I am appalled by the backlash in response to Saturday's Sex Faire. Specifically, I'd like to respond to Mr. Banks' and Mr. Michaels' letters to the editor that condemn feminist sexuality education as "a waste of money."

First, let me reiterate that Sex Faire was funded solely by the women who organized it, not by taxpayer or university funds.

Second, I'd like to identify and name the behavior of men, like Lawless, Banks and Michaels. Quite simply, their efforts to censor sexuality information presented by women and sponsored by feminist organizations are discriminatory and sexist.

In contrast to one letter's claim that the event "has absolutely zero intellectual value," I was quite impressed with not only the presentation of factual information at the Sex Faire, but also with the organizers' ability to stand up to a conservative politician who is obviously threatened by their efforts.

The intellectual value, for those who obviously missed it, is this: If this event had been sponsored by a group of men, we would not be having this discussion today. The philosophical discussion that should be occurring, and is among feminist circles, focuses on the gendered nature of sexuality.

In a time when women's reproductive freedom is continually threatened, the rates of sexual assault and rape are escalating, and sexually transmissible infections are at epidemic proportions, what is the sense in censoring sexuality education? It is obvious that certain students are threatened and uncomfortable with events that empower women to control their own sexuality. This is understandable, and to some degree, maybe even forgivable. What I object to, however, is the notion that one person feels that it is his duty to discern what is and what is not acceptable for Penn State students.