Thursday, May 23, 1996Shifted burden
Editor:
Shauna Robinson writes in her column, "I know more than a few
gay/les/bi men and women who have more solid relationships than my
own, but I still can’t help but wonder if it’s truly right"
("Trying to fit the pieces together," May 21).
Why does Shauna Robinson think that gays, lesbians and bisexuals
have to explain (to her or to anyone else) that it is "truly right"
to be anything other than completely heterosexual?
Shauna, please put yourself in my position. How would you feel
if I wrote that "I know more than a few black women who have more
solid relationships than my own, but I still can’t help but wonder
if their sexual relationships are truly right"? You would feel
insulted and dehumanized as I do by your statements.
Your objectification of human biology and sexuality, and
consequent moral assertion that homosexual lovemaking is wrong
because the "body parts" don’t fit, is shocking and crass. Both men
and women have mouths and tongues  because these don’t
protrude like penises or breasts, does that mean their use in
lovemaking is immoral?
On to your assertion that vaginal lubrication proves the
morality of vaginal intercourse: Does this mean that those women
whose vaginas do not adequately lubricate mean that they should
abstain from sex and are immoral if they don’t?
Please stop justifying your homophobia based on these and the
other ridiculous arguments that you assert in your column! Why
don’t you take a look at your homophobia and its roots instead of
asking gays, bisexuals and lesbians to explain why it isn’t immoral
for you to harbor these prejudices! We are not lesser people than
you are. You are not morally superior to us. And please, don’t hide
your prejudice with the caveat that some of your best friends are
homos. With friends like you and other "liberals" of similar ilk
(President Clinton included), we hardly need enemies!
Dan Jordan
Alumnus
Class of 1987
What is sex?
Editor:
I am writing in response to Shauna Robinson’s May 21 Viewpoint
column, "Trying to fit the pieces together."
I am gay, and while I found Shauna’s affirmation of same-sex
relationships to be encouraging, I was also deeply offended and
disturbed by her suggestion that perhaps homosexuality is not
"truly right" because the bodies of two men or two women don’t "fit
together."
It is a common opinion among heterosexuals that sex should be
defined as the insertion of a penis into a vagina, culminating in
ejaculation, and that any other form of intimate expression between
two people somehow doesn’t "count." In addition to being
potentially sexist and homophobic, this view of sexuality is
hopelessly restrictive and dehumanizing.
There’s more to sex than making babies or sticking organs inside
of orifices. Sex is about exploring yourself and your partner in a
variety of ways. It’s about making contact with another person in
an intimate and mutually satisfying fashion. Gay people, by our
very existence, challenge the antiquated notion that sex equals
intercourse, and so expand the boundaries of sexuality for
everybody (gay and straight).
In my opinion, it is ludicrous to use the possibility for
penile-vaginal intercourse as the sole criterion for determining
whether a relationship between two people is moral or
acceptable.
At the end of her column, Shauna asks for guidance in
determining whether homosexuality should be embraced as "normal."
Well, Shauna, here’s my advice: Stop fixating on the mechanics of
sex and start paying attention to what really counts, namely our
capacity for love and erotic expression of all kinds. It’s not
whether our organs fit together that matters, it’s whether our
hearts fit together.
Matt Pearson
Graduate student
Linguistics
‘Scientific’ phobia
Editor:
Regarding Shauna Robinson’s "Trying to fit the pieces together,"
May 21: As an African American lesbian, I sincerely hope that my
seemingly cool and open-minded hetero friends do not secretly share
Robinson’s post-teen angst.
The tired arguments she sets forth  that men’s "outties"
and women’s "innies" naturally belong together; that if God
intended people to be gay, he would have done such-and-such; that
sex was meant to be procreational only  became more offensive
when Robinson claimed to use "the laws of strict biology" as her
base.
Personally, I am less offended by fundamentalist-types who at
least have the gumption to back up their homophobia with some
good-old-fashioned faith. It is one thing to believe you are
morally justified in hating gays, but it’s quite another to cite
so-called "scientific" proof!
Not only is it embarrassing that a fourth-year UCLA student
would attempt to dissect such a complex issue with an entirely
moral and maddeningly blunt tool, but it makes one wonder whether
those lower division general education courses have served any
purpose for Robinson.
She shows true creativity, however, when she wonders aloud why
anuses don’t lubricate the way vaginas do. Unless she’s considering
anal sex, I suggest not thinking about it too much (besides, there
is a wonderful product called "anal lube"). And how is it that
someone who outgrew believing in casual sex and "automatic"
abortion can have such a huge problem accepting homosexual
relationships, especially ones which are healthier (by her own
admission) than her own?
That Robinson has gay/lesbian/bisexual friends and has been an
AIDS Peer Educator (!) has apparently impacted her understanding of
gay issues very little. I hope that one day she will stop feigning
compassion and understanding and come to truly accept her
gay/lesbian/bisexual brothers and sisters. I hope also that she
will stop allowing her bitterness over her unrequited teen love for
a gay man rule over her common sense as an adult.
Kimberly Payne
Sociology
Flippant coin
Editor:
A. Aanand Patel’s "analysis" of the upcoming election ("Bill or
Bob in ’96?," May 20) was perhaps the stupidest piece of writing
I’ve ever seen in a major college newspaper.
I can’t decide what’s more astonishing (and depressing): that
Patel is a fourth-year political science student, or that The Bruin
would allow his vapid meanderings to see print (not just once, but
as a regular feature).
I’m unsure whether a political science student requires a course
in beginning composition (apparently not), but it’s gruesome to
contemplate that after four years of study in the field of
politics, Patel would admit to using a coin flip to decide his
choice in the November election.
I suppose he thinks he’s being … uh … flip, but someone
should gently inform him that he comes off like a wheezy little
bonehead.
William Amato
Alumnus
Class of 1982
Misdirected act
Editor:
There were several errors in your front page article about the
play "Frida Kahlo: Self Portrait of Pain" ("Seven walk out over
actor’s race," May 22).
1) The director is Ruben Polendo; the name you used is that of
the playwright.
2) The actor playing Frida Kahlo is Aysan Celik. Laura Chovan
plays her sister.
3) The protesters did not shout "slogans" as they exited. All I,
or any of the audience members I spoke to, heard was one male voice
bellow "Frida wasn’t white."
The protest of this play may have been well-intentioned, but I
felt it to be uninformed and misplaced. It is no secret that
Latinas/os, as well as many other minorities, are drastically
underrepresented in theater, film and television; I believe protest
and discussion are necessary when a blatantly racist or excluding
casting choice is made.
However, this particular action is not an example of informed,
appropriate protest. The seven students involved in the walkout had
apparently made up their minds about the play well before they saw
it (assumingly acting on information that Chicano actors considered
for the role of Kahlo had not been cast); their disruption occurred
in the second scene in the play. There is no indication that they
were particularly familiar with the material or the cast of the
show, because not only was Frida Kahlo half white (her father was
German, as the play reveals later in the first act), but actress
Celik is not even "white." She is of Middle Eastern descent.
Underrepresentation of minorities in UCLA shows is indicative of
the disproportionately small number of minority students attending
the School of Theater  which in itself is a reflection of the
makeup of this university’s student body as a whole. Yes, this is
an important issue. Discussion, and possibly confrontation, are
necessary. But I can’t condone my classmates’ actions. They didn’t
make any attempt to communicate their concerns to the cast of the
play or to the staff of our department; more embarrassingly, they
didn’t even do their research.
Sarah Liwnicz
Third-year
Theater