I also have a cousin who studies Sanskrit, one who does the Ironman and one who lives in Vermont

Last night for dinner we baked one of the 250 pounds of cod that my cousin caught off the coast of Newfoundland this summer.  His wife is a born and bred Newfoundlander, and they spend a lot of time on the East Coast (clearly much of it fishing).

I mention this because I have a wide and varied family featuring many, many cousins (anyone remember Mr. Kotter and his endless uncles?) all of whom enrich my life in all sorts of ways.

Tonight's featured cousin keeps me informed of the travesties against humanity political scandals at her women's college.

Latest ridiculousness features an article about S-E-X published in the college paper that led to the paper losing its funding.

Sex? In college? What next - a keg party? A Pro-choice rally?

But this is no ordinary school tabloid. It's the only co-ed paper at a religious women's college.  And the article is a first person account written by a girl who allegedly went what used to be called all the way with her boyfriend before they were married.  Part of the controversy was that said boyfriend removed his yarmulke prior to the illicit encounter.  (Wondering if it would've been worse had he left the kippa on during some of the dicier moves).

Publication met with complete pandemonium.  Postings, e-mails, petitions, hell - there were whole editorials about this.  I think I saw somewhere that the paper's $500 of school funding was withdrawn.  They took the story down, which created even more internet hits, so they put the story back up.  Media coverage included the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

I am trying to figure out why everyone's knickers are in a twist.

Possibilities:
1.  Girls should not be having sex before they are married.
2.  If they are having sex, they should not be talking about it.
3.  If they are having sex and talking about it, they should not be writing about it.
4.  If they are having sex, talking about it and writing about it, they should not be publishing it.
5.  If they are having sex, talking about it, writing about it and publishing it, for Crissakes, they should not be reading about it.

One problem with all of the above.

This is not an article about a young woman caught in the throes of passion getting it on with the doorman in the alley behind the bodega.

This is about some college chick who thought premarital was a good idea but then realized it wasn't for her.  Don't make the same mistake I did, girlfriends. It's not what its cracked up to be.

Maybe instead of panicking, the censors should have actually read the article.

Had they bothered to take a look, they would've seen that:

1.  The couple were in a committed relationship (with each other)

2.  They were religiously aligned (aka both Orthodox Jews)

3.  They were both of consenting age

4.  They were off campus at the time

and to me, the absolute cherry on the sundae, if you will -

5.  SHE HAD SECOND THOUGHTS

Censors, you missed the boat here.  You could have had a great cautionary tale.  A "lessons learned".

Instead you ended up with an embarrassing lack of commitment to freedom of speech, blatant sexism and more internet hits than you really deserved.

And all I ended up with was a few pounds of cod.