Sexuality natural
Dear Editors,
Re: “Waiting for the one” (Feb. 12, 2010).
It’s odd that those interviewed for this article describe sex without mention of pleasure, ion,
release, exploration, playfulness, or even enjoying your or your partner’s body.
After reading the article we might assume sex has nothing to do with fun, but instead is a dour obligation and commitment of marriage that’s dangerous and fraught with hazards that it can only be released with the symbolic permission of the Lord within the protective confines of marriage.
All look upon sex as a sort of formal marriage-ritual, as a physical act that replays their marriage vows and reaffirms the marriage commitment they made upon their wedding day.
That settles the heart, but it doesn’t settle the spirit.
Sexual libido is a function of the gametes—the ovaries and testicles—and comes as a result of the production of hormones.
Our sexualities continue to move us regardless of what is or isn’t happening with regards to marriage, cuddling and snuggling, or celibacy vows.
The eccentric and perhaps unexpected content of nocturnal sex-dreams shows us how free we really want to be.
Sexuality is a healthy, normal, crude, physical, dangerous, necessary part of living—and one of its greatest joys, for those who are married and those who aren’t yet. These people seem to be confusing marriage with puberty.
These peoples’ choices, whatever they might be, are entirely their own and they certainly have a right to engage, or not engage, as they please.
But I wonder if their abstinence, their refusal to listen to their own bodies, as well as their naiveté of what sex is really like, will serve them well once they enter into marriage.
They lightly assume that these self-constructed barriers will easily fall away and that they will then embrace something which they have heretofore regarded with so much dread.
Steven Meece,
Kingston resident
No ‘pro’ in procrastination
Dear Editors,
Re: “‘Pro’ in procrastination” (Feb. 5, 2010).
The Feb. 5 article “‘Pro’ in procrastination” misrepresents procrastination.
Littlejohn simplifies procrastination to “a television show a day keeps the nervous breakdowns away.” She implies that learning strategists expect you to work 24/7 and that anyone who isn’t working so hard must be happily “procrastinating.” This is incorrect.
Procrastination is a type of avoidance, not a leisure activity like watching television and has serious and negative consequences.
Littlejohn’s oversimplification belittles the experience of many students who struggle with real procrastination problems every day.
True procrastination leads to feelings of guilt and anxiety, which often negatively impacts a student’s mood, grades and health.
Littlejohn goes on to promote something she calls “power-procrastination,” but her definition of “power-procrastination” is really just time management.
Then Littlejohn incorrectly implies that you can either procrastinate and relax, or spend every minute working hard.
Time management is not an either-or scenario.
Learning Strategies Development can help students reach a balanced middle ground, to avoid the anxiety of working too hard or rushing through homework the night before it is due.
Learning Strategies Development encourages balance, which Littlejohn associates with procrastination, but is actually an effect of time management.
To the Journal readers, please don’t be fooled—there’s no “pro” in procrastination!
Caleigh Minshall, ArtSci ’10
Elizabeth Parsons, ArtSci ’08
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].