1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/15/06 12:00pm)
'Zombies' come to life
The following is a response to Keith Lucas's "College Community Houses Intellectual Void." Just from the title, we get a sense of what Keith is trying to say: the College's students are dumb.
Throughout his article, Keith never states that the college he is talking about is in fact The College of New Jersey. That is a little strange... although maybe it is possible that he anticipates the president of the College will not sniff out his bull. After all, maybe she is the source behind all the stupidity here. In that case, it is possible that when the Git reads Lucas's article she won't feel offended at all. She won't feel angry at the fact that Lucas is portraying this institution as a haven for "mindless zombies who lack intellectual substance." Indeed, the Git may be proud of the fact that her complacent middle-class college for the non-thinker is carrying on a long tradition of dull sidewalk conversation and inane intellectual dialogue.
Lucas rekindles some of his fond Princeton memories. He remembers mingling with the smart Princeton students, many of whom he claims are "on track to earn Ph.D's in their respective fields" and "who were enthused to discuss their ideas." Yes, Lucas remembers discussing "Kant's interpretation of the categorical imperative," which sounds real cute when you say it slowly and in a dignified manner.
But unless you are making fun of Kant's interpretation of the categorical rectum, it is hard to impress anyone with your intelligence when you talk like that-because what difference does it make if you talk about the applications of Pauli's Exclusion Principle for time-independent quantum states or about that time you ate a triple quarter pounder with cheese and devastated the bathroom the next day? As long as the message can be understood.
It appears Lucas wants to say that the substance we lack is the substance that Princeton has?
Who are you talking to? Squirrels? Mailboxes? Do you talk to normal people often? Normal people do not talk about Kant's interpretation of the categorical imperative. I am sure you may discover many humiliating things about this college that you may feel enticed to report about.
However, writing about how students at the College are dumb is not an impressive intellectual feat, especially considering the number of other topics you could have written about. It seems we do a lot of complaining here at the College. It seems that we do a lot of complaining in general, as a society. Evidently, it is difficult for people to overcome their self-interest.
Somehow we manage to find compelling reasons to promote our own interests and neglect the interests of others without thinking twice about the indecency of our actions. That is where we go wrong.
If we are talking, and you convey your point clearly, I might argue that we have just had an intellectual conversation. So Mr. Lucas, please don't be angry with me if I can't elaborate on what I learned in an engineering lecture.
Honestly I don't want to re-visit my hellish lecture with you because I don't understand what is going on right now, I didn't read the last chapter, and this hangover is really killing me. Plus, I would rather be talking about what happened on Desperate Housewives last Sunday night.
Benjamin Libert
While I have consistently disagreed with the points raised in Keith Lucas's opinion articles, "College community houses an intellectual void" was his most unsubstantiated and offensive rant yet.
Lucas says that "It does not take much thought" to educate a child. Isn't he the same columnist who argued for government-issued licenses to have children in an article earlier this semester? As someone who seemingly recognizes the responsibilities that come with having children, how can he make this statement? Lucas's poor attitude toward this student's desire to "get married, have children and teach them" only serves to undermine his intelligence, not hers.
Lucas also says "It seems as if most students would rather engage in conversations about television shows, relationships, hair color, chewing gum or other irrelevant things." Maybe I am an exception, but discussing relationships - and to some extent television shows - is more relevant to my everyday life than, say, discussing "the effects of the East Asian tiger model on Vietnam."
Perhaps the problem with intellectualism at the College is not that the majority of students are "a group of mindless zombies who lack intellectual substance," but that those who wish to engage in this specific type of intellectual discourse are too condescending to the rest of the community to foster intelligent discussion.
Katelyn McCormick
Class of '06
Hey, Keith Lucas. Go fuck yourself. Or rather, get off your horse, lie down underneath it, and let it do whatever comes naturally. That's right, "lie" down, not "lay." That's Hot College education at work there, asshole. This diatribe is in response to your Nov. 1 editorial on the intellectual void that is apparently gripping our campus. You claimed we're not Princeton, which frankly I think- wait, we're not Princeton? O shit! I honestly thought this was Princeton. My bad.
But let us ignore that for now. You stated that the College continues to accept middle-class citizens, which only furthers the "public ivy" misnomer. Well, to be honest, I have to agree with you on that. Only them rich folk over at Princeton deserve an edumacation, yessiree! Us poor slobs don't need no learnin', leave the books and komputers to the nerds!
Yes, we are a predominantly middle class college. Is that really so bad? Are you that ashamed to be walking with "mindless zombies who lack intellectual substance"? Last I checked, the citizens of America were free to converse about whatever they wanted, be that Kant, ancient Rome and North Korea, or be that Timberlake, MTV and Britney dumping K-Fed. Our right to free speech allows us to talk about whatever we want, not whatever you want.
And furthermore, if the students of this college are more concerned with "television shows, relationships, hair color, chewing gum or other irrelevant things" (Honestly, chewing gum? Really?) than they are about the Wall Street Journal, why are you upset that they are at college? Isn't this where they go to become educated? Would you rather them go straight into the work force, their only knowledge of the world they live in coming from cable TV? Last time I checked, college is where people go to get smarter.
One more point I want to make: how dare you insult my mother and every mother who gave up a career to raise her children. How fucking dare you.
So, in conclusion: go fuck yourself, get shat on by a horse, and please, stop writing for The Signal.
Sean Curry
Misconduct in Lot 4
To whichever one of you motherfuckers decided it would be a good idea to tear off my bumper sticker, let's have a little review: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." In case you are too dense to know what that is, it's the First Amendment as found in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Here is another one:"Vandalize - To needlessly destroy other people's property; to commit vandalism."
I understand you may be a little sore about the outcome of the election, but please, think twice before you go putting your fucking hands on my private property. My mommy and daddy didn't buy me my car. I, alone, hold the deed to that shit. How dare you think that your narrow minded ass has the right to touch anything that belongs to me.
The next time you want to debate politics, how about you wait around my car and we can duke it out mano y mano. That passive aggressive bullshit is childish and disrespectful.
Nina J. Davidson
(11/08/06 5:00pm)
If there's somethin' strange in your neighborhood, who ya gonna call? Around the Dorm! We welcome back the usual suspects in this crossroads of sports knowledge, creative thought and pandering to the judge. We have Signal sports editor Lauren Kohout, WTSR sports director Patrick Lavery, Signal sports writer Ray Lodato. I'm your ref for this exchange, Rob "It's just my opinion, but I am right" Viviano.
1) The Northeast is home to many sports teams, but they come in a dichotomy of extremely successful and extremely disappointing. It's easy to be a fan of the former, but which team in the area lets down its faithful fans the most year-in and year-out?
LK: Well, you know it's a Philadelphia team. I'm stuck between the Eagles and the Phillies. With the Eagles you have four trips to the NFC Championship with just one win, the worst display of time management ever seen in the 2004 Superbowl, two simple letters that plagued the 2004-05 season - 'T' and 'O' - and now going through an entire game scoring just three points. Then, you have the Phillies, who have made it to within one game of making the playoffs two years in a row. Not to mention, the Phillies haven't been to the playoffs since 1993. I have to go with the Birds on this one though, just because they ruined my last weekend. City of Brotherly Choke-artists is more like it.
PL: It's difficult to pin this answer on just one team, simply because there are so many teams in this area with rich, storied histories that haven't done so well in recent years. I'm going to have to pick a pair of old Eastern Conference NBA stalwarts: the Boston Celtics and the New York Knickerbockers. For the Celts, Len Bias' post-draft death in 1986 really doomed the franchise; Bird and McHale were never the same. The club endured the death of Reggie Lewis, not to mention the whole Rick Pitino mess at the end of the '90s, and then there was the relocation of the team from the storied Boston Garden to the not-so-storied Fleet Center. And last year, they acquired the "Human Ebola Virus" himself, Michael Olowokandi. The Knicks just suck. Really bad.
RL: Is this seriously even a question? Philadelphia sports fans are the most tortured on the East Coast. Philly has the longest championship-less streak among all four-sport cities in the United States - 23 years - as the Sixers brought us our last title when they defeated the Lakers in 1983. Most recently, our Eagles have pulled a poor man's Buffalo Bills, making four straight NFC Championship Games and losing three consecutively, and blowing the Super Bowl in the second half against the Patriots. Only in a city like Philly can you get beaten on a 62-yard field goal; the examples continue on infinitely. The Philadelphia sports fans' depression and plight, yet strong passion is widely known. Sure, Philly may pelt Santa with snowballs and throw batteries at J.D. Drew, but the passion that causes those acts is exactly what makes us so tortured. You can't be in agony if you don't absolutely live and die with your team.
