Letter to the Editor: Wyatt’s take on sex naive, idealistic and hypocritical

ULM Hawkeye

Chelsea Wyatt has struck again, this time defending not child beating, but Puritanical sexual values while simultaneously dallying in slut-shaming.

Wyatt seems to believe that she has special insight into what the nature of a “true marriage” should compromise. Historically, her romanticized idea of marriage is extremely new—women getting to choose who they want to marry is a rather novel concept in the grand scheme of things, and in some parts of the world, still isn’t a popular idea.

Marriage, until less than a century ago, was more about making political alliances and having babies to cement that alliance. Women were chattel to be traded to these very ends—odds are, they weren’t given the chance to “date themselves” before being sold off to the highest bidder.

Women such as Wyatt and myself are extremely fortunate in that we don’t have to worry about being sold into a marriage by parents, or worse, stoned for having sex outside of marriage or potentially be married off to a rapist in order to preserve the family honor, both of which were Biblical practices.

She tells us that, “We [college students] don’t know what the meaning of true love is and you would be lying to yourself if you said you do.” Wyatt at once claims that no college student can understand love, yet here she is delivering a treatise on love and the proper role of sex within. Which is it?

Wyatt seems to be making herself the exception to this rule, or maybe we are just that fortunate to have someone as sagely as her among us. Her ideas about marriage and love are clearly based not in experience, but in romantic idealism better suited for pastoral poetry, which is equally out-of-date.

Of course, we couldn’t have all of this negativity about sex without a little bit of slut-shaming. I find it so funny that she is making such a big deal about consensual sex—she isn’t on a tirade against the evils of rape or pedophilia, but the immorality of two adults enjoying themselves together.

I wonder if she has stopped to think about the fact that not everyone shares her ideas about morality and that many people haven’t built up sex as this monumentally good and paradoxically evil thing in their minds.

Not everyone looks at sex and thinks, “What can I gain from it?”—perhaps people just want to have a good time. I really don’t care what people do in their bedrooms, so long as it is governed by consent and communication.

There is nothing inherently shameful about sexuality and I refuse to be goaded into feeling ashamed because my views do not line up with someone who has neither the experience nor the authority to preach on such matters.

Clearly, I should point out that being sexually active comes with responsibilities in much the same way as driving a car. Students should be given a decent sexual education in order to prepare them for sex, not this abstinence-only tripe that serves no purpose except to keep them ignorant.

You don’t get to drivers’ education and have the teacher tell you not to drive a car—why should you arrive in sexual education and have a teacher tell you never to have sex? Furthermore, students should be aware of the value of communication between yourself and your sexual partner.

Have you been tested? Do you know where to get tested? Can you put on a condom correctly? What type of birth control is best for me? There are many ways that we can keep ourselves safe when engaging in sexual activities, just as wearing a seatbelt makes driving a safer experience.

If you ever have questions concerning these things, I highly advise stopping by the Health Center on campus or visiting their website at ulm.edu/shs/ where you can receive professional and confidential advice.

-Taylor Diaz, English major