THE TUFTS DAILY
Thursday, October 14, 2010
11
OP-ED
Sex talk revolution? BY
JOSHUA YOUNER | CONSCIENTIOUS AND CONTENTIOUS
KAT ROBINSON
Sex is BIG. It’s big, and it’s everywhere. The media is saturated with sex. It floods the forums on the website College ACB at Tufts, the cast members of “ Jersey Shore” have an entire room dedicated to “smushing,” and on-camera teen moms juggle jobs, schoolwork and screaming babies in the background (a big slap-in-the-face reminder to use protection). It’s on our minds constantly: Girls think about it all the time (…right?), and guys definitely do (if I’m ever questioning this, I simply tune in to the constant conversations of my two male roommates talking about the “bangable” girls they see at the gym). Apparently we Tufts students are so sexually charged that the administration had to lay down the law with some dorm room policies last year. If you’ve resorted to the sketchy scenario of sex a few feet away from a “sleeping” roommate, dear God, read on, and hopefully you’ve been able to think of some creative solutions since then. Even if you’re not actively doing the deed — because of misfortune or personal choice — don’t skip ahead to the Sudoku puzzle just yet. Let’s be honest, reading this is probably a lot more fun than Sudoku. Sex is all over the place, but ironically, this extremely “out there” topic can cause a lot of people to close up in conversation. Unless I’m lounging around with a couple of close friends, a few drinks in, I’ll admit that sex can feel like a bit of a taboo topic. Thankfully, I have a pretty open relationship with my roommates. If I ever need to figure out the dos and don’ts of sexual relationships with guys, I can generate some laughingly awkward conversation and get all my questions answered right away. But not all of us can (or want to) be this lucky with housemates. So I propose a sex talk revolution of sorts. I’m tired of trying to turn to Cosmopolitan for sex advice: I don’t want to know 50 great things to do with my breasts. I propose real conversation. Be talkative in the classroom (if the course is appropriate for that), and most importantly, be talkative in the bedroom. Even if you’re drunkenly wobbling back to Wren Hall with a potential hook-up in tow, attempt some real talk. Communicating your desires and asserting what you want will likely lead to an even better sexual experience than will a somewhat silent, awkward encounter, perforated by the creaking of the dorm bed and a few of those weird, uncomfortable noises. In the interest of full disclosure and of this proposed sex talk revolution, I want to take this space to talk about the female orgasm. Of course, there are plenty more topics I could approach, but I feel as if women have been socialized to believe their sexual needs
Citizens united?
E
DANAI MACRIDI/TUFTS DAILY
and desires are less important than those of their partners. Often there seems to be a bit of a sexual double standard. Women are expected to please their partner, with little expectation of reciprocation. Or, when a guy orgasms, sex is over. Maybe I’ve been getting with the wrong guys, but there’s nothing more frustrating. Now, my attempt to debunk some orgasm myths: Myth: Female orgasms are always these huge earth-shattering events, a la the diner scene in “When Harry Met Sally.” Fact: You do not need to have what she was having. Some women have orgasms and don’t even know it. This “peak of arousal” can feel differently for every woman and can occur in different ways. Myth: If you’re not having an orgasm through intercourse, you’re probably not normal. Fact: Nah! Many women claim to not be able to have an orgasm through penetration alone. In general, many women need direct stimulation of the clitoris to reach climax. The act of penetration sometimes leaves a woman’s clitoris entirely neglected. That’s no fun. Myth: It takes women a crazy-long time to reach orgasm. Fact: The duration of time between the prime point of arousal and the actual orgasm is about the same for women and men. The thing is, it takes women longer to reach this peak of arousal. Let’s stop making foreplay a “thing” and just have it be an actual part of the “play,” not an added-on special. One of
my ex-boyfriends made it his personal quest to get me to orgasm, like it was a puzzle he was trying to crack. It pretty much killed it for me. That’s a no-no. If you can’t make yourself orgasm, it doesn’t mean you just can’t — unless you have a medical condition, which is not very common. It’s different for everyone, so it might take some time figuring out what works for you. Receiving pleasure is pretty good, but remember, you’re not the only one in the bed (or closet or laundry room or shower). Sex shouldn’t be selfish — unless your sexual kinks denote otherwise — but even so, everyone involved in the sex act should be cool with what’s going on. After all, it takes two (or three or four) to tango. After imparting all this perhaps too personal advice, I can’t help but make a shameless plug. Tufts VOX is hosting an event with sexologist Megan Andelloux today at 51 Winthrop Ave. called “Oh Ohh OH: Sexual Pleasure with OhMegan.” In this fun, interactive workshop, she’ll explore Cosmo’s promises of sexual satisfaction, finger fun, G-spot play, the female orgasm and much more. Most importantly, Megan will make that awkward conversation a little easier so that sex is safe and fun for everyone involved. You’ll also leave with tons of free sexual goodies in hand for a fun Thursday night. Are you gonna come? Kat Robinson is a junior majoring in English. She is a co-president of Tufts VOX.