RV: Deciding which pitiful tale of woe is the most depressing is difficult - which is why Pat's originality and his humorous timeline (obituary?) of the complete implosion of the Boston Celtics gets 3 points. Oh, and yes, the Knicks do suck really badly. Lauren and Ray both make me happy to be from New York, where our good teams are great and our bad teams give us false hopes of victory. How do I differentiate their responses? The answer is hitting Santa with snowballs! I'm giving Ray the 2 points for reminding me how harsh being a Philly sports fan is on your psyche. Lauren is just barely edged out to 1 point.
2) Seeing as Mario Williams has gotten himself 4.5 sacks, one safety and a sizeable amount of face-masking penalties, I am giving him more credit than I did two months ago, but I still do not buy that getting him was the right choice for the first pick. If you were in charge of the Texans on draft day, who would you have drafted, knowing the Texans' needs at the time?
LK: What is the one thing the Texans are really lacking? Fans. They needed to draft a name. They really needed to draft Reggie Bush. Everyone has heard of him and he would bring fans to the stadium and possibly even get non-Texan fans to join their ranks. The Texans are also falling short in their running game, something Bush knows a little something about. He might not be showing it, but we all know his potential and what he is capable of.
PL: Hey, look. It's not Williams' fault he was the first pick, and he's doing a great job at the position he plays to justify his selection in that slot. But whether I had an established running back and a weak defensive line or not, there is absolutely no way I could pass up possibly the most talented college football player since Ricky Williams, if not Barry Sanders a decade before that. Here's what you have to remember before you criticize the Texans: neither Sanders nor Williams were the first picks in their respective drafts. So, a first-round draft choice really does hinge on a team's needs. If I were the Texans front office, though, you'd have an awful hard time convincing me not to take Reggie Bush first.
RL: Reggie Bush. I would've drafted him then and I would draft him now. The Texans' former GM, Charley Casserly, stated that they drafted Williams in order to put pressure on Peyton Manning and beat the Colts. Well, guess what? You beat Peyton Manning by keeping him off the field. The Texans had a chance to grab a player so special in his skill set that he could've legitimately changed the game every time he touched the ball. I think a big part of why the Texans drafted Williams first was his eagerness to sign; he inked a deal before the draft had even occurred. Not only does that save them cap space, but it provides zero headaches as well. Unfortunately, there are zero headaches for the opposing squad too, as seen by his performance thus far. Williams is a workout wonder, not a No. 1 pick.
RV: For a very relevant history lesson on the cracked logic of the Texans' former GM and for picking Reggie, 3 points right off the bat for Ray. For concisely noting that what the Texans lack more than anything else is fans, which bring in the money and ads - 2 points to Lauren. Pat, I know that you draft what you need, but let me point out that Mario Williams, decent or not, was a mistake with four or five seriously huge-name people who have earned their hype. You make a good point, but it doesn't, as you admit, excuse the Texans for their mistake - 1 point.
3) I'm sure at some point we've all heard Chris Berman utter, "Daylight come and you gotta Delhomme." Then there was the ever popular "Boom goes the dynamite," which while originally from Ball State, has also become a SportsCenter basketball coverage staple line. My question is, what is your favorite cheesy catchphrase used by the SportsCenter anchors?
LK: I've always been a fan of Kenny Mayne and his dry wit and I have a few favorites when it comes to his cheesy catchphrases. Considering my position at the College, I'm a big fan of this one: "We're gonna show it again, cause we have editing equipment." It is so dry, but you have to laugh because, seriously, who points out things like that? Then there is one regarding how many home runs someone has gotten: "Not all on one play, that'd be a record or something." Then my favorite home run call: "He hit it over some fencing they had set up in the outfield." Oh man, I can't contain myself. ROTFL!
PL: I happen to love SportsCenter catchphrases; I bought a T-shirt adorned with a list of them some years ago. Chris Berman's nicknames are in a league of their own. My all-time favorite catchphrase, however, has to be from Mayne. Mayne doesn't do a lot of SportsCenters anymore, but I'll always remember his comment when someone would make a fielding error in a baseball game: "A-Rod should rent the Tom Emanski Defensive Drills video; it's endorsed by Fred McGriff." For shamelessly plugging a frequent commercial on ESPN that apparently hasn't been updated since 1991 and offering a simple suggestion for those unfortunate players, Mayne gets my vote for favorite catchphrase. By the way, favorite Berman nickname: former Yankees third baseman, Scott "Supercalifragilisticexpiali-" Brosius.
RL: Whew boy! This one is a gold mine. My absolute favorite is little known among the general public, but popular among the sports crowd: "You're with me, Leather." The story is as such: Chris Berman, with Tom Jackson as his wingman, walks into a bar in Arizona in 1996 following a Diamondbacks game. Sportswriters and such are convening in the bar while one in particular has been working on an especially gorgeous girl wearing leather pants. Well, the married Berman, realizes this writer is working on this girl, walks over, slaps the leather-clad woman on the behind and utters, "You're with me, Leather." The girl looks up, recognizes Berman and leaves the bar with him without saying anything. This pick-up line, simple in syntax yet devastating in execution, has become an absolute joke among the sports community with anchors ranging from Keith Olbermann to Neil Everett using the line on the air. Berman is extremely sensitive about it and has been known to flip out behind the scenes whenever "Leather" is referenced. Such is the life of Chris Berman, King of Womanizing.
RV: I have to deliver the golden 3 points to Pat for coincidentally choosing my personal favorite Kenny Mayne quote, since I find the defensive drills commercials hysterical and its usage on SportsCenter even funnier. The ability of Mayne to point out the obvious for humor and Lauren's collection of these quotes deserves the 2 points for second. Ray, I love it. I love it so much, but I can't give it the points it deserves because it's one of the three banned phrases of SportsCenter, along with any reference to "Breaking the 11th commandment: thou shall not stealeth Ichiro home runs" and "Mysteriously absent like Olbermann." You can't give me a phrase that damns your career if said - 1 point.
(11/08/06 12:00pm)
The 'Void' has a voice
In response to Keith Lucas' Nov. 1 opinion "College community houses an intellectual void," and on behalf of all of those who endured reading it, the shortsightedness of his views on academia at the College must be refuted.
Initially, Lucas describes a summer spent researching at Princeton University. While impressive, this belabored account is self-serving. However, it does effectively seat him on his "high horse," as described later in the column. This account borders on pretentious, and serves only to anger the College community.
One is never hard pressed to find people interested in "ideas of some sort" at the College. Perhaps Lucas did not attend the Thornton Wilder Society's discussion panel on Wilder's works. Perhaps Lucas was not aware of Pat Buchanan's politically incendiary lecture where poignant questions and political tensions were exchanged. If he knew of, or acknowledged these events, it is entirely possible that he wouldn't have asserted the dormancy of our intellectual community.
Greatness in any career, whether it be that of a successful businessperson, a budding philosopher, an inspired educator or even a stay-at-home mom or dad, requires a great deal of "abstract thinking." Success and self-fulfillment cannot be measured by a monetary scale or by social standing. It is something better recognized ourselves than by Princeton intellectuals or Lucas himself.
If Lucas craves intellectual discussion, he only needs to contact the author of this letter. If this doesn't suffice, he can always take a one-way drive down Princeton Pike.
Ashley A. Gallagher
I am disgusted and appalled at Keith Lucas' ignorant and misinformed piece published in the last issue of The Signal. Not only did it lack substance and proof to validate his opinion, but he completely neglected to mention the people that attend.
He states that he knew nothing about the college before coming here, except the blatantly obvious SAT scores and high GPAs. It is not the school's problem that he was too lazy to bother opening a college encyclopedia documenting the personality, nature and atmosphere of the school. Instead, he just whines, moans and complains about how horrible the students and their monotonous solitary representation of the middle class are.
I can honestly say that, yes, I am slightly disappointed by the depth of some conversations; however, there have been insightful conversations held. People that I know talk about affirmative action, disability studies, gay rights and many other "hot topics." Contrary to his opinion that we are a bunch of self-absorbed airheads only focused on matching clothes, chewing gum and the plot lines of "The O.C.," we do think about current issues.
Then, he had the audacity to compare us to such schools as Princeton. If Lucas truly thought that by attending the College, he would be attending a school equivalent to Princeton, et al., which he so aptly decides to compare us to, then he is less of an intellectual than he claims to be. Anyone with half a mind would know that there could never be such an equivalency, ever.
Furthermore, if he had such a lovely relationship with Princeton, why didn't he go there? If you don't like the school, I have one word for you Mr. Lucas: transfer. No one is keeping you here, and no one wants you here if you will only bring the morale of the school down.
