Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________ THE HORNY DILEMMA BY FRED BRANFMAN (02/10/98)

From the very beginning of Fred Branfman's article, I was decidedly confused as to whether he was suggesting President Clinton be allowed greater sexual freedom (for the sake of national security and domestic welfare), or that the president simply regulate his bowels more carefully.
Branfman describes sexual frustration as a prickly source of irritability, with a high stature in life all the more justification for what extremes you need to go to to alleviate this annoying, and apparently unnecessary, problem. Since when did sex, especially within the confines of marriage, become merely a release, no greater a deep personal union between two loved ones than lips on a shot glass, or considering Branfman's word choice, a butt on a toilet seat?
Admittedly, I for one love the spring in my step after a particularly raunchy sweat fest with my mate the night before. But Branfman's article reduces Clinton to a sniveling little prick who "regularly engages in towering fits" if Mommy Hillary doesn't show Bill her "special purpose" on a daily (or hourly!) basis. What a pathetic conclusion for women: Marital infidelity is the price for developing a dynamic, self-fulfilling life of equal pay, rights and responsibility, and not a life constantly catering to the whiny sexual needs of a man/child.
In relationships where sex becomes an decreasingly significant element, Branfman narrow-mindedly likens this to a life sentence in frustration Alcatraz. Is it not possible some couples find life too short to continually be titillated with sticky dark holes or the vague life-affirming properties of a good lay?
-- Trevor T. Murray
Fred Branfman's argument that we have two choices for president, "a satisfied, relaxed, loose president making decisions as to whether and how to bomb Iraq or a frustrated, irritable, snappish commander in chief determining who will live and who will die," reduces a person's entire personality, motivation, achievements and failures to nothing more than his sexuality.
Richard Nixon attempted to steal an election and commit a myriad of other crimes and/or cover-ups because he was sexually frustrated? Even Oliver Stone wasn't idiotic enough to suggest that in his movie. The article doesn't even make sense. Mr. Branfman implies that Bob Dole would make a bad president because he is not sexually fulfilled, but then implies that he did have flings outside his marriage. Which one is it? Because, according to the author, it can't be both.
I have an idea. Why don't we put together a presidential harem to ensure that all presidents are sexually satisfied at all times so that they won't, in their frustration, drop bombs on unsuspecting Third World countries? That would probably be a lot easier than asking our leaders to behave with at least as much regard to their dignity in private as to their dignity in the public eye.
Mr. Branfman's entire argument is insulting to people of both sexes, but particularly men. It reminds me of the argument used in the past to explain why women couldn't be president: because PMS would cause them to launch a nuclear attack every month. I'm so happy to learn from Mr. Branfman that now men, just like women, can be reduced to nothing more than the sum of their biological urges.
-- Madeleine W. Milan

_______________ THE LADY IS NOT A TRAMP BY JENN SHREVE (02/06/98)

I want to write in defense of Jenn Shreve, and to disagree with Suzanne Scanlon's attack on Shreve's recent column about the Lewinsky/Clinton events. In contrast to Ms. Scanlon, I enjoyed Ms. Shreve's column, and found it a refreshing approach to the whole scandal.
I think Ms. Shreve's point is that the current 20-something generation has fairly relaxed sexual mores, and that the reports that Lewinsky had multiple sexual partners is not particularly uncommon, and shouldn't be used to tar her as a "tramp." I also agree that such "trampy" behavior is more common than openly admitted -- especially among the media and entertainment elite. (Hasn't the Marv Albert affair proven that?)
Scanlon is primarily concerned with upbraiding Shreve for her "shocking" sexual attitudes, and with psychoanalyzing her from a distance (please!). Her letter is filled with an abhorrence of sex that I find disturbing.
I think one quote from Ms. Scanlon says it all: "Is Ms. Shreve not curious about the emotional state of her contemporaries who have three sexual partners in one weekend? You don't have to be Elizabeth Wurtzel (or from Vienna, for that matter) to know that these behaviors are borne of serious and deep-rooted problems, commonly rooted in the (now clichéd) 'dysfunctional family.'"
Scanlon is trying to psychoanalyze people from secondhand reports of their behavior -- I think such an attitude is very dangerous. Unlike Scanlon, I believe that there is a wide variety of behavior that occurs for a wide variety of reasons. If it occurs with freedom, safety and pleasure. Hey -- have fun!
-- Berkley A. Lynch
Boston

