2008 Woodie Awards
Illini Media
WPGU
buzz
Illio
TechnographSex Out Loud commentary flawed
By Jennifer Cunha
Posted: 3/14/07 Section: Letters
In Monday's Daily Illini, notorious conservative and Unit 4 school board candidate John Bambenek wrote an article that was grossly reliant on outdated gender stereotypes about the dangers of the "sexual revolution" as embodied on campus in Wednesday's Sex Out Loud fair.
Bambenek's description of sex in its "natural form" as a vulnerable and romantic act is not wrong, but its implications are.
Through his definition of "natural" sex, Bambenek is perpetuating the fairy tale that once you meet the right person all is well and easy and safe.
The fact of the matter is, relationships, even the best ones, are hard work: feelings wane, fights happen, and people sometimes make mistakes.
Although Bambenek briefly touches on adultery, he discusses it in terms of an emotional consequence, but, especially if you were having "natural" sex, there are potential physical consequences as well.
Unless a couple is trying to procreate, the use of condoms as a means of not only pregnancy prevention, but protection from life-altering STDs is strongly recommended by most medical associations.
Also false is the contention that the degree of a person's "sexual freedom" is in any way tied to their emotional growth.
The "sexual empowerment of women" through the advent of contraceptives was not intended to destroy the romantic relationship.
A promiscuous person is as capable of loving (emotionally and spiritually) as a chaste one.
Furthermore, no one has the right to force their views of how a relationship "should be" upon your access to information. Sex Out Loud acknowledges that there are many types of sexuality, including chastity.
Information will be available on each of these choices. Sex Out Loud IS a sexual health fair; what it is NOT is an attempt to control the behaviors of others.
Jennifer Cunha
sophomore in LAS
Bambenek's description of sex in its "natural form" as a vulnerable and romantic act is not wrong, but its implications are.
Through his definition of "natural" sex, Bambenek is perpetuating the fairy tale that once you meet the right person all is well and easy and safe.
The fact of the matter is, relationships, even the best ones, are hard work: feelings wane, fights happen, and people sometimes make mistakes.
Although Bambenek briefly touches on adultery, he discusses it in terms of an emotional consequence, but, especially if you were having "natural" sex, there are potential physical consequences as well.
Unless a couple is trying to procreate, the use of condoms as a means of not only pregnancy prevention, but protection from life-altering STDs is strongly recommended by most medical associations.
Also false is the contention that the degree of a person's "sexual freedom" is in any way tied to their emotional growth.
The "sexual empowerment of women" through the advent of contraceptives was not intended to destroy the romantic relationship.
A promiscuous person is as capable of loving (emotionally and spiritually) as a chaste one.
Furthermore, no one has the right to force their views of how a relationship "should be" upon your access to information. Sex Out Loud acknowledges that there are many types of sexuality, including chastity.
Information will be available on each of these choices. Sex Out Loud IS a sexual health fair; what it is NOT is an attempt to control the behaviors of others.
Jennifer Cunha
sophomore in LAS
The Daily Illini encourages on-topic discussion through article commenting on its articles and blogs. It is our policy not to delete any comments based upon political or ideological point of view. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are abusive, off-topic or use excessive foul language.
The posting of copyrighted material, including any and all content for which you are not the author, is illegal under Federal intellectual property laws. Such activity will not be tolerated. Comments containing copyrighted material will be removed, and continued violation of copyright law is grounds for being banned completely from commenting on DailyIllini.com.
If you feel any post meets these conditions or merits review, please e-mail our editors at meonline@dailyillini.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 11
Dear Jennifer,
posted 3/14/07 @ 9:57 AM CST
Did you ever see John B.'s photo? I believe that Honest John, when it comes to his virtuous avoiding of the sin of adultery, has subconsciously transformed a necessity into a virtue. (Continued…)
Dear "Dear Jen"
posted 3/14/07 @ 12:48 PM CST
You appear to be the same individual writing the same thing in comments about Bambeneck's column over the last three days.
1) Get an argument. Insults, name-calling, comments about how he appears in his photo - are you a child? Assuming you ARE a student at UIUC, at what point should it occur to you that basing opinions off of a person's physical appearance a) is simply not a counter-argument ["he just LOOKS stupid!"] and b) might as well be outright racism!
2) Have you ever met John's wife? I have: I had an ethics class with them both way back in the day, and I still talk to him on occasion. (Continued…)
Alum85
posted 3/14/07 @ 1:00 PM CST
The more you learn about what Bambenek says in forums other than DI, the more mystified you are with the DI's apparent infatuation with him. He's not just a conservative, he's an escapee from the fifteenth century. (Continued…)
John Bambenek
posted 3/14/07 @ 2:09 PM CST
It's nice to know that the University of Illinois is producing such brilliant scholars and critical thinkers as the commenters to these letters and the original column. (Continued…)
Dear "Dear John"
posted 3/14/07 @ 2:31 PM CST
Wow. Can't wait to see you in the workforce - I'm not sure what you were taught in "Everyone's Wrong But Me 101," but here in the post-graduation real world, you're going to get a crash course in learning how to be tolerant of others. (Continued…)
Tyler Friederich
posted 3/14/07 @ 5:41 PM CST
If there's a comment by me posted before this one, it was meant to be in response to "Dear John". Weird.
Post a Comment