Finally, how dare he say that having children and teaching them "does not take much thought." Last I heard, those people, those worthless individuals that do not know what else to be, taught him. They dealt with his ignorant opinions and his snotty, arrogant attitude, but still taught him. If it was not for them, I doubt he would be where he is today, so why doesn't he say thank you to them rather than put down the future teachers of his children? He is a disgrace to the community that makes up the College.
Nicole Gallo
Keith Lucas, I disagree. Students like to live their lives here when they still have time to. I've found in my three years here that our students do think. We study hard, we understand what we are taught, we take our lives seriously and yes, we play too. I am 20 years old - I am allowed to watch television and enjoy it. I don't think anyone here needs to be judged for his or her lack of anything.
You so unfairly compare us to Princeton when our student body has so much more character than the ego driven, soon-to-be-suicidal CEOs that reside there.
Apparently "it does not take much thought" to care for your children and raise them to be good people. Who are you to discredit women who want to be mothers and take on the most difficult task that exists in this world? I have a mother who raised me to relate to other people and to relax and enjoy my youth.
I don't think that people have one mold they should to conform to because that diversity you were talking about does exist. I guarantee you could learn something from someone who is not like you, for instance, how to deal with people who think they are better then you or how to quit being so uptight. If you want "abstract thinking," get into psychedelic drugs.
The College is alive even without The Wall Street Journal in its bag and a caf? latte in its hand. We are both smart and fun. It's the magical yin and yang combination that only college can provide. And since we're all obviously "destined for middle class," we couldn't possibly understand your intellectual banter even if we so desired to. I take pride in the work I do here and I enjoy the student and the intellect level that surrounds me.
If Princeton impressed you, why are you here? Did you apply there? Was their intellectual standard too high for you? If your article wasn't "sitting on your high horse and complaining," I don't know what is. And since you are so intellectually deprived here, I suggest you leave.
Laura Guarraci
Domestic Violence Awareness
sparks painful memories
For one week each year, I feel forced to avoid walking through certain parts of this campus. Domestic Violence Awareness Week is my least favorite time of the year. A victim of repeated abuse from a "boyfriend" at the age of 15 and as someone who was subsequently raped by that "boyfriend," Domestic Violence Awareness Week only serves to bring back awful memories for me.
I understand that awareness is necessary to help stop the vicious cycle of abuse, but I cannot help but wonder how many of the people posting all the signs and getting their faces painted with bruises and playing dead in the grass are actual victims. I have to imagine that very few of them are.
I feel as though many of the signs serve to overwhelm and that they make each victim, each person, simply a statistic. I find it offensive that people will receive "makeup-drawn black eyes" as though that can project what it is actually like to have a black eye delivered by a person full of hate and loathing.
No amount of makeup can make a person understand what it is like to be in the emergency room getting X-rays because someone you once trusted decided to kick you, breaking two of your ribs and bruising three others, and all of this months after you broke away from the abusive cycle.
While it may be important to send a dramatic message, it is also important to take into consideration the others on campus who have been victimized; it is important to understand that this week's many reminders of a terrible time in someone's life can be hurtful and upsetting.
I hope that maybe I am one of only a few students on this campus who was abused. I hope that Domestic Violence Awareness Week did help even one person to have the courage to leave a violent situation. But I also hope that, in the future, this week would be done in a way that keeps in mind the actual victims and what they must go through with each yearly reminder of their abuse.
Anonymous
Mixed views on Campus Police conduct
In response to the Nov. 1 article "Faculty handcuffed by strict police policies," there are always two sides to a story. I have been employed at the college since 1999, working 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. every day. I have never received a ticket nor have I been stopped by an officer for any reason.
On any occasion when I had to contact Campus Police, I was always treated both in a professional and respectful manner. In light of the negative reports communicated by the faculty, I am glad to see a committee has been formed to look at both sides of the issues, especially the harassment the police receive while on their job.
Nina Simpson
My son is currently a sophomore at the College. Both he and his family have been very happy with his experience. It has been exciting to see all the acclaim the school has been able to accomplish in the past several years. Unfortunately, all of the hard work could become jeopardized by an overreaction to the tragic events of last year. Authoritarian approaches including intimidation of students, faculty and visitors is, without doubt, the wrong approach.
The College is fortunate to have a student body made up of some of the best young men and women New Jersey has to offer. To treat them as if they were petty criminals or offenders will not create the "happy" students the administration so proudly touts.
Students should be treated as they always have been. They need to be assumed to be mature young people whom we all trust to make good choices, and if they make mistakes to learn from them. All who reside on campus should be treated with the utmost respect. We can not turn the College into a mini police-state as a way to enforce behavior.
I certainly hope that Dr. Gitenstein and her staff will approach this situation in a way that perpetuates the excitement, respect and openness the campus has been known for in recent years.
Bert Hirsch
Sparta, NJ
(11/08/06 12:00pm)
Lyric Theatre will be performing Engelbert Humperdinck's opera 'Hansel and Gretel' in the Don Evans Black Box Theatre. Performances are Thursday at 8 p.m., Friday and Saturday at 7 p.m. and Sunday at 2 p.m. The above photo is from a dress rehearsal.
Produced and directed by Robert Guarino, associate professor of music, it is based on the Grimms' fairy tale. 'It is the story of two children sent into the forest to gather berries for their poor, hungry family. They quickly become lost and encounter the supernatural figures of the Sandman, the Dew Fairy and Guardian Angels before their frightening encounter with an evil witch who bakes little children into gingerbread cookies,' according to the press release.
Tickets are $10 general admission and $5 for students, children, faculty, staff, alumni and senior citizens. Tickets are available online at tcnj.tix.com or at the door.
(11/08/06 12:00pm)
Dear Kayy,
My sex life is more boring than an hour-long lecture on laundry detergent. I love my boyfriend, but our sex has never been much better than good. We've never had that off the charts, mind-blowing sex I hear about. We lost our virginities together, so it's not like I'm saying anyone's better than him, but I'm sure there must be something we can do to spice it up. I know that sounds lame because we're young and sex should be exciting, but we have been together for five years. Our relationship is great in every other area, which has kept us together for so long and will for a long time after I write this embarrassing plea. And like I said, our sex has never been bad, really short, orgasm-less or unaffectionate - just vanilla. I'd like to at least try the strawberry variety. Or maybe even coconut. Please help!!!
Wanted: Hot Sex Now
Dear Wanted: Hot Sex Now,
Props for asking for advice on this and I appreciate your humor. I'm really glad to hear a question like this coming for a woman, because we want excitement and variation just as much as men do.
My point is that sometimes sex is just sex to women too. It's not only men who want to spice things up, try new positions, play games or have threesomes, just like it's not only women who like to spoon and talk cutesy. I just wanted my female readers to keep in mind that they shouldn't hesitate to address this issue with male partners, just as I encourage men to be affectionate in the bedroom. We could all use a little more communication and a little more good sex.
Henry David Thoreau once said "most (people) live lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them." Don't let that song go unsung! There's no need to be stuck with a boring sex life when there are so many interesting things you can do. Sex is not just about pleasure, but intimacy and fun as well. I'm totally psyched to give you some suggestions, so I'll put some cautions and reminders in the beginning so I can get to the good stuff:
Not all sex has to be "mind-blowing" as you put it. Dr. Kate, author of "Relationships for Dummies," explains that there are three types of sex: "great sex, good sex and maintenance sex." However, I'm going to focus on the first type.
A great frustration I've heard from men time after time is that they just can't get their female partner to orgasm, even though she probably does a great job of it herself. That's because she knows her body so well, something you will get to know better each time you sleep together and each time you ask, "How does that feel?" Just keep in mind that comforting your partner and asking her or him if what you're doing is okay is not like asking them to sign a permission slip. It can be sexy, stimulating and even a little kinky.
Another important thing to keep in mind is that good sex alone won't keep two people together. Your relationship seems to be emotionally healthy aside from the lack of heat in the sheets, which is great. However, if you're having trouble with your partner in other rooms of the house, having steamy sex definitely won't fix that. Sure, it'll make you a bit more pleased physically with your partner, but it won't help or save a relationship. Healthy and fun sex is a crucial part of a relationship (unless you're abstinent), but it's not the clinching point. Without affection, open communication, understanding and honesty, even award-winning, bed-breaking, neighbor-complaining sex does not make a happy relationship.
The more sex you have, the more you will want. The less you have, the more out of touch you will become with your partner and your body. Try a few of these suggestions, or all of them, but start off slow. If you've been in this relationship for five years and never showed any signs of wanting to try something new, make sure you talk about it and don't scare your boyfriend. Even if some make you giggle or raise an eyebrow, it's worth trying out if your boyfriend wants in.