_______________ WHY FEMINISTS ARE CO-DEPENDENT WITH PHILANDERING BILL BY CAMILLE PAGLIA (02/03/98)

Good Lord, what a bunch of hooey Camille Paglia has written this time. She pretends to know the deep inner workings of the Clintons with such a condescending arrogance that it makes me want to vomit. What is she basing this whole psychoanalysis on? A few anecdotal tales? Having seen Hillary speak once?
How does Camille know that, "Insecure and desperate for male attention (press reports speak of her cool, distant father), the flamboyant, manically flirtatious and clearly uncontrolled Lewinsky was callously exploited by Clinton, a married man more than twice her age. She was less lover than sex slave, possibly part of a far-flung stable servicing Clinton at his convenience."
I mean, come on. If the affair even happened, why would it be abusive? Would a woman not be able to enjoy a sexual experience with a man without being materially rewarded? "Sex slave"? Married older men are still men, and can be definitely attractive in their own right, especially if they happen to be the Leader of the Free World. And Bill doesn't exactly have a foot in the grave, either.
For crying out loud, grow up and give it a rest. What an appallingly weird view of women's sexuality: "Either put up some cash or physically penetrate me, otherwise you're abusing me in the worst way, you hideous powerful and attractive man over 40!" Ha!
This whole article is material more worthy of the National Enquirer or Sally Jessie than Salon. Pure speculation, hype and trash. I sort of liked Camille before, but I will never waste time reading her column again. I am utterly disappointed and disgusted.
-- Laura Hamilton
San Francisco
SALON | Feb. 13, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| WHY I MISS THOSE LOATHSOME "BARNEY" KIDS BY CAROL SNOW

