'Open' critics need to update their views

By Christine Pao     1/29/09 6:00pm

Recently, ABC News released an article titled "Student-Run Sex Magazines Surface Across U.S." in which Rice University's very own Open Magazine was featured. The article truthfully exposes the origins and the nature of Open, while comparing it to other sex magazines that have been springing up in various schools, including Washington University in St. Louis, Columbia University and Harvard University. After reading through the article, however, I noticed that a host of readers had posted scathing comments criticizing Open for a range of reasons, and I realized that those who have never opened the magazine are interpreting it in entirely the wrong way.What people unfamiliar with Open don't seem to realize is that it is not a porn magazine containing stories of erotica, promoting casual sex, exploiting women or preaching promiscuity. Its approach to sex is completely different: As the mission statement asserts, the magazine "aims to promote a healthy attitude toward sex by presenting a wide range of perspectives on the interplay of sex and culture through articles, editorials, interviews, poems, short stories, photos and art." It's fine to critique Open, but unfair to condemn it without even knowing what it really stands for. It appears that people are getting the wrong impression, that the magazine promotes casual sex while exploiting women, when in reality it serves as an outlet for students to express their viewpoints on various sexual issues.

I'm in no way trying to pigeonhole the critics of Open, but I've noticed that they tend to be stuck on traditional, puritanical ways of thinking, unwilling to accept the well-known fact that modern sexuality is being explored more openly through readily-available media, and it is only expected that we, as students, should also have a say in all matters sexual.

I believe that all the works featured in Open contain artistic merit. The pictures, short stories and poems are created in all seriousness - they are not made simply to be taken as a vulgar joke. You would think that, as relatively responsible Rice students, people would trust us to make our own decisions instead of criticizing us for being stereotypical sex-driven college kids.

---

---

I can see how those of older generations might view Open as raunchy and offensive but our generation faces different issues and has different needs, and older generations may not realize this fact or be willing to accept it. They seem to believe the magazine is a vice - a source of immorality that distracts students from their studies and should not exist. But they don't realize that we're college students in need of an outlet to express our sexuality and that Open is a great vehicle by which to do so. I think it's about time we began embracing the human body as beautiful rather than dirty, breaking down the barriers that make sex something to be embarrassed about.

Instead of criticizing Open, we should really be applauding it. It is both a brilliant and creative vehicle for Rice students to manifest their desires and frustrations in a healthy, supportive environment. Additionally, Open provides numerous sex facts and survey results in attempt to educate college students on the sexually dynamic world around them. Our society's attitudes about sex are constantly changing, and it is unreasonable for closed-minded people to criticize a publication aimed at reflecting these ever-changing views.

Christine Pao is a Martel College freshman.

---