1) Talk dirty to me: Keep in mind everything I said above about how hot it can be to talk about what you're doing. Talk about what you want to do, describe exactly what you're doing and describe how your partner is making you feel. Tell them what's good and don't shy away from telling them if you don't like it. Avoid degrading terms, but compliment your partner's body, in detail. Ask them how they feel and what they want you to do, and practice your sexy voice in the shower (unless you're in a communal shower in T/W - trust me on that one!)
2) Digital, Digital Get-down: N'Sync allusions aside, consider all of the technological advances out there that can enhance your sexual experiences. Phone sex is for your grandparents (eek, sorry for that image). Cybersex is fun if you're in an appropriate environment, but I prefer text-sex. Sure, your wireless bill will increase exponentially, but so will the temperature of your relationship. Saying what you want to do when you see your partner, getting them excited or telling them what you're wearing is seriously underrated. Don't forget that lots of cell phones can send pictures and videos now, too.
3) Lotions, oils and lube - oh my!: Thousands of products are out there specifically to make sex taste, smell and feel incredible. I prefer anything that Passion Parties sells - pick a light scent and taste you know you and your partner enjoy (by the way, attend or throw sex toy parties as often as possible; they're so much more exciting than Tupperware parties). There are so many types out there that get hot when you blow on them, make your skin tingle and have great tastes. There are even products you can apply to the nipples or vagina that will have you aroused in seconds flat.
4) Batteries not included: I wonder what this section's about? That's right. Vibrators. The Rabbit. Dildos. Battery operated boyfriends. Your best friend . whatever you want to call them, all you have to do is pop in some double A's and you're off to O-town. There are tons of different kinds to meet your needs. They're not just boring pieces of plastic, but come in thousands of different shapes, sizes, colors and materials. There are lipstick-sized ones you can carry in your purse, waterproof ones safe for the tub or shower or ones with suction cups to stick on a flat surface. So you're wondering, where does your boyfriend come in? Use one during mutual masturbation or as an extra stimulator during intercourse. And not to mention the genius invention of the bullet-sized vibrators that are inserted into a gelly ring that is placed around a man's penis, so you get both sensations at the same time without uncomfortable confusion.
5) We'll leave the light on for ya': Leaving the lights on so you can see better can make your sex more intimate. Being able to see the expression on their faces when you're making them feel good is a huge turn-on, and makes you feel incredibly closer. I've heard people say that you know you're truly in love when you can have sex in fluorescent lighting with no blankets, while looking in the mirror with your holiday weight and without your summer tan. In all seriousness though, sex at night or in the dark is overrated. If bright lights sketch you out too much, try halogen lights that you can adjust, throw a scarf over the lamp to soften the light, or light some clich? but fabulously scented candles.
Like Kayy's tips? Try these out and stay tuned next week for more suggestions for spicing up your sex life from our resident sexpert.
(11/01/06 5:00pm)
Welcome back to Lions Around the Dorm. We're all rested up from a week off, and hopefully willing to accept the Cardinals as the new World Series champs. I am once again introducing you to the usual suspects: Signal staff writer Ray Lodato, Signal sports editor Lauren Kohout and WTSR sports director Patrick Lavery. I am your referee for this game, Rob "Fire Shannon Sharpe, Hire Tiki Barber" Viviano.
1) In what journalists have horrendously called "dirtgate," Kenny Rogers' postseason streak of scoreless innings continued due to a suspicious muck on his hand. The consensus is that MLB let this potential example of cheating slide. Do you feel it is in baseball's best interest to have a possible example of cheating wiped off "as a favor," as it was eloquently put by the head umpire?
RL: If almost every pitcher does it, what sort of an advantage does it really offer? Popular consensus has said that it was pine tar on his hand - so what? A large population of major league pitchers use either suntan lotion, pine tar or shaving cream - all three of which help you in different ways, namely in gripping the ball and increasing movement. Pine tar is the best because it doesn't require moisture, unlike the other two. Why do you think Tony LaRussa didn't pursue it and let it go as a "favor"? Well, gee, it's probably because most of his guys use the same methods. Is it an issue? Sure. Is it one that needs to be addressed right now? Nope. Everybody associated with baseball knows this occurs; the only reason it's in the public eye is because of the World Series.
LK: Did you say muck? It was actually pine tar and yes, it was cheating. I would say confront him and fine him and all that fun stuff, but at this point it doesn't matter because the Cards took the championship anyway. It's punishment enough that a man cheats and still loses; it isn't the only error the Tigers made during the Series (poor Verlander).
PL: As much as I'd like to agree with what you're saying, Rob (because I hate Kenny Rogers), I have to say that the umpires did the right thing by politely asking him to wash off the mysterious substance. While it would have been very dramatic he'd been thrown out of the game, it would not have been exactly fair. It would have put the Tigers at a huge disadvantage in that game, a larger disadvantage than the Cardinals would have faced were he doctoring the ball. Contrary to popular belief, you can hit a smudged baseball, so stop whining. Turns out this whole episode was of no consequence anyway, as Rogers went on to pitch seven smudge-free innings, and his start was the Tigers' only win of the series.
RV: Cheating is cheating, period. If everyone does it, it makes it less of an overall impact, but not less wrong. Marking a ball is easy to do, and I am sure it's common, but you can't allow it. For taking some action, Lauren gets 3 points. For pointing out this is an unspoken trend by many pitchers, Ray gets the 2 points. Pat, it's not about being unhittable or even harder to hit, it's about not cheating, or accepting the consequences of getting caught - 1 point.
2) The Buffalo Sabres won their first 10 games of the season, one short of an NHL record. How far will they go? What will their final record be and will it be enough to get the worst uniform in professional sports into the NHL playoffs?
RL: How far will they take it? The Sabres are absolutely among the NHL's elite and they've reached that plateau with a carefully crafted formula. For starters, the longest tenured coach in the NHL, Lindy Ruff, provides stability. They have one of, if not the fastest team in the league, but speed does nothing for you if you don't know how to use it. The Sabres do. They move the puck as a complete offensive unit, overwhelming opposing defenses and putting shots on goal at lightning pace. This is a team built with chemistry - a squad without superstars clicking on all cylinders by playing total team hockey. Will they make the playoffs? Let me put it this way: nobody is stopping them but themselves - they have what it takes to win it all.
LK: I didn't think they were going to take the streak much longer anyway. It is impossible to guess an NHL team's record because of injuries, length of season and shootout losses. I think they will have 105-ish points at the end of the season. They can play .500 hockey for the rest of the season and still make the playoffs. It might be the worst uniform in the NHL, but it's the highest grossing uniform in sales. So, either all of America knows how good this team is and that they will make the playoffs, or the country is seriously lacking a sense of style.
PL: The hockey season is 82 games long, and the best record ever achieved in a season that long was the 72-10 mark posted by the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls, who, if you'll remember, had some guy named Jordan on their team? I don't see Gretzky and Messier circa 1982 on this team, so I don't see the Sabres posting this great record everyone says they will. They'll make the playoffs, sure; will they win the championship? That's where those uniforms come in. Teams with poor uniform designs never seem to go the whole way. The 1984 San Diego Padres? Lost in the World Series. '86 Astros? Lost in an epic NLCS to the Mets. Last year's Seahawks? The 1997-98 Utah Jazz? See where I'm going with this?
RV: Amazing analysis from Ray, though I don't have complete faith in Ruff's ability to make critical line changes at the right moment. However, Buffalo is a true team showing its dominance over competitors - 3 points. For somehow making me believe that such a hot team will lose in the end because of bad uniforms, and because he related basketball and hockey, Pat gets 2 points. Lauren, I know that you are right about not being able to guess because of all the variables, but your answer just lacked the piquancy and analysis of the others and someone has to earn the last point- 1.
3) The women's soccer team recently beat New Jersey City University 13-0. The game was actually 20 minutes shorter than a normal game due to the mercy rule. This is the kind of win that only happens in video games set on their easiest difficulty. Is this the most impressive single feat by a college athletic team this year, or is there something else worthy of that merit?
RL: Nope. Not even close. Amazingly, Temple University somehow managed to pull out a win against Bowling Green. I'll repeat that - Temple won. Temple, a program so pathetic they were booted out of the dreadful Big East, ended a 20-game losing streak with this victory. Events like this are usually associated with things such as Halley's comet passing and NBA players acting civilized. Blowout wins happen all the time - yes, even things such as a 13-0 tally in soccer - but Temple winning happens a few times a decade. It made headlines. Hell, Temple was on SportsCenter. Call me up next time the media doesn't kiss Notre Dame's ass or a Duke player unpops his collar, because those will be the only things in collegiate sports more rare than Temple nailing down a victory.
