Stunning Hypocrisy from the Princeton Administration
Regular Ruth Readers know that I have been supportive of the students of the Princeton University Anscombe Society, and their efforts to obtain a center to support abstinence and chastity on campus. Their efforts have been smacked down by the University adminstration, for a variety of extremely lame reasons. But now, the Christian Union, housed at Princeton, reports that the University’s refusal to support the students who value sexual integrity is nothing short of hypocrisy. They claim that they want to remain neutral and not impose or even propose values to students, so they couldn’t possibly support an abstinence center on campus, to go along with the Women’s Center and the LGBT Center. But now, the mask is off entirely: the University supported events that quite obviously promote non-abstinence, non-monogamy. I can’t make this up. Let the Christian Union report:
In Princeton President Shirley Tilghman’s email rejection of the petition she states, “it [your argument] implies that the Women’s and LGBT Centers are there to support a non-chaste or non-abstinent lifestyle, which is not the case, and would be considered offensive by both centers.”
However, two events that were promoted or sponsored by the LGBT Center discussed non-abstinent and non-chaste lifestyles. The events, held November 17, 2009 and November 18, 2009 in University facilities, featured self-described “pornographer” and “anal sexpert” Tristan Taormino. Her topics: “Beyond Monogamy: The Case for Open Relationships”; and “Queer Sexualities”, which addressed the question “How can we learn to embrace and cultivate our erotic power in order to build confidence and create fulfilling relationships?
The students of the Anscombe Society respond here.
Loading ...
Well, until lesbians and gays gain the right to marry, you can’t really expect them to remain abstinent, can you?
Perhaps, but do they have to blantantly promote promiscuity and pornography, as they did in this instance? This speaker was sponsored by the LGBT Center, with the tacit support of the university.
nerdygirl: Is it only unmarried lesbians and gays that “you can’t really expect… to remain abstinent”, or is that absurdly immature standard of behavior supposed to apply to all of us unmarried folk regardless of our sexual orientation? You’re not seriously suggesting that LGBT people are uniquely incapable of living a non-promiscuous life, are you?
Do you have to blatantly promote abstinence and monogamy? I think abstinence is a valid lifestyle choice. If that is what’s best for you, then power on. Sadly, the abstinent movement maintains that it’s the best way for *everyone*, thats kinda pushy, and disrespectful of others needs. The LGBT center isn’t saying everyone should be LGBT, just tolerant of them as equal human beings. Perhaps if abstinence were to take a more friendly approach, one that encouraged exploring ones feelings and still being respectful of other lifestyle choices, it would be better accepted.
Nerdygirl, your tag suggests an intellectual, and your post seems to presume that certain people are “born that way” and, further, that one’s desires automatically justify one’s actions. Can you find any hard evidence of the first, or legal or societal justification for either?
Oh please, I’m merely pointing out that they can’t abstain from sex before marriage, because they legally can not get married. I’ve known a few monogamous lesbians, most of whom would love to get married, but can’t because the state doesn’t recognize their relationship as real. @Leland
I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to get at with the “ones desires automatically justifies ones actions” statement. That’s extremely broad. If one desires ice cream, then why should I care if they eat a bowl of ice cream? As far as sex goes, why should I care if it’s between two consenting adults? If it’s completely consensual, and everyones being safe about it, there really isn’t a difference between two men having sex behind closed doors and a married couple having sex behind closed doors. As far as being born that way, they are. One of the main arguments against homosexuality is that it’s not natural, if it were, animals would do it, right? Well, animals do do it. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm and the 10 year research of Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas as evidence that homosexual behavior is natural. @Robert Easter
nerdy girl, you are not really very well-informed about what is actually going on at Princeton. the point of the article was the blatant imbalance between the admin’s claims to neutrality, when the Anscombe Society kids wanted support, and the admin’s support of the LGBT Center’s open advocacy of promiscuity and pornography. do you really not see that they hide behind “neutrality” when they want to suppress something? The Anscombe Society kids are really very nice, very friendly and respectful of others. where do you get off saying or assuming otherwise?