“It was not the rejection of Lott’s ideas that I found surprising. It was instead the complete and total disregard for his dignity as an individual and the cruel ad hominem attacks.”

Peter has just discovered the hypocritical world of the “open-minded progressives”. Juan Williams, formerly of NPR, recently did the same, when he noted the intolerance he just encountered on the left is much worse than than on the right.

Liberals today are of a totally different breed than liberals of the Stuart Mill era.

You seem to have a warped sense of what constitutes free speech, Peter.

“One can’t claim to be a proponent of free speech and respect and then not extend that respect to others.” Well, one can’t claim to be a proponent of free speech and not allow others to speak. Attacking the speaker’s viewpoint or (verbally) attacking the speaker, on the other hand, is well within the tradition of free speech.

You’re calling for the suppression of speech in the name of free speech. An interesting acrobatics act to be sure, but I’d stay at home practicing for a few more years before trying that sort of material in public–you’re just not that good at it yet.

When Lott’s view doesn’t get published, when he faces some sort of sanction by the College or by a campus organization, when he is physically attacked, or something along those lines, I’ll be there on the front lines with you, Peter, decrying that sort of behavior in the name of free speech and academic freedom. I scoff at your present rant, however. I would no more support restricting the free speech of Lott’s critics than I would the speech of Lott.

So what exactly is wrong with providing opposing opinions to Lott? You say we used ad hominem arguments (way to sound pretentious) yet Lott clearly implied that sexperts were “uncivilized” and generally attacked people with opposing views, despite a misconception of those views as sex-craved. Both of these pieces seem hypocritical to me.

Mr. Blair, I agree that the ad hominem attacks were uncalled for, and inappropriate for a campus discussion. However much people might disagree with Mr. Lott’s opinions, he raises points that do need addressing.

However, I believe that the argument that silence about sexual issues promotes sexual assault cannot be lumped under “ad hominem attacks”. “Talking a lot about sex and engaging in promiscuity” don’t necessarily need to go together – it really depends on what kind of sex you’re talking about. You can have sex (pleasurably, maybe even a lot of it) while still treating both sex and your partner(s) with respect. Sexual abuse may indeed proceed from a lack of respect for both sex and for the person, but many of the online commenters for Mr. Lott’s article argue that not talking about sex would only exacerbate the problem, as victims of sexual abuse and assault may feel less capable of seeking help and thus perpetrators would be held less accountable. This argument shouldn’t be framed as a personal attack on Mr. Lott, but a legitimate counterargument to his opinions on sexual discussions on campus (and if it was originally written as a personal attack on Mr. Lott, then it shouldn’t have been).

The people attacking Roger Lott for posting the proposition that he is entitled not to be coerced by the College or generally assaulted by other people’s idea of what is good sexual taste, really are a transparent disgrace as Peter Blair writes. Angela Zhang just can’t get enough of her name in print saying that Lott and Blair have a point but then goes on to distort their arguments to the point where we need dental records to identify them. The points taken against Peter and Roger are at best disingenuous and at worst just plain lies. If you are going to make up false points to argue against, it means that you have lost, are lost and are not willing to be found. There are official vested interests at the College and those who are attacking Roger and Peter are doing their bidding, they have not done any thinking. The rebuke to the two columns is as deeply hypocritical of any you will ever see.

Blair can legitimately argue that the response to Lott’s article was immature and personally geared. What he CANNOT reasonably do is equate sexual education with sexual abuse. A great many people on this campus believe that understanding and freely discussing sexuality are important to psychological health, and Blair essentially accuses those people of fostering a rape culture. THAT is hurtful language. It’s also unsupported by any data and contributes in no meaningful way to the discussion.

Blair’s article is no better than the statements it purports to combat.