LK: This semester? No way. This past year? Hell yeah. Didn't you know that sports at the College kick ass all the time, Rob? My thoughts immediately jump to lacrosse with this question since they had regular season wins with scores like 13-3, 15-1 and 17-3. Then, I remembered baseball's scores from last season: 15-2, 15-1, 22-2, 23-4 and 26-1 to name a few. And no, these are not typos. Sure, they weren't playing the best teams in the world, but baseball still kicked the crap out of them, as did lacrosse. Since they did this consistently, unlike women's soccer, I would say that it is pretty gosh darn awesome.
PL: The most incredible collegiate athletic feat of the year occurred on the gridiron in Oregon, as the Oregon State Beavers snapped USC's 38-game regular season winning streak. Because of all the hype about this game, you could almost see it coming, but the 33-31 win was still a stunning development. USC had not lost a regular-season game in three years, and what's worse for the Trojans, they've dropped a game within their own conference and fell in the rankings as well, maybe losing a legitimate chance at the BCS championship game.
RV: The Trojans are kicking themselves after dropping that one. Anyone who beats USC is deserving of praise and when it's Oregon State, which has two PAC-10 wins in its whole history, it's miraculous - 3 points for Pat. Those wins in lacrosse and baseball are impressive, and perhaps it can dethrone the soccer team's accomplishment. However, the highest recorded FIFA win in a non-exhibition game was 17-0 by Australia against Cooke Islands, which went 20 minutes longer. We could have equaled a world record in soccer - 2 points. Ray, you know I love Bill Cosby's favorite team as much as anyone else, but 13-0 soccer games don't happen, and winning a single game against Bowling Green, regardless of the team, does. Bowling Green is not exactly the unbeatable giant of sports either - 1 point. Faced with a three way tie, 6-6-6, I am forced to pick a completely arbitrary fact to decide the winner. For most points earned per word used, I award Lauren Kohout the win for excellence and conciseness.
(11/01/06 12:00pm)
Tri-Beta not just
for med students
The Oct. 11 Signal reported that the SGA described the Tri-Beta Biology Honor Society as a student organization that "(helps) to facilitate the transition from undergraduate studies to medical school." This statement is false. As stated in its constitution, which is on file with SGA, the mission statement of Tri-Beta is as follows:
"The purpose of Beta Beta Beta Biological Honor Society shall be to function as an honor society and service organization for students of the biological sciences. Its goals are to stimulate interest, scholarly attainment and research in the biological sciences and to promote the dissemination of information and new interpretations among students in the life sciences."
As can be seen, in no way is Tri-Beta associated specifically with pre-medical students, nor is the organization involved in the transition of any of its members to graduate or professional schools of any kind.
Jessica Paciorek
and Matt Meigh
Open-mindedness
is a two-way street
I'm responding to the venom spat at Brian Hackett for his column about abortion and women. I skimmed both his column and the responses with mirth. Daring to challenge the liberal catechism on women's rights is bound to illicit an angry and vocal response. I should say I don't particularly care about the details of his argument: men and women will continue to have premarital and irresponsible sex despite God's word or the laws of this country. And leftists will continue to defend these behaviors as natural rights that especially benefit women.
My primary point is that the revisionist/relativist people are the same ones who have closed the door on their own beliefs. They've managed to quash the Western tradition of free inquiry (cherished by conservatives like myself) and the postmodern "challenge everything" view many of them claim to hold.
These women's advocates pontificate to us what is best for women. We are told that in order to actually care about women and consider them equal, we must adapt a specific set of beliefs. This is like certain politicians saying that in order to be patriotic, you have to adapt their beliefs on current foreign policy. Just to be sure, please tell me whether we can accept either or neither of these above statements.
The failure to understand the Bible is usually due to narrow readings. I make at least a cursory attempt to understand the rot of socialist economics, radical feminism and other world religions. So be a sport and show up a narrow-minded bigot by at least asking a qualified person (a pastor, perhaps) or at least doing a private search on Wikipedia so people don't think you are actually open-minded to other ideas.
I hear liberals talk all the time about being open-minded and not judgmental like those rich white men who rule the world. Open-mindedness has seemed a one-way street. Let's see a really self-critical analysis from a women's activist that asks, not presupposes, whether liberation is an appropriate term, or whether reproductive rights actually exist.
S. Lee Whitesell
Good intentions can't stop stupidity
The following is a reaction to an article that appeared in The Signal on Oct. 18. Matt Ganz, the author of "Irresponsible drunk students soil their reputations, dorms," appears to have good intentions. However, his message that "underage drinking is a problem which needs to be stopped" is seemingly contradicted in a number of ways within the article he published Oct. 18. Mr. Ganz mentions, "If the College is liable for student irresponsibility, then he fully supports the action the College has taken." The College will not be held liable for any act of student irresponsibility unless a court of law rules that the College has acted negligently and has posed a threat to people on campus.
We must remember Mr. Ganz's quote: "it is ultimately our own responsibility" or irresponsibility which leads to campus problems. Thus the college may be scrutinized for not pursuing significant security initiatives; however, the students are ultimately the ones who are responsible for their choices.
"Students who obey the law ... truly have nothing to worry about." Indeed this statement is haunting. Not every person who obeys the law is safe. Humans are not perfect and since humans design the law, our laws are not perfect either. Therefore, we have something to worry about.
The rules of conduct that the government has established exist, theoretically, because a majority of the people believes these rules are still applicable and good. The law expects obedience, regardless of whether one agrees with the law or not.
In North Dakota a teenager is permitted to drive a car at age 14 and three months with a learner's permit. In New Jersey, the law permits a teenager to drive a car at age 16 with a learner's permit. The same teenager is permitted to drive in one state and not the other. Is that because a 14-year-old North Dakotan teenager is more qualified to operate a motor vehicle? Can it be argued that because of his age, an underage drinker in the United States is less qualified to drink at a bar in the United States than he is to drink at a bar in Portugal where there is no minimum drinking age?
"The biggest problem of all that I experienced was the two counts of defecation that occurred on my floor last year." When a College resident defecates in a strange manner, we find something repulsive about it. Granted TVs are not meant to be shat on. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suggest that the head case that is prepared to squat over a TV while drunk is probably just as likely to do it sober.
Ranting about a "rampant underage drinking problem" isn't going to change much at the College. Ranting about human stupidity won't change much either. Even your demand for the College to open an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) chapter will likely prove to be less than fruitful. Perhaps reading the first three steps of the 12-step AA program will lend some insight into the contradictory nature of your solution to the alcohol problem. Step 1: Admit you are powerless over alcohol - that your life has become unmanageable. Doesn't this mean alcoholics have no free will? And what is responsibility without free will?
For without free will, history is nothing more than cause and effect with every thought and movement, from the big bang to a choreographed ballet to a steamy pile on a TV, having been determined and necessary in the scheme of things.
Benjamin Libert
(11/01/06 12:00pm)
In response to Joyce Carol Oates' short story "Landfill," which was published in the New Yorker magazine, Tim Hinton, senior English major, wrote a letter to the New Yorker. Hinton said part of the reason he wrote the letter was because he "felt that a writer should be bound by some sense of responsibility to their community."
A copy of Hinton's letter follows:
Dear New Yorker,
Having just read Oates' "Landfill," I feel obligated to express my disgust. The quality of the story and Oates' talents as a writer aside, the subject matter is absolutely appalling.
Last spring, our campus faced the tragic ordeal of losing a student. . The case is currently still open.
The similarities between Fiocco and Hector Campos Jr. are clear. The differences are negligible. . The creative liberties (Oates) has taken do less to distinguish her story as fictional than they do to imply a commentary on the possible character of the young man who died and reinforce the popular suspicion that foul play was involved. For her to claim that the story is fictional is not enough. These events were a major news story for weeks; living in Princeton, approximately 10 minutes from (the College), the story was a major point of concern in her community. She would have to be aware that no one who lived in the area would somehow fail to realize her source of inspiration, and that her comments on "Hector's" character would be insulting to anyone who was affected by this tragedy.
I did not personally know Fiocco. Nevertheless, I felt his family's loss. I was affected by his death, as were all the students on this campus. . Oates was familiar with our college; she spoke here only five days before (Fiocco) disappeared. Did she think no one here would read this story? Did she think it would not cause upset? Did she think that no one would take offense to her describing this character, so transparently based off our departed fellow student, as "a loser" who we "don't miss"? .
For Oates to publish this story so soon after, to base a character off of (Fiocco) and portray that character as not only being murdered, but as a wholly unlikable individual who will not be missed and may be somewhat responsible for his own demise, is in extremely poor taste. To do so in light of the fact that the investigation into his death is still ongoing, that the exact time and manner of his death has not been conclusively determined, and that these events took place not 10 minutes from her town and are still a source of grief for members of her community (not to mention the Fiocco family), is irresponsible and distasteful.
