Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 33 No. 14. 1970
Just a comments on the article "What a girl thinks...." in last Salient (September 7 p. 8-9)
One cannot but admire the skill of the writer in vivid portrayal of the mental anguish experienced by a girl in such a situation. The article is so expressive that it could well furnish a blues writer with the material for a potentially great song.
But it must be noted that the writer creates a girl who equates love with sex. Perhaps this was done in order to show that mature bodies, despite marital status, entertain similar needs requiring similar satisfaction. However, as Miss Bartlett might say, love is not all bed and roses. Sex is not 100% love—not even 50% love. How much time is spent in bed even by a couple at peak performance? The answer is relatively small. Admittedly sex is no small part of love, but love is a function of many factors. Thus a 16 year old cannot possibly love as deeply as a couple on their silver wedding anniversary. O.K., the biological urges may be equal, perhaps greater, in intensity than the oldies, but there has been no time for the establishment of factors such as imprinting and the development of trust. In fact, the love that kids feel differs enormously from that of oldies. Furthermore, the kids wont even feel this concept of "complete love". Instead they feel, in various degrees along with many other feelings, the gradual realization of man's essential instincts which society has still not yet taught its young to understand. Hence we often equate love with sex.
Next, if a girl is going to react so neurotically to such a situation then in order to avoid such torture she can choose either of two alternatives; she can marry or she can refrain. Trouble is that some people are so confused about what they believe, they only find their true ideals when it is too late.
Clarification of the countless confusions inherent in our society's ideology of love and relationships etc is a necessity. Students may help even more by pushing all sorts of sex education at all levels.
The answer to Mr Fyson's little piece about RAT in the 12th issue of Salient is primarily logical, secondarily zoological, and finally factual.
Mr Fyson would seem to agree that a socialist election campaign should aim to at least start to make some who are more or less ignorant of socialism less so. Those ignorant of socialist meetings or read socialist pamphlets or programmes, Mr Fyson's campaign plan of meetings and publications highlighting only the dry technical aspects of socialism is worse than useless.
If such a campaign did make a recruit to socialism, the chances are that it would be a dry technical recruit to a dry technical socialism. RAT is essentially Human, and trying to make human recruits to a human socialism.
Mr Fyson's criticism that the candidates "failed miserably" to "push the programme" is, of course, inaccurate. Two thousand copies of the full programme, and a further two thousand copies of an abbreviated version of it distributed. This programme was socialist, that is, it was a series of serious proposals to make peoples lives less desperately serious.
Mr Fyson's dissaproval of RAT seems based on its honesty in proclaiming its anti—serious ends as part of its effort to make people curious about its serious means.
Of course Mr Fyson is quite right. An attach on the seriousness of conditions in society is not attractive to a student electorate.
It disturbs a status quo in which, compared with other social groups, students are very well off.
what is wrong with black ink?