What's wrong with good food and good sex?

Well, let's ask Professor Judy Wubnig! She responded to this editorial (subscription required) in the Wall Street Journal. It lambasts an attendance-required student performed play at Princeton that, in the author's own words, is "warn[s] about sexual assault and alcohol abuse," but instead encourages sexual promiscuity. Her expert response is excerpted here:

No education about sex is necessary, although it is promoted in schools. Human beings, like all animals, know how to reproduce without any instruction...So-called "sex education" is a waste of money and teaches that the purpose of sexual activity is pleasure, like teaching that the purpose of eating is pleasant taste.

I have a couple of thoughts for Judy Wubnig, who apparently is a professor (!) of Philosophy (!!) at the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario.

1. What's wrong with eating because it tastes good? What do you eat? Dirt, rice, and more dirt? Isn't it wonderful that modern farming has given us food that tastes good as well as well satisfies a biological need.
   
2. What's wrong with having sex because it feels good? The vast majority of us have sex for pleasure, and I'm with the vast majority. Modern medicine has made it possible for hetero-couples to have sex without the threat of pregnancy whenever they succumb to the natural urge to feel intimacy and pleasure. Occasionally, when the time is right, they have sex to procreate.

Yes, Professor Judy Wubnig represents the impractical extremism of a small anti-taste, anti-pleasure minority. But it also represents the thinking of a constituency that holds power in the conservative movement, and which currently holds the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and their fair share of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and many State legislatures.

These people are powerful and they are dangerous. They want to take the pleasure out of both our food and sex. Not if we have anything to say about it!