I found the article about Sex Out Loud's new budget, "SSFC squanders student funding", quite interesting. Unfortunately, the argument is less than valid. Mainly, there exists no support for the distinction drawn between the "deserving" programs offered by Sex Out Loud on Safer Sex and Relationships, and the programs which "cross the line", such as the Pleasure and Advanced Pleasure programs. According to their website, sexoutloud.com, Sex Out Loud's mission is this: Promote healthy sexuality through sex positive education and activism. Why else is a healthy sexuality desired, except for the fact that it is conducive to happiness? By drawing this distinction, the article placed a value judgment on happiness, which as I understand, has no limits. Sex Out Loud has designed its four programs to spread knowledge about both pleasure and health, as both promote happiness. Why should it be that one form is better than another, other than the fact that pleasure is worthless if practiced unsafely? From the programs I've witnessed, students seem more willing to attend the Pleasure programs because it is a subject about which they know very little. Take, for example, the over-crowded room in which students crammed themselves last year to experience the first ever Queer Pleasure Program! Queer students were finally able to learn about seeking happiness through pleasure despite the even more "inadequate and often inaccurate sexual education programs [queer individuals] all suffered through back in 10th grade." Lastly, why are you able to draw a distinction between values of knowledge and happiness, but see no difference between billions of dollars and $88,849? Obviously President Bush would never waste such money on them, but on behalf of the queer community, I'm sure glad I attend a college which supports my pursuit of happiness throughout life, even beyond the classroom. Further, because SSFC approved the majority of their budget,

Sex Out Loud will be able to hire two more facilitators so that they can become even more useful to the demand across campus. Perhaps such an article belongs within the sarcastic humor of the Onion.

Ask Dan Savage, he'll probably agree.

Jes Levatter, Junior: Sociology, Philosophy