Letters to the editor

Editorials featured in the Forum section are solely the opinions of their individual authors.

Recent readme article unoffensive to homosexuals

As a homosexual and a well-practiced sodomite, I would say in defense of readme that I feel neither mocked nor offended by the “Sodomy Ban” article. I was actually mildly amused by it and think it makes a good point — that the arguing about outdoor smoking is just as impractical as the controversy on outdoor sodomy.

Matt Aument
First-year music major

Valuable campus satire is presented by readme

In response to the editorial about readme’s “Sodomy Ban” article, I would like to make the following points:

First, I would like to point out that while readme may be receiving more funding than some other campus organizations, it also prints out 700 to 1000 copies of every issue it makes, which costs the organization over $300 per printing. readme gets more money because its basic operation costs more money. How many copies does the Oakland Review need to print? Certainly not $9000 worth.

Second, the graphic associated with the article that The Tartan claims implicates only gay men also shows a woman holding some sort of sex toy. Clearly, this graphic was meant as only a representative sample of sodomy, which is a broad term encompassing heterosexual oral sex, homosexual sex, and bestiality. A simple search of the term “sodomy” on would have revealed this to the authors of last week’s letter.

Third, and most importantly, The Tartan has chosen to misrepresent the obvious intention of the article by picking out only the most elementary comparison to smoking, completely missing the satirical content. The article compares smoking to sodomy in order to stress that both are the individual’s prerogative. One can no more ban smoking than ban sodomy. On another level, the article implies that popular reaction to smoking in public is as if people are sodomizing each other in public places, and that perhaps our campus should reserve its rage against smokers for more offensive things.

In closing, to respond to last week’s claim that “The publication gives gay men cause to feel uneasy and unwelcome at Carnegie Mellon,” I would advise the authors to avoid claiming that any publication makes any population feel uneasy when they have neither stated that they are part of this population, nor have they polled said population, informally or otherwise.

Shannon Deep
First-year humanities and arts major