• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Fear of sexuality is more harmful than provocative images Congratulations to Alicia Ward for her comments on the nudity in Abercrombie and Fitch quarterlies (“A&F shouldn’t censor adult content for kids,” Viewpoint, May 23). She adroitly points out that the radical right wing wants government control when it suits its ideology, but no government control when it doesn’t. Regardless, various states’ attacks on A&F are a misuse of public money. Many people believe that the A&F quarterlies are inappropriate for minors. This is a peculiarly North American point of view. There is no evidence I am aware of that nudity, even with sexual innuendo, harms children. There are suggestions, however, that America’s body-phobic and sex-negative culture does a lot of harm. Sex-related problems such as poor body image and early-teen pregnancies and sex-related crimes are much more common in the United States of America than they are in western Europe, where nudity and sexual representation don’t alarm so many people.

Dr. Paul Rapoport School of the Arts McMaster University

Military is based on strict authority for good reason I’m shocked that Shirin Vossoughi would attack military recruitment efforts (“Army targets, misleads U.S. youth,” Viewpoint, May 28). In her column, she attacks the military for recruiting youthful minorities, a puzzling stance considering that it is liberals who often are supportive of targeting specific groups for admission to programs. The military is providing opportunities to these groups through well-paying jobs, for the amount of experience and education required, and health care benefits. Additionally, many of the faces of those in military advertisements may be minorities precisely because many of those within the military are from minority backgrounds. If anything, this is simply an accurate pictorial representation of who enlists and works in the military.  Regarding the notion that the military discourages youth from enrolling in higher education, the opposite is actually true. The military provides educational funding through the G.I. Bill of Rights. Someone in your class may be attending school because of the opportunities the military provides. These military classmates are hardly “authoritarian,” an attribute Vossoughi believes the military inflicts on participants. The military as a whole, of course, is “authoritarian” – but she ignores the reason. In a civilian-controlled military they are obligated to listen to those above them.  It would be idiotic to ask each member of the military what they think about some military campaign. The president, the secretary of defense, all the presidential appointees, and higher ups in the military are the ones who matter. Each participant is obligated to listen and obey.  As a suggestion, I think Vossoughi should consider the military’s purpose. It isn’t to play nice with other countries. It’s to break things – and so far they’ve done a good job of it. The military’s purpose isn’t to train men to be politically correct, it’s to train aggression – and if it means a video game, so be it. In the meantime, continue your peace rants – they will make sense when we have defeated every enemy of the United States.

Michael Gordon Political science