“Anyone who reflects for even a second on these issues would realize that it is not those calling for more sexual modesty who promote sexual abuse. On the contrary, it would probably be more reasonable to say that questionable sexual behavior springs from a view of sexuality that pushes the boundaries of acceptable behavior further and further until the line between right and wrong becomes blurred. The fact that anyone could construe a call for more traditional sexual mores on campus as encouraging people to have more sex (abusive or otherwise) shows how prejudiced people are towards these issues.” I agree with you, certainly, that calling for sexual modesty is not a promotion of sexual abuse. However, a call to silence or quiet voices on campus that make pleasurable, consensual sex okay to talk about and in fact encourage it IS a way to increase sexual assault on campus. The more people feel open about their sexuality, whether that means no sex or sex with a plethora of partners (and no, neither is better than the other, which you clearly don’t understand), the more people feel comfortable identifying sexual assault as rape and coming forward to get support and justice. The empowerment and aid survivors receive doesn’t seem to matter to you, though, because sexual abuse still exists, so we might as well stop talking about it (and sex). Your article succeeds only in perpetuating the stereotype that those with “traditional sexual mores” engage in victim blaming (multiple partners does not and never has caused anyone to be raped. Rapists cause rape.) and attempt to silence feminist voices who have finally made some progress in advancing women’s pleasure and role in sex. This is a poor disservice to those Dartmouth students who may not be “promiscuous,” but see the damage traditional sexual mores and the silence about sex that is innate to them has done to our society and generations of women and survivors of rape.

Stop confusing freedom of speech with immunity from criticism. If you see ad hominem attacks, just debunk them as illegitimate arguments. No need to pretend your critics are trying to gag you.

What is it with Christians or conservatives (or both) claiming victimhood whenever others disagree with them? You’re not being persecuted—not on this campus, and certainly not elsewhere in this country.

“The more people feel open about their sexuality, the more comfortable people feel identifying sexual assault as rape and coming forward to get support and justice.”

Let me get this right: Talk about sex – – more open/comfortable – – increased reporting.

Why would discussion of sex increase reporting of sexual abuse? Studies have shown that the level of distress one experiences during the assault influences the likelihood of disclosure. You’re advocating for sex-based discussion to increase the college’s comfort with sex in general and somehow this will increase the likelihood of reporting sexually-based crimes. I would argue that this increased comfort with sex in general would reduce the distress one experiences during assault and decrease reports of sexual abuse. Peruse the literature – – – it widely supports this idea.

“…..and whether that means no sex or sex with a plethora of partners (and no neither is better than the other, which you clearly don’t understand.)”

I argue that one is better than the other, since it has also been proven that those in monogamous relationships are less likely to experience sexual abuse than those engaging in sex with multiple partners. Doesn’t decreasing your likelihood of experiencing sexual abuse make one better? Obviously, Peter Blair does understand.

From a member of the class of 1984 let me tell you that Mr. Blair is right. The so-called sexually progressive community at Dartmouth has become a cybernetic lynch mob dedicated to eradicating the first amendment rights of anyone willing to stand up to them. I wonder how many of the people attacking Mr. Lott had white hooded robes on at the time? This campus has gone out of control. Just take a look at this trailer of a movie made by a Dartmouth 11. It is all about sex and beer. http://www.frankensteinbros.com/

It is something every parent needs to be aware of.

You’re right, “Enough is Enough” ‘64 (ohh sorry, '84)… those darn hooligans are at it again! What’s next? Homosexuality?

The Pro-College-Sex people should go out and protest in front of Parkhurst every day at noon. Here’s the approved chant, “Free Love! (then turn and face the other way) Sexual Assault!