Thank you for your time,
Timothy Hinton
Hinton received the following response from Oates:
Dear Tim Hinton,
. Truly, I am sorry for this inadvertent but obviously disturbing intrusive into the private lives of individuals unknown to me. I had read just two brief news articles in The New York Times on the tragic accident . and did no further research. The image was haunting to me of a young man trapped in debris and over a period of weeks I imagined a scenario that would be the story of Hector Campos Jr. . This story, as it grew upon me, became a story of fraternity drinking and hazing, the exploitation of a young man of an ordinary sort (not "heroic") who was, in a sense, being used as "landfill" by a fraternity wishing to keep its enrollment up and by a large university eager to swell its freshman enrollment. Quite quickly the story became for me a Michigan story (I taught briefly at the U of Michigan, once) . It would be a story about an ordinary young man perceived as a "loser" in the eyes of the world, yet beloved by his mother. There would be a subtle Darwinian evolutionary theory theme to frame the young man's experience. . I could "see" Hector Campos Jr., and in this process, which is typical of a writer/poet, the original stimulus, or point of departure, was utterly forgotten. I must further confess that I had not researched the incident beyond the one or two fairly superficial articles in the Times. I do admit to not reading local, New Jersey newspapers, rather more for the reason that I am so pressed for time and the Times requires so much attention than any feeling of indifference to my local surroundings. . My wish to evoke sympathy for a relatively "ordinary" individual was predominant, but I see, to my dismay, that I have succeeded only in provoking, in some quarters, many angry sentiments. As a writer who is by nature a formalist, I spend a good deal of time, perhaps too much time, calibrating sentences and paragraphs. (The original format of "Landfill" was one long paragraph . so that the reader might feel some of the suffocation/entrapment of the protagonist.) I am sending this to you not in the hope of exonerating myself but simply to explain. Above all, I am deeply sorry that the family, friends, classmates of (Fiocco) . have been upset by a work intended to be entirely fiction, with a thematic purpose that is entirely fictional and symbolic.
Should you wish to print this letter in your school newspaper, that is fine with me. It is written spontaneously and with no attempt to revise.
Very best wishes,
Joyce Carol Oates
(11/01/06 12:00pm)
Dear Kayy,
My boyfriend and I are constantly fighting. It's not just stupid fights over nothing, although that's how it always starts out. It always starts over light-hearted bickering, or a joke we take the wrong way and get emotional over. There is usually crying and sometimes yelling, and it really makes us both feel horrible, but we always make up fast realizing how stupid it is. But even though we know how dumb it is, we still let it happen! It's hard to take back the things we say in the heat of the moment. I usually call him a jealous control freak, and he'll tell me I'm a slut. This was going on for months before my friends started getting mad at me, not calling me and accusing me of not being there for them. I didn't realize I was distancing myself. But when I spend a lot of time away from my boyfriend, that usually causes the biggest fights because he keeps checking in on me and I get so caught up in the fun I'm having that I forget to call him. The night usually ends with me crying over his wild accusations. He has never raised a hand to me (it would be over in a second if he did) but sometimes he just looks so angry it scares me. No one gets why I stay with him and sometimes neither do I. He's not my first boyfriend, and I'm not afraid I can't meet someone else, but I've never felt this strongly about someone before and we've been together forever. I love him regardless of what people think. But I would like to try and work on our relationship before it breaks apart from all the melodrama.
Thanks,
Desperate Wifey
Dear Desperate Wifey,
I am very concerned! What you casually term "melodrama" are in fact extremely unhealthy patterns of behavior. Melodrama is arguing with your best friend about a crush, or gossiping about people behind their backs, or your mom telling you not to wear that leopard miniskirt to the mall.
That's melodrama - not vicious name calling, constant arguing and purposeful isolation coming from the supposed love of your life. That's what we call a dangerous relationship, sweetie.
You say these brawls usually spawn from little spats. I'd like to know what these incidents are about. Judging by the tone and content of the rest of your question, I'd venture to guess they involve your boyfriend's nit-picking of you. Your assault of choice - calling him a "jealous control freak" - says a lot. I know it's said in the heat of the moment, but sometimes it takes a heated moment for you to finally get fed up enough to express how you feel.
Is he unreasonably jealous? It's one thing to get that feeling in the pit of your stomach when your girlfriend is talking to an ex in a bar, but it's quite another to take that feeling and let it get so intense that you call her a slut! I'm appalled.
Even if his suspicions were valid and you were being less than faithful, verbally abusing you is only going to push you further away. He says he loves you, and he probably does. But because of his own issues, he's letting his unstable emotions manifest in abusive behavior. Whether he has been cheated on in the past or has trust issues for another reason, he's giving that unfounded jealousy too much power.
By calling you a slut he's taking attention away from his jealousy and is putting the blame on you. He's making it seem as if you're the one doing something wrong.
It also concerns me that you always "make up fast." Something tells me you don't actually work out the underlying problems behind your fights, because if you did they wouldn't keep happening so often. If you just forgive each other and pretend nothing happened, resentment will continue to fester until you have your next blowup.
I know people say that every couple fights, but not every couple ends most days in yelling, crying or abandoning their friends to attend to a needy partner. When you start dating someone, your circle of friends should get bigger, not smaller and hostile. Nobody said you have to be best friends with your partner's friends, but you should be spending time in groups and not just in isolation.
Of course friends can get annoyed if you're not around as much as you used to be, but most are pretty understanding. Your situation is different. This is your friends being genuinely concerned for your well-being! You should listen to them instead of writing them off, but at the same time they should be approaching the situation with more understanding.
One of the earliest signs of abuse is isolation. Even if your boyfriend isn't literally prohibiting you from going out by locking you up, he's making you feel so guilty that you'd rather not upset him. You know that if you spend too much time without him, he'll get suspicious and start with his "wild accusations."
There is a big difference between "checking in" and "checking up." Checking in is seeing what you're up to, asking how your class was, if you're busy and want to get lunch, or if you're having fun with your friends. Checking up is seeing if you're where you said you would be, finding out if you're with people he doesn't want you to be with and constantly calling you to make sure you're doing what you said you'd be doing.
What he's doing is checking up, and it's an unhealthy way to control someone when they're not even in your presence. His desire to control you and how successful he's been at it thus far is alarming, and your friends are right to be worried. Three early warning signs of abuse are checking up, acting possessive and isolation - and I hope this is a wake-up call for you.
I know you say you feel more strongly about him than anyone, but are you mistaking passion and drama for love? Either way, is that worth ruining your friendships, stressing you out and risking further abuse? Although leaving him might be difficult, the sooner you commit to change the better.
Physical or other types of severe abuse very rarely start in the early stages of a relationship. I'm sure you keep thinking it'll get better, but if you don't voice your concerns without screaming or crying, nothing will ever change.
There are places to get help, and people to talk to. Visit womanspace.org or another reputable Web site to learn more and locate hotlines. The office of Anti-Violence Initiatives in Eickhoff Hall also addresses the issues of stalking, domestic violence and sexual assault. You've already reached out once, and I hope you continue to do so, with professionals who can help.
No matter how much you love someone, you should love yourself more. That doesn't mean being selfish and apathetic, but at the end of the day, you'll always be there for yourself, and he may not be.
Love,
Kayy
(10/18/06 4:00pm)
Welcome to Around the Dorm, a sports knowledge competition with two tablespoons of knowledge, a cup full of humor and a dash or two of Tobasco. Today's competitors should seem familiar to you: last week's champ and WTSR sports director Patrick Lavery; The Signal sports editor Lauren Kohout; and The Signal staff writer Ray Lodato. I, of course, am your ref, Rob "Chris Berman needs to retire" Viviano.
1) Simple question. If you were on the track and field team, what event would you do and why?
PL: Long jump. It brings me back to my days in the sandbox, and I like to party like it's 1999. Hey, you ask a simple question, you get a simple answer.
LK: One word: decathalon. Made up of the 100-meter dash, long jump, shot put, high jump, 400-meter dash, 110-meter hurdles, discus throw, pole vault, javelin throw and 1,500-meter run, the winner automatically becomes the greatest athlete in the world. Plus, you get to do everything. To be a decathalon participant is to be good at everything, and who wouldn't want that?
RL: Definitely the 100-meter dash. In the world of track and field, this is definitely the "I'm Keith Hernendez" event - a competition so myopic in nature and so fantastically and inherently egotistical (one against all at its finest) that when you're good at it not only do you know, but everyone else knows. It's like being a wide receiver in the NFL - you're out on an island, individually competing against others and if you win, you better believe you'll have the opportunity to talk trash and deservedly so. The 100-meter dash is an event so lightning fast and spectacular in nature that it's hard to think about any other track and field competition. After all, are there many things cooler than having the title, "Fastest Man Alive"?
