In response to Erik Edwards’ letter of Sept. 1, I would say that my humor is at times crude and potentially offensive.

Some would even say “sophomoric” would be a compliment.

As for the charge of being egocentric, sure, I’ll buy that.

I would say that egocentricity and confidence go hand in hand to a point.

However, many of Edwards’ points are flawed, possibly out of not being able to understand my “infantile” level of writing.

The irony behind the initial writer’s letter is that she is offended by the generalized lightly sexual content of two ads, but then feels it is perfectly fine (perhaps admirable) to speak out for her own sex life.

Depending on the true intent of her argument, this come close to hypocrisy.

She begins saying she is shocked, then moves toward an argument against the advancement of promiscuity and ends with a comment of the pitiful state of advertising.

If she is shocked at the sexual oriented humor in the ads at all, then irony is a proper description of her comments.

If she is concerned about the existence of sexually-oriented material in public at all, she is hypocritical.

Edwards’ comparisons to racism and bigotry are both ignorant an unfounded.

To try and argue that the situation of racial and ethnic minorities as well as gays, lesbians and bisexual is comparable to someone that chooses not to be sexually active is truly moronic.

My statements are critical of an argument based on personal beliefs.

To call that closed-minded is unintelligible.

I believe my statement closer to the “free marketplace of ideas” than you ever considered (albeit possibly more crass than was necessary).

By the way, Edwards, I never called the earlier writer a “weird kid.”

That is your own classification.

Choosing to maintain your virginity or not is of no interest to me.

Attempting to make your personal sex life apart of my daily reading (no pun intended) is what I was attempting to comment on.

Frank Dunnick

Resident

Iowa City