Balancing the narratives: Israel and Palestine BY SEAN SMITH
At a university that prizes humanitarianism and the just recognition of all voices in conflict, events like tomorrow’s Tufts Sderot Awareness Day present a serious imbalance. Tufts’ chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine urges the Tufts community to review contending narratives and hear the Palestinian voice. It is our hope to initiate a campus-wide, inclusive discussion that respectively incorporates all voices on behalf of Israel and Palestine. Sderot Awareness Day recognizes the daily trauma inflicted upon residents of Sderot, a town located in southern Israel near the Gaza Strip. Since 2001, thousands of rockets have landed upon the Israeli town, psychologically afflicting thousands of residents and encouraging the rise of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, especially among Sderot’s children. From 2001 to late 2008, 13 Israeli citizens were killed by rockets fired from Gaza. However, the information advertised to the Tufts community provides no mention of who is firing these rockets or why. The Gaza Strip is occupied Palestinian territory, home to 1.5 million Palestinians. The simple label of “terrorists” cannot account for the highly diversified views and politics of Gaza, nor can it explain the 62 years of history that have produced the frustrations,
hopelessness and alienation that launch rockets in the first place. Gaza’s borders remain largely sealed beneath a heavy blockade, and its residents face severe difficulties exiting the Strip. The blockade, in place since 2007, continues to prevent the entry of much desperately needed cement and other building materials, as well as medical equipment, textiles and dozens of other items; it has rendered the Gaza Strip economically destitute. The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem records 70 percent of Palestinians in Gaza living at or below the poverty line, with over 40 percent unemployed. Food is tightly controlled and has left 60 percent “food insecure.” A full 80 percent of Palestinians in Gaza, Oxfam International reports, are dependent upon some form of foreign aid for survival. Tomorrow’s event also fails to mention the Israeli Operation Cast Lead in 2008 to 2009, which in three weeks ransacked the remaining infrastructure and economy of Gaza. With the death of nine Israelis, the conflict killed 1,400 Palestinians. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch document breaches in the international laws of warfare on behalf of both Israeli and Palestinian forces, though especially on the part of Israeli forces. Amid deployments of white phosphorous and the use of human shields, B’Tselem reports that
more than half of Palestinians killed were unarmed civilians. There is no dispute that life in Sderot is psychologically difficult and physically dangerous. But Sderot Awareness Day’s exclusion of any consideration of life in the Gaza Strip blindsides Tufts students to the cause of the conflict, reducing the issue to simplistic, strongly prejudiced sound bites that offer nothing but a perpetuation of an undesirable quality of life in both Sderot and Gaza. Without embracing the narratives of both Israelis in Sderot and Palestinians in Gaza, the misunderstandings at the root of this conflict are only entrenched. If Tufts is serious about securing a peaceful livelihood for residents of Sderot, its future events and discussions must seek the voices of all concerned in this conflict. Instead of deepening divides, we have an opportunity to foster commonality between Israel and Palestine as communities of human beings first, and as nations in conflict second. It is the ardent belief of Students for Justic in Palestine that without positive, inclusive discussion, even enforced peace is an illusion. Sean Smith is a senior majoring in International Relations. He is a member of Tufts’ chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.
