activities for IU students and providing a forum for social and intellectual exchanges among like-minded nudists, IUSNS is dedicated to supporting the endeavors of fellow nudists. I don't believe anyone should be punished for nudity. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon. For these reasons, IUSNS believes "Teen Keira" should not be punished. If only people could see nudity for what it really is: not "indecent exposure," but a legitimate form of self-expression. John O'Brien
Sophomore, Founder, President and Treasurer
of the IU Student Nudist Society Institutional examination in order An inexcusable aspect of the revelation of the pornography operation has been the lack of an institutional response on the nature of the enterprise itself. While there have been concerns over unauthorized use of property, there has been no interest in the issue of pornography. The economics of pornography, now a thriving industry on the Internet, received substantial attention from feminist scholars in the 1980s. One of the significant critiques related pornography to prostitution and came to the conclusion when women's bodies are on sale in the capitalist market, even if it is the consequence of a free and consensual contract, the ramifications include the public avowal of the male sex-right and the public acknowledgement of men as controllers of women's sexuality. Even if the feminist critique is brushed aside and a human rights perspective adopted, pornography still remains a problematic issue. The Preamble of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Pornography does not contribute to the dignity of the viewer and the viewed or to the quest for freedom and social justice. Hence, it is necessary for IU as an educational institution, to examine pornography in relation to its mission of contributing to public service and preparing its students to be responsible citizens. It is not my intention of my letter to target any practitioner of the trade; I merely desire and hope for an institutional re-examination of the consequences of pornography among its students. Sheeba Madan
Senior Center offers opportunities for students Jorie Slodki's excellent story about the new Global Village Living-Learning Center (IDS, April 9) didn't include one very important point. The Village is open to all IU undergraduates, regardless of class rank. This ranges from incoming freshmen to students who will graduate next December or May 2005. For continuing students with international interests, the Village offers a great chance to get in at the start of this project. The Village will be at its best if it includes students who already know the ropes of IU. I welcome hearing from all prospective residents, but especially from this year's sophomores through juniors. Here's your chance to be the leaders of the Village, to get it off to a good start, to shape its curriculum and extra-curricular activities and to set its initial traditions. To learn more, please write: village@indiana.edu. Herb Terry
Director, Global Village Living-Learning Center Global responsibility, a must Tony Sams is right: we are in a crisis. But his solution ("Rocky road to peace," April 12) to our equation is wrong, and if heeded, dangerous. He implores us to get out of Iraq and "sooner is better." He says that we had no "exit plan strategy." He is right! Nor is one desirable. The case for war and a long intervention was explicitly argued in the months running up to March, 2003. The mission was referred to as a "generational commitment" to refashion a good portion of the Arab world. Ostensibly, Tony Sams, like Senator Kennedy, would prefer that we had no global responsibilities. But were we to agree, the results would be disastrous. For we would abdicate a benign American leadership role in a still perilous world. Brian Stewart
Bloomington Could you be president? I wish to announce that I have devised and administered a little test that can be used to determine who is, and who is not qualified to be President of the United Sates of America, leader of the free world, and Commander in Chief of any expeditionary forces to be sent to the planet Mars. So that you can self-administer the test, I provide a copy below: TEST: President Bush, as affirmed by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in sworn public testimony, says that had he know that planes were going to fly into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon he would have done something about it. How about you? The results of my research have been startling. Thus far, every red-blooded, warm-blooded American has given the right answer. It sort of makes one proud, doesn't it? Sam Osborne
West Branch, Iowa Just another career? Students and journalists alike are lauding the "classy," well-publicized "career" of Teen Keira, porn "star." Our courts continue to debate whether exposing oneself is constitutionally protected expression, but they can never relieve our society of its obligation to express outrage at pornography's toxic effects on the world community. Pornographic images cause such profound physical changes in the brain that scientists compare them to addictive drugs, which necessitate increasingly potent doses to recreate the initial rush. Furthermore, in sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate, Dr. Mary Anne Layden of the University of Pennsylvania noted one key difference: "With pornography addiction, you can't remove the addictive substance; it's permanently implanted. This is the first addictive disorder we have been asked to treat for which there is no hope for detoxification." Dr. Layden cautions, "In 14 years I have not treated one case of sexual violence that did not involve pornography." Several studies corroborate her experience; non-violent pornography negatively affects men's attitudes toward women. Men viewing even comparatively small amounts of porn were more likely to trivialize or commit rape and acts of violence against women. With the exponential growth of internet porn and the mainstreaming of sexually suggestive images on television, the following statistics are not surprising. 38 percent of U.S. women will have been molested before age 18. Half of U.S. women will be sexually harassed. One in eight will be raped. Eating disorders, unhealthy body images, and depression are rampant among young women. Alcohol and tobacco, banned in the dorms, come with warnings. So do life-saving pharmaceuticals. But government can't fix everything. We, as a free society, must counter demand for porn through our individual First Amendment rights, taking personal responsibility to promote the dignity of women even if it means opposing a $12 billion industry. Struggling businesses should not make money by recklessly polluting the earth. Condoning Keira's (and Mandy's) "career," even tacitly, encourages senseless pollution of innocent lives by ignoring pornography's cost to thousands of women and children, the unwilling casualties of objectification, low self-esteem, rape, abuse, domestic violence, divorce, sexual slavery, and worse. Silence is not an option. Sarah E. Childress
Graduate student