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

_______________ THE HORNY DILEMMA BY FRED BRANFMAN (02/10/98)
	From the very beginning of Fred Branfman's article, I was decidedly confused as to whether he was suggesting President Clinton be allowed greater sexual freedom (for the sake of national security and domestic welfare), or that the president simply regulate his bowels more carefully. Branfman describes sexual frustration as a prickly source of irritability, with a high stature in life all the more justification for what extremes you need to go to to alleviate this annoying, and apparently unnecessary, problem. Since when did sex, especially within the confines of marriage, become merely a release, no greater a deep personal union between two loved ones than lips on a shot glass, or considering Branfman's word choice, a butt on a toilet seat? Admittedly, I for one love the spring in my step after a particularly raunchy sweat fest with my mate the night before. But Branfman's article reduces Clinton to a sniveling little prick who "regularly engages in towering fits" if Mommy Hillary doesn't show Bill her "special purpose" on a daily (or hourly!) basis. What a pathetic conclusion for women: Marital infidelity is the price for developing a dynamic, self-fulfilling life of equal pay, rights and responsibility, and not a life constantly catering to the whiny sexual needs of a man/child. In relationships where sex becomes an decreasingly significant element, Branfman narrow-mindedly likens this to a life sentence in frustration Alcatraz. Is it not possible some couples find life too short to continually be titillated with sticky dark holes or the vague life-affirming properties of a good lay? -- Trevor T. Murray Fred Branfman's argument that we have two choices for president, "a satisfied, relaxed, loose president making decisions as to whether and how to bomb Iraq or a frustrated, irritable, snappish commander in chief determining who will live and who will die," reduces a person's entire personality, motivation, achievements and failures to nothing more than his sexuality. Richard Nixon attempted to steal an election and commit a myriad of other crimes and/or cover-ups because he was sexually frustrated? Even Oliver Stone wasn't idiotic enough to suggest that in his movie. The article doesn't even make sense. Mr. Branfman implies that Bob Dole would make a bad president because he is not sexually fulfilled, but then implies that he did have flings outside his marriage. Which one is it? Because, according to the author, it can't be both. I have an idea. Why don't we put together a presidential harem to ensure that all presidents are sexually satisfied at all times so that they won't, in their frustration, drop bombs on unsuspecting Third World countries? That would probably be a lot easier than asking our leaders to behave with at least as much regard to their dignity in private as to their dignity in the public eye. Mr. Branfman's entire argument is insulting to people of both sexes, but particularly men. It reminds me of the argument used in the past to explain why women couldn't be president: because PMS would cause them to launch a nuclear attack every month. I'm so happy to learn from Mr. Branfman that now men, just like women, can be reduced to nothing more than the sum of their biological urges. -- Madeleine W. Milan
_______________ THE LADY IS NOT A TRAMP BY JENN SHREVE (02/06/98)
	I want to write in defense of Jenn Shreve, and to disagree with Suzanne Scanlon's attack on Shreve's recent column about the Lewinsky/Clinton events. In contrast to Ms. Scanlon, I enjoyed Ms. Shreve's column, and found it a refreshing approach to the whole scandal. I think Ms. Shreve's point is that the current 20-something generation has fairly relaxed sexual mores, and that the reports that Lewinsky had multiple sexual partners is not particularly uncommon, and shouldn't be used to tar her as a "tramp." I also agree that such "trampy" behavior is more common than openly admitted -- especially among the media and entertainment elite. (Hasn't the Marv Albert affair proven that?) Scanlon is primarily concerned with upbraiding Shreve for her "shocking" sexual attitudes, and with psychoanalyzing her from a distance (please!). Her letter is filled with an abhorrence of sex that I find disturbing. I think one quote from Ms. Scanlon says it all: "Is Ms. Shreve not curious about the emotional state of her contemporaries who have three sexual partners in one weekend? You don't have to be Elizabeth Wurtzel (or from Vienna, for that matter) to know that these behaviors are borne of serious and deep-rooted problems, commonly rooted in the (now clichéd) 'dysfunctional family.'" Scanlon is trying to psychoanalyze people from secondhand reports of their behavior -- I think such an attitude is very dangerous. Unlike Scanlon, I believe that there is a wide variety of behavior that occurs for a wide variety of reasons. If it occurs with freedom, safety and pleasure. Hey -- have fun! -- Berkley A. Lynch Boston
_______________ WHY FEMINISTS ARE CO-DEPENDENT WITH PHILANDERING BILL BY CAMILLE PAGLIA (02/03/98)
	Good Lord, what a bunch of hooey Camille Paglia has written this time. She pretends to know the deep inner workings of the Clintons with such a condescending arrogance that it makes me want to vomit. What is she basing this whole psychoanalysis on? A few anecdotal tales? Having seen Hillary speak once? How does Camille know that, "Insecure and desperate for male attention (press reports speak of her cool, distant father), the flamboyant, manically flirtatious and clearly uncontrolled Lewinsky was callously exploited by Clinton, a married man more than twice her age. She was less lover than sex slave, possibly part of a far-flung stable servicing Clinton at his convenience." I mean, come on. If the affair even happened, why would it be abusive? Would a woman not be able to enjoy a sexual experience with a man without being materially rewarded? "Sex slave"? Married older men are still men, and can be definitely attractive in their own right, especially if they happen to be the Leader of the Free World. And Bill doesn't exactly have a foot in the grave, either. For crying out loud, grow up and give it a rest. What an appallingly weird view of women's sexuality: "Either put up some cash or physically penetrate me, otherwise you're abusing me in the worst way, you hideous powerful and attractive man over 40!" Ha! This whole article is material more worthy of the National Enquirer or Sally Jessie than Salon. Pure speculation, hype and trash. I sort of liked Camille before, but I will never waste time reading her column again. I am utterly disappointed and disgusted. -- Laura Hamilton San Francisco SALON \| Feb. 13, 1998