arlier this year, the Supreme Court issued a staggering decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Court struck down parts of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as the McCain-Feingold Act. In doing so, the Court has unequivocally allowed corporations, both of the for-profit and nonprofit variety, to spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns. Corporations will now be allowed to broadcast “electioneering communications,” which were defined in McCain-Feingold as “a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of a primary.” Previously, no such organization could have this opportunity. However, the Roberts Court found that this rule was a violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. This assertion has some sort of logical basis, as corporations pay taxes and can own property. However, corporations do not have the right to vote and therefore should not be granted the right to unduly influence elections. Unlimited spending by huge corporations will give certain candidates an unfair advantage. This advantage will be easy to see and feel, as it is clear that the biggest supporters of corporate America will benefit the most. More often than not, these candidates consist mainly of conservatives, who favor lower taxes and a hands-off approach to business. Since these candidates will receive greater support from the largest corporations, this will clearly put other candidates, such as liberals and progressives, at a huge disadvantage. Granted, unions and similar organizations are part of the definition of corporations in this case, and they tend to support more liberal candidates. Although unions would also be given free reign to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns, it does not take a graduate degree to see that corporations would necessarily have more money in the bank than unions; for-profit corporations exist to make profits, after all. This will create an insurmountable problem, and it will clearly sway elections in the direction that these corporations desire. Clearly, this will result in a weakening of democracy. The Supreme Court may have been trying to enforce and strengthen the constitutional rights our citizens are grateful for and are lucky to enjoy, but by doing so, it has denied citizens equal opportunity and therefore skewed the system away from the individual rights of our citizens. Without a level playing field from which to choose, how can our citizens continue to benefit from equality of opportunity and all the other protections the Constitution promises? The Court has put corporate interests over the interests of the people. This was a grave mistake, but it is not the end of the road. The solution to this situation would be a new constitutional amendment covering this area. As the midterm elections approach, voters must bear in mind the specter of such a constitutional amendment, and vote accordingly. They must prevent these bodies from exerting undue influence in the political arena in order to preserve our democracy and the rights of the common citizen. There is no doubt that this decision has changed the course of our nation’s history, and that it has undermined our nation’s belief in and right to government that derives its power from its citizens. Hegemony of corporations over state and national politics will have negative effects for everyone. “It’s to the point where it’s virtually impossible for participants in the current political system to enact any significant change without first seeking and gaining permission from the largest commercial interests who are most affected by the proposed change,” Al Gore recently said. What will it matter what we think when corporations control the candidates and, for all intents and purposes, the elections? Joshua Youner is a freshman whose has not yet declared a major. He can be reached at Joshua.Youner@tufts.edu.
OP-ED POLICY The Op-Ed section of The Tufts Daily, an open forum for campus editorial commentary, is printed Monday through Thursday. The Daily welcomes submissions from all members of the Tufts community; the opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Daily itself. Opinion articles on campus, national and international issues should be 600 to 1,200 words in length. Op-Ed cartoons are also welcomed for the Campus Canvas feature. All material is subject to editorial discretion and is not guaranteed to appear in the Daily. All material should be submitted to oped@tuftsdaily.com no later than 12 p.m. on the day prior to the desired day of publication; authors must submit their telephone numbers and day-of availability for editing questions. Submissions may not be published elsewhere prior to their appearance in the Daily, including but not limited to other on- and off-campus newspapers, magazines, blogs and online news websites, as well as Facebook. Republishing of the same piece in a different source is permissible as long as the Daily is credited with originally running the article.