RV: Sometimes, my job is very simple. Because everyone wants to be the fastest man alive, and people actually remember the 100-meter dash competitors (unlike the other competitions), Ray gets 3 points. The decathalon is awesome, but it suffers from the same thing the World Series does when compared to the Super Bowl - a bunch of little events adding up to a victory doesn't entice people the same way one all-or-nothing event does - Lauren earns 2 points. Pat put enough words to earn 1 point.
2) I played soccer and lacrosse before, neither of which is a sport that has earned the respect it deserves. Which one will America largely support first: the highly regionalized but 100 percent North American lacrosse, or soccer, the "world's most popular sport," which America happily relegates to ESPN8?
PL: I'm really wrestling with this question. I'm deciding what to do: should I appease Rob and say lacrosse, because I know he's in love with it, or go with the more common answer, soccer? I'm torn between going for the points and going for the right answer. And then, as I read the question again, the answer comes to me. Soccer has plenty of respect; we're practically glued to our TVs for a month during the World Cup, and every 5-year-old kid's parents sign them up for recreational-league soccer. My parents should have locked me in a room instead of signing me up for soccer, but I actually really enjoyed it until that one day I scored on my own goal. America is currently supporting soccer just fine, but it should support lacrosse, and I think it will do so very soon. I went for the points and came up with the right answer ... see, you can have your cake and eat it too.
LK: If all other sports became extinct in the world and all that was left was lacrosse and soccer, then lacrosse would become the new American pastime. America loves contact sports, which is why football and NASCAR are number 1 - hello crashes? The only time soccer is popular in this country is during the World Cup. Lacrosse is physical, interesting and fun and would easily dominate over soccer.
RL: Neither. Lacrosse and soccer will not come to the forefront of the American sporting scene for a very long time. Soccer in America topped out in the 1970s with the North American Soccer League and the New York Cosmos, when they acquired such premier talent as Pel? (albeit well past his prime) and Giorgio Chinaglia. Yet, big surprise here, it still couldn't last. It was the "it" sport for a very short time, but it fizzled out and Major League Soccer is a mere shadow of what the NASL was. Lacrosse? Not happening anytime soon. Many sports are too similar to lacrosse in inherent nature (physicality in football, sticks and nets in hockey) for it to catch on. Why is NASCAR succeeding? Why is it the fastest growing sport in America? Because it's different from most American sports and has captured a very large audience with its unique attraction.
RV: As much as I hate awarding points to those who ignore the boundaries of my question, Ray completely diffused my idea of either sport ever being in demand and informed me NASCAR is the future - 3 points for crushing my dreams. Pat both appeased my blatant love of lacrosse and pointed out that we have a nation of young kids indoctrinated in soccer - 2 points. Lauren, you deserve more points for a great answer, but competition leaves you with 1 point.
3) Which bottom-feeders of the NFL will earn the "best" record by the end of the season: Oakland, Tennessee, Tampa Bay or Detroit?
PL: Rob, these questions suck. But I'm encouraged by what I see from rookie Tampa Bay quarterback Bruce Gradkowski and I'll tell you why. Every year, my dad watches the Thursday night college football games on ESPN, which usually feature various matchups between mid-major schools. And every year, my dad predicts the player he's seen in these games who will be the "next big thing" in the NFL. Two of his previous picks have indeed gone on to big pro careers so far: Arizona wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald and Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. Last year, he picked Gradkowski, who's not very physically imposing but has a lot of heart and is a dead ringer for Vin Diesel. He didn't look bad at all last week against New Orleans in his first career start. He may not lead the Bucs back to the playoffs, but he has the best chance of turning around this particular winless team. Tampa Bay's my choice.
LK: Tampa Bay will have the best record because the Bucs win every year. They have the most seasoned team with a veteran quarterback and defense and a veteran coach. When it comes to the Titans, they are not known for winning and are really young. Detroit has a rookie coach and a horrible owner. The Raiders have an old coach that has no chance of making his team better. Oakland should be kicked out of the NFL and would be if it didn't have the most intimidating fans with their crazy Viking helmets.
RL: Tampa Bay, definitely. Oakland is, by far, the worst football team I've seen in five years. From top to bottom the Raiders are a disgrace - from Art Shell staring blankly onto the field as his team is being decimated, to the team's superstar, Randy Moss, claiming "no one cares what's going on around here." Detroit is always rebuilding and Tennessee doesn't have the personnel to compete. Tampa Bay, while in possession of an aging defense, has a quality coach, a running back just waiting to break out and a rookie quarterback who has shown flashes of brilliance in his one start. I picked the Bucs to upset Cincinnati this weekend.
RV: Due to three nearly identical answers, I am picking petty things to decide this question. Pat, I love Vin Diesel and your father, but not as much as I dislike Art Shell - 1 point. Lauren, the fact that the Titans are not known for winning is true in the immediate past, but I distinctly remember them being one yard away from winning a Super Bowl a few years back ... but yes they did implode after that - 2 points. This leaves you Ray. I was afraid I was the only one who noticed that Art Shell just takes up space and doesn't really do anything - 3 points.
It's been done - the elusive sweep has been accomplished by a series of witty and extremely on-target remarks by Ray Lodato. He wins this game 9-5-4.
(10/18/06 12:00pm)
Overall Winners
1st Place: Delta Phi Epsilon and Sigma Alpha Epsilon (Captain Planet)
2nd Place: Kappa Delta, Alpha Kappa Alpha and Sigma Pi (Scooby Doo)
3rd Place: Zeta Tau Alpha, Phi Kappa Psi and Lambda Sigma Upsilon (Batman)
Cheerleading Competition
1st Place: Delta Phi Epsilon and Sigma Alpha Epsilon
Powder Puff Football
1st Place: Delta Phi Epsilon and Sigma Alpha Epsilon
Sneak Prevue
1st Place: Phi Kappa Tau and Delta Zeta (The Flintstones)
Field Games
1st Place in Tug of War and Dizzy Bat Race: Alpha Psi Chi, Theta Phi Alpha and Lambda Theta Phi (Inspector Gadget)
1st Place in Three-legged Race: Phi Kappa Psi, Zeta Tau Alpha and Lambda Sigma Upsilon
Pool Games
1st Place in Life Jacket Relay: Alpha Chi Rho and Phi Sigma Sigma (Doug)
Lip Sync Contest
1st Place: Kappa Delta, Alpha Kappa Alpha and Sigma Pi
Dance Contest
1st Place: Kappa Delta, Alpha Kappa Alpha and Sigma Pi
Yell Like Hell
1st Place: Ambassadors and Co. (Ghostbusters)
Banner Contest
1st Place: Delta Phi Epsilon and Sigma Alpha Epsilon
(10/18/06 12:00pm)
I would like to thank Brian Hackett for adopting the ideology of our president by imposing his religious values on those who possess different beliefs. Hackett fails to understand that there is no such thing as universal morals.
In his Oct. 11 article "Supporting women means opposing abortion," he states that according to "God's word" abortion is immoral. In coming to this conclusion, Hackett interprets the Bible from a literalist perspective. It is important to note that according to the text of the Bible, women are considered as subordinates to men. Furthermore, the Bible has even been used to condone the practice of slavery. According to Hackett's interpretation, these outrageous practices would be moral.
However, Hackett needs to learn that America is not a theocracy. As the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a democractic government founded on the principle of separation of church and state. Religion can play no part in a government based on the rule of law.
Mr. Hackett is unwilling to acknowledge that not all Americans are Christians, and I am deeply offended by his assertion that policy initiatives should be decided based on his personal religious beliefs.
It is exactly this type of behavior that the First Amendment was intended to prevent. I urge Hackett to allow me to practice my religion without demeaning it. I completely respect your right to disagree with my political and religious views, but please at least respect them. In the United States, the Constitution is superior to a single person's interpretation of the Bible.
Steve Morris
Are you serious, Brian Hackett? You make deeply flawed arguments in your Oct. 11 opinion piece, "Supporting women means opposing abortion." I will address two of them. The first is that scientific and religion-based evidence indicate that a human life begins at conception. Your empirical claims are that a human heartbeat can be detected within 18 days, that brain waves are present within six weeks and that all organs are present within eight weeks. Your piece cites one Web site, godandscience.com. Let's check some other sources.
The National Right to Life Committee gives the times as 22 days, six weeks and eight weeks, respectively. Education for Choice claims the heartbeat is present after 14 weeks. I sense bias in each source.
Webmd.com says there is usually a heartbeat after four weeks of development (six weeks of pregnancy), and all organs are present after 10 weeks of development (12 weeks of pregnancy). There is quite a range here, but most sources agree that fetuses become viable after around 22 weeks of development. That is, the fetus is completely dependent on its mother for at least the first 22 weeks.
