What a pity that your Sex Education issue (SW, 9/16) didn't include any information on the plethora of adult sexual education classes and workshops Seattle offers. How about putting the "school" back into "back to school"? Your writers managed to tour Toys in Babeland without mentioning that the store carries a wide variety of books, including quite a bit of how-to for those who want to go beyond the freshman class. Toys also offers workshops, including classes on fellatio, cunnilingus, anal pleasure, polyamory, and kissing. Seattle boasts a sex-positive community center, the Wet Spot, which hosts classes, workshops, and events (see www.wetspot.org). Our city is also home to the Society for Human Sexuality (www.sexuality.org), which lists a wide range of resources, information, classes, and events in its monthly calendar. Erotic Offerings is a local series of experiential workshops which focus on sexual skills including G-spot and prostrate stimulation, female ejaculation, vaginal fisting, sex ritual, and S/M play (call 206-322-5477 for more information.) And let's not forget the Body Electric School.
I'm afraid I have to give your writers a C- for effort and a D+ for research: They've barely scratched the surface of Seattle's available adult sex education resources.
I love sick humor, so, naturally, I enjoyed your Sex Ed issue (SW, 9/16). However, that Cherry Wong is not just a poor person's Dan Savage, she's a homeless vagrant's Dan Savage.
The Stranger's been doing sex—gay, straight and everything in between—in EVERY ISSUE for years. For you guys to dip your foot into the pond is amusing, but you're still posers in this area.
Mind in the gutter
The cover of your Sex Education issue (SW, 9/16) is offensive all around. While the illustration itself is a classic example of how to exoticize, disembody, and support the stereotype of Asian women as passive sex objects, the text that accompanies the picture heightens the sensationalism by advertising "co-ed lesbians," "swinging," etc. Perhaps you were thinking, lesbians, how entertaining. Or, sex, hey, we need a zombie-like Asian woman to advertise it. Whatever you were thinking, you were wrong. There's nothing wrong with writing or artwork that deals positively or realistically with sex, but get your mind out of the gutter, Seattle Weekly! You could use a little education for your homophobia, sexism, and racism.
Scaring the horses
So A. Davis ("Confessions of a college lesbian," 9/16) "quickly became disenchanted" with "the soft, sweet feminine touch"? Too bad she didn't stick around long enough to try some hot, passionate, scare-the-horses sex with an honest-to-god lesbian woman. But maybe it's best that she toddled off to get herself a nice heterosexually privileged life with plenty of big shoulders and, one hopes, much firm, male thrusting. At any rate, her experience is consistent with what tends to happen when straight girls pair up to "g[e]t drunk on cheap swill and [do] the deed."
Davis says, "We former lesbians [sic] may have only been messing around with societal constructs, but it's unquestionable that the experience makes us more attuned to gay issues, more likely to speak out against discrimination." Unquestionable? Attuned? Give me a fucking break—literally.
If Davis speaks out against antigay discrimination, I hope it's because that's the right thing to do, not because she happened to spend one soused, enchanted evening gagging on another woman's bush. And if she still needs to rationalize her long-ago undergraduate experience as a "lesbian," perhaps she's not quite as "attuned" to "gay issues" as she'd like to believe.
If you print this, please don't use my name; I'm a teacher and could lose my job. How's that for a "societal construct"?
But isn't laundry women's work?
One of the disadvantages of having to go to a laundromat to wash your clothes around here is that there is the likelihood that there is a Seattle Weekly stand outside, and it's the only thing to read while you wait. This was the unhappy state-of-affairs that confronted me recently, and I was obliged to peruse through the paper that reminds us that not all is well in Seattle—in the head. Emily White, for example, in her "Me first" article (9/16), we learn nothing except that she is a certifiable hypocrite of the first order.
After spending the last few decades in juvenile whining, bitching, moaning and groaning, women like White have the gall to complain if men attempt to get a word in edgewise? Before White gets too lathered up in her own bile, she would be wise to remember that the gender she despises so is also the one without whose effort she would not have a solid piece of construction over her head, or the technology in which she employs to broadcast to the world her, well, juvenility.
A man's issue
The old adage goes "Don't send a boy to do a man's job." It should be "Don't send a woman to address a man's issue" in the case of the book review by Emily White regarding Dr. Pollack's Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood ("Me first," 9/16). I hail bravo [sic] to Dr. Pollack for addressing an ignored issue in today's society. In his book, Dr. Pollack offers solutions in raising boys so that they don't become bitter, confused, and end up going on school shooting sprees and the like. In today's society, men are scrutinized if they are too macho, but then also ridiculed if they don't live up to a macho stereotype. Quite a double standard to say the least.
In her review Ms. White chose to entirely ignore the content of the book in favor of spouting her feminist ideals. It seems she cannot see past her own spoon fed feminism to realize that men too have societal pressures that are often times impossible to live up to. Feminism is a great tool for empowerment, but don't for one second think that all of societies woes will leave if only women can express their griefs. Don't try to look for the respect you think you deserve, Ms. White, by telling men that they don't matter. Isn't that what started the feminist movement in the first place?
Get thee to a copier
I finished reading Geov Parrish's "Why vote?" (Impolitics, 9/16) still waiting for him to state that the government is not "someone else" who is "out there, somewhere, screwing us six ways to Sunday", but that the government is each and every voter. That is the real power behind politics in this country, that anyone who can be bothered to vote is the real power.
Don't like what the incumbent is doing? Vote someone else in. Don't like the choice of candidates? Find someone you do like and support them to run for office, or better yet, run yourself. Don't like the choices the Two Party system offers? Find some like-minded people and form your own party. Don't have the money for flashy ads and cool sound bite promotionals? Go to one of the many free web-hosting sites and publish your views, drop by Kinko's.
To answer Mr. Parrish's question: Vote because it allows citizens to make a difference. It serves to remind politicians who their bosses are, to reward them for doing well and reprimand them—even fire them—when they do something stupid. And most important: it gives you the only legitimate excuse to complain.
Founder, American Liberal Party
Show me the money
There are a couple of unanswered questions in Rick Anderson's otherwise fine story, "Headin' south: New school headquarters is blasted as inaccessible and unnecessary" (SW, 9/16):
1) Who owns the former Terminal Annex post office facility that the school district wants to buy? The Postal Service or someone else?
2) What connection, if any, is there between the owner and the school district?
When public officials make seemingly incomprehensible decisions, look for the money.
We welcome succinct letters commenting on articles in Seattle Weekly. Letters may be edited for length, clarity, and legal considerations. Please include name and daytime telephone number for verification. Write to Letters Editor, Seattle Weekly, 1008 Western Avenue, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98104; fax to 206-467-4377; or email to