Welcome to the 21st century. I think the only thing you omitted was that thing about not believing in evolution...

You have to get your licks in somehow, ku088008. But I'm curious to see how you'd fare in a debate against a proponent of Young-Earth Creationism (say, moi).

Do you reeeeaaally have sound scientific reasoning to back up your arguments, or would you revert to parroting the hackneyed talking points of the ignorant left?

Focus on the issue at hand (public decency), and avoid backhanded remarks about topics you'd take a beating on in an open forum.

Well said, Bethany!

Bethany, you're a junior. Unless you are a transfer student, Sex on the Hill has come out at least 2 times since you have been at KU. Why are you concerned now? It's won a national award (2 or 3 years in a row, I believe) for being the best special section put out by any college newspaper in the country. Was it a little more graphic this year? Maybe. Was it inappropriate to have naked people having sex on our campus's WWII monument? Absolutely. But a majority of the student body (and the advertisers in Lawrence), love this section. If you don't like it, don't pick it up.

Sex is a naturalistic, animal act. It's been politicized to mean something than it really is.

Society has constructed sex to be this sacred act that is ideally committed within (heterosexual) marriage. Really, I believe it's only done as an effort to control people.

This article is just one example of that attempted control that people try to exert onto others when they are mature enough to make their own decisions.

I think the main confusion here stems from the mistaken belief that the UDK is a "newspaper" instead of "toilet paper". Honestly, yes, it does reflect an underlying problem in society with sexuality in general, but so did "Take Back the Night (from those awful MEN)" the same day. You may not be aware of this, but you are criticizing the people who were disingenuous enough to claim that they didn't know the campanile was a WWII memorial when they were obviously there, where there is at least one plaque which says it's a WWII memorial.
But I disagree with the idea that sex is private. It's about as private as eating food. People do it, it's normal, get over it. Both you and the UDK have your own hangups, and that's why you even feel the need to address it.

pantheon:

Bethany never said sex IS a private thing. The argument she's making, I think, is that it SHOULD be.

davidnta:

Your belief stems from a misconception of the "natural order." Ever heard of the chaos theory? Order naturally goes to disorder, not the reverse. This is true of genetics, physics, chemistry, and yes....society. Order does not come from disorder, so if it was there from the beginning, it necessitates a deeper truth when it comes to morality. It's not like a bunch of people got together and said, "Let's put restrictions on sex." If anything, the natural tendency of our society (or have you been living under a rock?) is to remove these restrictions.

Lets not mix up the concept of entropy, a natural scientific law, with the sociopolitical perspective of mankind.

Then I was beguiled by a conditional conjunction and I apologize. Also, fallacy of false analogy and whatever else you want to toss in there with entropy. You keep talking like that, and we'll have to remove your Wernicke's area. And you really don't want that.

Right on Bethany! You said what many feel but are afraid to admit, because it makes too much sense.

No fallacy here. Order never comes from disorder without an intelligence behind the process. That goes for societal order, as well.

Bethany, Kodos!!!!???

I went to get a Sprite at the machine and then watched Bananas and it got me really horny. I am a female sex machine. I see the female sex figure and I get so horned up. I love Johnnie Taylor of Duran Duran as well (he is the only male I would like to make it with, oh besides Michael Jackson). I think it is so funny to see some males please themselves as well. Gobuyshienta!!!

glenjamin:

Actually a bunch of people did get together and said "Let's put a restriction on sex." Truth be honest, we live in a sex negative society where it is still risque to talk about sex. How do you think those restriction got put on in the first place. Yes those restrictions were an attempt to attach "morality" to something that happens naturally, but that concept of "morality" was constructed from the discourse of people during that time.

If you want a twist to add to chaos theory, let's add relational dialectics to the fold to say that we have these dialectical tensions that flow back and forth from chaos to (social) order. Chaos theory would help to explain the back and forth motions, and how it can change abruptly.

Also to comment on your sarcastic rock comment, I just happen to study sex and communication as a graduate student.

I wasn't aware KU even offered sexual studies as a major. I'm surprised more people aren't taking it.

You say sexual restrictions were implemented by men and that this is a "sex negative" society. I say codes of conduct (sex included) were established by our divine Creator for our own benefit. So I see beneficial boundaries for sex as "sex positive." You and I just have different paradigms.

I agree with Bethany, she makes great points.

The thing I don't understand is that when one breaks from the status quo, it's all hell. Great job beth for sticking to your guns and your beliefs, no matter how different your opinons are from everybody elses' opinions.

Bethany,
Speaking as someone who personally knows you I can start by saying that I understand your perspective. I realize that you come from a very religious background and that to you sex is a personal, precious, and even sacred matter. There is NOTHING wrong with that belief and don’t let anyone tell you different.
With that said I disagree with your article. You have to understand that this is Lawrence and most of the people in this town have sex, enjoy sex, and like to talk about sex. (NOT all do but I don’t think I am jumping to conclusions by saying most!) This Sex On The Hill edition speaks to the majority of students on a topic they enjoy or at least care about. The paper is not trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator they are trying to appeal to the MOST COMMON DENOMINATOR.
Papers only stay in business when people read them. The reality is that the journalists who are working very hard to produce that paper are simply trying to discuss something that most people show an interest in. This method is no different than publishing the basketball scores after a big game.
Naturally your argument back would most likely be sex and basketball scores are not the same, but this is an argument founded in your personal beliefs. Beliefs like “Sex was once a private matter, respected enough to keep between the couple” and “This is pornography” Although these beliefs are fine to hold they do not represent the majority of students and more importantly…the readers.
I enjoy reading the sex on the hill edition not for sick sexual pleasure but simply for the enjoyment that finally some paper is talking about issues that actually have meaning to me.

glenjamin: In case you actually look here again, I had to register. Look up what "chaos theory" actually is about - you seem to have no clue what it describes (hint: wikipedia's account is pretty decent for the lay person).
If I understand your argument correctly, you should stop trying to use chaos theory as a supporting detail. The existence of chaos phenomena can better support your opponents' argument than your own.
What you want is the second law of thermodynamics. Look it up, study what it actually says, and maybe, if you cure yourself of all your incorrect beliefs, you'll make a good argument.

As for the letter's topic: pray tell, when exactly was sex a private thing? Surely society seems a whole lot more about sex now than when I was six years old, but is that more a comment about society or about how we see the world at different ages?
It seems to me that this, like a lot of other moral complaints, is just a myth brought on by nostalgia of innocent/ignorant times.

This article is talking more about how the article was tacky in providing those images..NOT that sex is a private thing. That title is not a good representation of this article.