Put your hand back in your pants and stop philosophizing

I just finished reading Jeremy Neal's letter to the editor, "Morning After Pill Supports Erosion of Love," (Arizona Daily Wildcat; Monday, Sept. 21) and I cannot help thinking: What a pantload!

Mr. Neal first declares that he is rejects the Christian right-wing version of sexual morality. so far so good. Sexual morality, like sexual partners, should be a matter of choice, not decree.

But then he wishes to impose his own view of sexual morality on everyone by suggesting that sex should only happen between persons in loving relationships.

He then goes on to declare irresponsible the Student Health Center for providing a morning-after contraceptive.

Irresponsible? In what way? If anything, preventing unwanted pregnancies is extremely responsible no matter how it is done and the Health Center is to be commended.

To his credit, he didn't hop on the tired "abortion is murder" bandwagon. But the claim that after-the-fact contraception somehow leads to the "breakdown of the meaning of love and intimacy" is spurious at best. The morning-after-pill does only one thing: reduce the possible negative consequences of spontaneous sex.

Tell me, Mr. Neal, O Enlightened One, just precisely what is the meaning of love and intimacy? Is it possible that someone might hold a different opinion on what the meaning is? Might it also be possible that the notion that sex should only take place between persons who are in love is merely a cultural construct deriving from assorted religious views and nothing objective like moral truth?

What happens if two people aren't in love but wish to enjoy the pure physical pleasure of sex without the emotional package: what Erica Jong in her Fear of Flying referred to as a "zipless fuck?" Are they supposed to forego that pleasure because they aren't in love?

Yeah right! Wake up and smell the parking lot! And Mr. Neal, I'm betting that, given a ready and willing supermodel on a deserted island, you'd be all over her like cheese on a pizza.

Mr. Neal also quotes Dr. Jessica Byron of the UA Women's Health Department as saying that unplanned sexual encounters are a "mistake." This is an example of the prejudicial yet unfounded viewpoints which taint the physical aspect of sex.

Sure, spontaneous sex might be a mistake but more often it is just pure ecstasy.

To deny this and label spontaneous sex as a mistake would be laughable if it weren't so repressive.

The bottom line is that any view which places a value judgment on a natural act dependent on what you thought or felt at the time is just nutty. People have sex for a variety of reasons in a variety of emotional states and it is nobody's business but theirs.

To say that sex you have when you're in love is innately morally superior to sex you have when you are just horny is pure drivel.

Sex is just sex - it is either good or better than good. Why complicate things?

I suppose what annoys me most is when some sophomore (Latin meaning: wise fool), who majors in philosophy and thus ought to know better, decides that it is his place to be the moral arbiter of everyone else.

Next time Mr. Neal, when you feel inclined to waste newspaper space with your sophomoric vision of morality, please refrain from picking up that crayon and put your hand back in your pants where it usually is.

Malcolm King

Creative Writing Senior