More love, less sex
Dear Editors,
Re: Love & Sex Supplement (Journal, Feb. 11, 2009) I was both shocked and disappointed to read the Journal’s Valentine’s Day Supplement.
Putting aside the fact that Valentine’s Day is a pseudo holiday, created as an excuse to encourage consumerism and completely inappropriate in this economic recession, I have my doubts that choosing what type of chocolate to buy their sweetheart is a top priority for many people. What surprised me about the supplement was the lack of consideration placed on the actual meaning of love and communication between couples.
Nowhere, not even squeezed between articles about sex toys and masturbation, was there even the slightest mention of what it truly means to be in love. All the Journal did was to advertise the physical act of sex; that is what many seem to think love is all about. Where was there a mention of the relationship between two people, the acts of devotion, commitment, kindness, gentleness and respect that I am sure good old St Valentine would have encouraged?
I respect the Journal’s small footnote that mentioned practicing safe sex, but what was blatant in this article was the absence of abstinence. Has this idea become so archaic that it isn’t even worth considering? To most abstinence has a religious connotation, but many people with no theological affiliations at all support the act of saving oneself for one’s life partner. There are many who morally decide a path of purity. Thanks to articles such as those in the Journal, they are marginalized and entirely unrepresented.
According to one of your articles, sex is everywhere and people are no longer sure what the term sex means anymore. Certainly it confused Bill Clinton. Could this be because the whole meaning behind why two people have sex is lost in a vacuum of consumerism and self-indulgence? How inappropriate it was to include an article that had as its essence: If it feels good, do it! Next week what will it be? Drugs feel good, so do it. Fast food tastes good, so eat as much as you can. Drinking is fun, so go right ahead. Don’t bother about the consequences! I can’t believe that a university that supposedly encourages excellence and discipline would so effervescently applaud such behavior. I hope that I am not among a minority when I say that the Journal was
inconsiderate and incomplete in presenting only the superficial side of Valentine’s Day—emotionless sex—without engaging in a discussion of meaningful relationships and being truly in love.
Leah Larocque
ArtSci ’11
Journal flip-flopped on Queen’s Centre
Dear Editors,
Re: “AMS should MOUve aside” (Journal, Feb. 11, 2009)
On Mar. 7, 2008, nearly a year ago now, the Journal published an editorial bemoaning the budget overruns and construction delays to Phase 1 of the Queen’s Centre. In it you wrote, “The University has some financial cleanup to do, and one can’t help wondering how we got into this mess. If most of the overrun is due to rising construction costs, could the University not have tried to account for that in its initial budgeting? The prospect of Queen’s cutting corners on the project to recoup costs is also worrisome: the outcome of this financial mismanagement could result in a Queen’s Centre missing the components that made it worth building in the first place.” But a year can be a long time and memories are so short on campus. When I read your Feb. 11 editorial expressing consternation at an AMS attempt to force a deadline on Queen’s Centre construction, I could not help but laugh at how quickly things change. It was in this editorial that you wrote, “The AMS signed the MOU with the knowledge it was risky, as construction proposals often change, and students should be prepared for reworked plans.” My question is this: Why wasn’t your paper “prepared for reworked plans” when you wondered, a year ago, “how we got into this mess?” Please, if you choose to express dismay at the chaos that is the Queen’s Centre, do not turn around and accuse others of a lack of foresight.
Not only does this hypocrisy add weight to the claim that your paper often criticizes the AMS for no reason other than your own need to criticize it, it also betrays a fundamental lack of perspective within the ranks of your editorial board. If you currently employ any means of ensuring institutional memory, I put it to you that it is not working and should be fixed.
Julia Mitchell
AMS vice-president (university affairs) 2008-09
ArtSci ’08
Turn lights off over reading week
Dear Editors,
Although I found the calm of reading week pleasing, something wasn’t right. If no students were around, why were all the lights on? In today’s world of financial belt-tightening and environmental concern, why are we so careless about our consumption?
Turning off devices—lights, computers, televisions—is a very simple and very effective way to reduce costs, both financially and environmentally. But whose responsibility is it to “flick-off?” I would argue that the administration has a responsibility to enact a campus-wide shut-it-off-if-not-in-use policy that should be followed by faculty and custodians, but I also believe that it is the responsibility of all Queen’s community members to conform to such a policy, if it exists or not.
I felt good about turning off the lights in a couple of lecture halls that I passed on my way home. Even if they remain off for an hour, I’m sure to offset my entire personal daily power consumption.
Wes Maciejewski
PhD ’12
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.