Just want to point out the biggest problem with Lott’s piece was that in expressing his difference of opinion, he also cast judgment on those he disagreed with. It wasn’t just “I’m uncomfortable with the liberal sexual atmosphere” but rather “Those who are sexual/liberal should be ashamed,” calling it “animalistic vulgarity.” He didn’t simply start a good conversation or bring up interesting points but rather rendered a harsh judgment on a group of people on campus (and he did so very publicly). Because yea…sex is a shameful thing, right? The point is that if he had said “I grew up homeschooled and haven’t been around a lot of natives and therefore their "animalistic” pow wow offends me and their shameless displays of pride are inappropriate"…I think we’d be having a much different conversation. But WAIT! This was the kid who for his first column decided that he knew better than native americans and could tell them that a mascot honoring local tribes should be ok and not offensive. What a prick. The point of College, kids, is not to decide that your way of growing up, and your opinion, is more valuable than others' just because what they do offends you. And considering that sexuality is a universal concept, it’s really not worth being offended over.

“What is it with Christians or conservatives claiming victimhood whenever others disagree with them.”

Excuse me if my critical thinking skills failed me, but what seems to me as conspicuous and clearly stated in this article (so maybe it doesn’t require critical thinking, after all), is that Peter is advocating for respectful discussion indiscriminate of viewpoint – – so, it’s not the disagreement, as much as it is the execution of the disagreement that he condemns. If being personally attacked doesn’t make one a victim? What does?

Does that help you?

“If you see ad hominem attacks, just debunk them as illegitimate arguments.”

One girl who commented stated that she felt sorry for the columnists future wife. How do you debunk that attack? Get married, bring your wife to meet the girl who commented, and have your wife express how happy she is?

I am perturbed, perturbed by people who talk about that.. that animalistic thing we must do in the name of duty.

(in response to “In Response”) You say you would argue that “this increased comfort with sex in general would reduce the distress one experiences during assault.” Clearly, you are so poorly informed about rape and dynamics of power you ACTUALLY believe virgins would experience more “distress” than those who have had consensual sex when being brutally assaulted and violated? You can’t be serious. Maybe you should try actually speaking to a survivor before making sweeping and incredibly offensive generalizations. And if talking about sex somehow decreases discomfort with RAPE (which, by the way is NOT sex), then how do you explain that an incredible majority of mentally disabled women in the Upper Valley have been sexually assaulted or molested? Because they are certainly taught about sex and encourage to discuss it, right? It disappoints and disgusts me that such a level of victim-blaming and misinformation around sexual assault exists. You realize that a very high number of cases of sexual assault occur within intimate partner relationships, right? As in, people who are married or living together or in a relationship, which often includes monogamy.

Try actually reading information about rape before forming your opinions. Or better yet, speak to someone who knows something about it. I have a long list of professors and community members who would be happy to correct your misinformed views.

Put me down as in admiring agreement with the original “Somebody.” Not that the others are nobodies. But those arguing the other side, do indeed stink. Slow might be another word.

Why does the D post this type of drivel? I don’t open a newspaper so that I can read some kid’s opinion that I should be more open to some other kid’s opinion. JESUS. That’s not an article, that’s just standing on the soapbox trying to convince more people that you are the one who is right! Not those over-sexed liberals! It’s usually some conservative male (though we don’t want to forget Grace D'A!) such as Jasper Hicks, Roger Lott, Peter Blair…. ugh.

So you’re not a ho, Blair. That’s cool, but what if I just like to have a boatload of sex? Does that make me somehow more depraved than you? “Increased respect” for sex is not what Lott was advocating. He was advocating a more conservative social norm and a stop to sexually explicit material on campus. I don’t understand how eradicating promiscuity will make this campus better. There is a lack of CONCRETE evidence for this argument.

Kate, “Boatload of Sex,” is having trouble getting past the concept of an opinion column. Her gnat brain is spinning with, “this kid’s opinion and that kid’s opinion” it is so hard to be Kate and open up the newspaper. Kate is a victim of The Dartmouth… her zest for unmitigated promiscuity is boundless, how could things improve with less of it? She wants it and no one is gettin' in the way, see? I nominate Kate for her very own, The Dartmouth Column, “Ditz Does Dartmouth.”

“I don’t open a newspaper to read some kid’s opinion… I open a newspaper to find out where my next boatload of sex is docked.”