Letter to the Editor: We are humans, not bonobos

It seems that Matthew Gillum's column, "Reasons to be promiscuous," is a provocative attempt to inspire a mass flood of hate mail from Duke conservatives. While this is certainly his prerogative as a columnist, it takes away from having a serious and legitimate debate about modern sexuality at Duke. Maybe the article he refers to at the very beginning of his column was a similar one. Maybe it actually was a sincere effort to spark debate. I don't know. But at any rate, Gillum's column makes a mockery of the whole issue. Nevertheless, I would like to respond to some of the issues raised in it (whether jocularly or not).

Obviously, we are humans, not bonobos. True, it is perhaps only a very thin veneer of civilization that separates us from beasts, yet it is nevertheless significant. We have been endowed with rationality, emotions and most importantly, judgment. This judgment, among other things, has enabled us to regulate our animal instincts, usually for the better. But at any rate, it has allowed us to see what sex is, why it exists, why it is pleasurable, and when or not to engage in it. We have been able to define sex and attach moral epithets and principles to it.

I will not even touch on religion, but certainly there is a reason why most religious and moral systems view sex as a something sacred between a man and a woman. That is why, among other reasons, pre-marital sex has received all of the negative press, reputations, connotations and anything else you want to assign to it. That is why sleeping around has come under such moral censure. When you posit that women ought to embrace polyandry, you are not absolving women (or men) of the (of course, debatable) moral tarnish of sleeping around, which I believe was the intention of your article. Instead, what you are doing, is denigrating the very act of sexual intercourse itself.

Humans placed a certain value on sex, gave it an almost sacred quality. By making sex into something lightly undertaken, you reduce us to less than beasts. Granted, in today's culture, such a trend is extremely prevalent. Indeed, shows such as Sex and the City, or Friends, certainly glorify sleeping around or at the very least, exculpates it. Now, while this is not always a bad thing in as much as the moral taboos historically put on sex have not always been healthy--they strip sex of any emotional attachment, investment or involvment. Does an orgasm justify emotional apathy? Can a drunken stupor really cloud feelings to such an extent? Maybe, as dorky as Charlotte is, she's right to never have sex on the first date, or gasp! even more shocking --waiting until she's married.

Laurel Redding
Trinity '06