After offering this questionable timeline, you conclude that there are stages of development, and hence life, starting from conception. You add that without conception, there are no stages, and therefore no life. You should consider other factors necessary for development to commence, such as the decision of two individuals to have unprotected sex or even begin dating in the first place.
You can push back "the beginning" further and further by the same argument, but the argument was invalid from the start. Simply stating that human life requires conception in no way implies that conception is the beginning of a human life.
Your religion-based argument is also flawed. Your one quote, "For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb" (Psalms 139:13), suggests only that life begins in the womb; it says nothing of conception. I can just as easily quote Genesis 2:7: "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
However, maybe we cannot know exactly how God begins a life: "As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything" (Ecclesiastes 11:5). As an atheist, I am particularly unconvinced by biblical arguments, but even the religious should look skeptically on any claim that the Bible, or any holy book, should decide this issue for us.
You have therefore failed to show that life begins at conception, and there remain very good reasons - scientific, religious and otherwise - for believing that life begins well after conception. To suggest that all abortions, even those during early pregnancy, should be considered murder is wholly unfounded.
I will conclude by responding to one of the worst of your secondary arguments - that the pro-life movement supports women because abortion hurts women. It may be true that abortion is not a "cure-all" solution to a problem and that abortion can cause harm to women (although you do not make a strong case for this). But surely we have the right to automobiles, sporting events and exams, even though they can cause physical harm and psychological distress. To suggest that individuals lack a right to something on the grounds that it could harm them is absurd.
I can only hope that you and others will learn from this critique and come to see the flaws in your arguments. Only as we come together to acknowledge the importance of individual rights will America be able to live up to its creed.
Information from - ncrtl.org, efc.org.uk, webmd.com
Mike Richman
As I read Brian Hackett's op-ed in last week's issue of The Signal, I was repulsed by his use of the Christian Bible to justify his anti-abortion position. Mr. Hackett conveniently forgets that not every American is a Christian. None of our founding documents - the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence - mentions Christianity or Jesus Christ. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution forbids the government from establishing any official religion, and the First Amendment guarantees our freedom of religious expression. This is only fair to the approximately 20 percent of Americans who are nonreligious or belong to other religions. Christians are free to believe what they wish, but it is wrong for them to impose their morals on others.
Even if we are to take the Bible as a legal authority, it is full of inconsistencies. In his attack on legal abortion, Mr. Hackett somewhat confusingly includes the biblical story of the "Slaughter of the Innocents," in which mass infanticide takes place. He finds it "extremely shocking" that the Bible could condone any form of murder. How long has he been reading this book? It is full of atrocities, including not only murder, but also genocide.
In Genesis 6:7, the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air." Why would a deity who values life destroy nearly all living things on Earth? Why would he kill every innocent firstborn son of the Egyptians (Exodus 12:29) and encourage or commit genocide against Sodom, Gomorrah, Amman and Midian (Genesis 19:24-25, Deuteronomy 2:33-36, Numbers 31:1-35)? According to one estimate, 2,270,365 people are murdered by God and his servants in the Bible. This makes it a bit difficult to take the commandment against murder seriously.
Information from - skepticsannotatedbible.com, dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html
Eric Berg
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety" (1 Timothy 2:11-15).
Please excuse me for what I'm about to say, since apparently a woman should lack thought and opinion, according to the biblical verse above. If we're living through the Bible, let's remember it was written in its entirety in a time of extreme sexism, racism and homo-negativity. And just so we're all on the same page: God did not write the Bible, and unfortunately, neither did Jesus. The Bible was written exclusively by men, and while the book has several important lessons, if you so choose to put your faith in it, it is a severely antiquated source for modern issues.
And that's only if you believe in the Bible and Christianity. Yes, America was founded on the belief that all should pursue life, liberty and happiness, but it was also based on freedom of religion. So, please, keep your god out of my government, and as far away as possible from my reproductive rights. The religious argument in the abortion debate is nothing short of ludicrous.
In response to Brian Hackett's article, may I correct the terminology used quite frequently throughout the article? I would like to be referred to as "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion." I am pro-choice based on the mere fact that I feel women should have the right to choose when to be a parent and of how many children. I am not forcing any woman to terminate her child, nor am I forcing any woman to carry to term, for the sole reason that I do not know her experience - who am I to impose my beliefs on her?
The key word "choice" also includes adoption, safe sex, abstinence, parenting, birth control, etc. Once these choices are accessible, then the woman can decide which best fits her situation.
On the topic of misconception revolving around terminology, who can claim to be "pro-life" when there is a whole history of violence and killing in the name of that term alone? Want to talk about murder? OK, let's talk about the "pro-life" record: Dr. David Gunn (1993); James H. Barrett, Dr. John Bayard Britten, Leanne Nichols, and Shannon Lowney (1994); Dr. Barnett Sleplan and Officer Robert Sanderson (1998). These are only people directly killed by "pro-lifers," not the numerous other injuries caused by the 33 arsons, nine bombs, three shootings and 19 acid incidents that have occurred just in the past nine years at different health clinics all over the nation.
Let's talk realistically. More than one-third of all women in the United States will have an abortion by the time they are 45. Every year, 6.4 million women become pregnant, 54 percent of those being unintended pregnancies. Thirteen to 14 thousand women in the United States will have an abortion because they have become pregnant as a result of rape or incest.
According to a study in 2002, 86.7 percent of abortions occurred in less than 12 weeks, when the fetus is severely underdeveloped and not capable of thought or feeling. Here is another fact to ponder: 13 percent of all abortions in the United States are women who classify themselves as "born-again" or Evangelical Christians. Twenty-seven percent of abortion patients are Catholic.
So where do the elitist men who are trying to subordinate women fit in . besides the Signal Opinions section, of course? Understand this pure, simple, biological truth: there is a 100 percent chance that, as a male, you will never become pregnant. So to claim to understand the mentality and psyche of a pregnant woman is pure bullshit.
There is another entire issue about classism, financial responsibilities and health issues that go hand-in-hand when dealing with the issue of abortion.
So yes, let's rally around the idea of supporting women, but one must not mix up the terms support and suppress.
Kari Osmond and
Melissa Zachok
Brian Hackett claims that by opposing abortion, he is therefore supporting women. I tend to disagree.
First let me start off by saying that just because a woman is pro-choice, it doesn't mean that she is going to run to the Planned Parenthood in Trenton and terminate her pregnancy.
Being pro-choice does give her many options. She could either: carry the pregnancy to term and keep her baby, carry the pregnancy to term and then put the baby up for adoption, or have an abortion. However, when young women decide to hide their pregnancies from friends and family, the newborn often winds up in the dumpster or the streets, leaving the mother in a dangerous physical state. Wouldn't it have been a bit safer to abort the pregnancy nine months earlier in a doctor's office than dangerously give birth alone and then just get rid of the child? I realize that this may seem extreme but, sadly, it happens every day in the United States.
Perhaps we should define the word "pro-choice." "Pro-choice" is defined by the American Heritage dictionary as "favoring or supporting the legal right of women to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term." Nowhere in that definition does it mention religion, slaughter or men and their personal choice regarding abortion.
However, it does state that a woman has a choice to make - a choice about her own body, her own physical condition and her own mental state, which really should not affect a man. Perhaps you will look down on her as a "murderer," and your own personal ethics will come into play. Honestly though, who are you to say what a woman can and cannot do to her own body?
Women own their bodies, and with that ownership there are certain choices she has. I do not mean to be rash, but men really cannot have an active say in abortion, because they will never choose to have one or not. In short, if you don't have a vagina, your opinion should not really matter.
If you engage in sex, you should be prepared for the consequences that go along with it. Women need to take an active role in their reproductive health in order to prevent pregnancy in the first place.
If you or your boyfriend do not have a condom, it's very simple: don't have sex. However, if you choose to take the risk of unprotected sex, you should be ready to make a difficult choice. In no way am I condoning abortion as a permissible form of birth control, but as a last resort, it is necessary for some women.
In essence, I believe that every woman is pro-choice. Why? You have the choice to follow through with the pregnancy, and you also have the choice not to. Whether you like it or not, all women have a choice.
Morally, I wouldn't go so far as to call a woman who has had an abortion a murderer. That is extreme. Neither you nor I can fathom what goes through a woman's mind when she is pregnant and alone. The mix of emotions is there, and I can see why many women regret turning toward abortion. At the time however, it may have been the only plausible choice.
If you would like to support women, consider taking a look at some of the organizations at the College that actually advocate women's rights instead of stating that since you oppose abortion, you are thus supporting women.
Michelle Jarmicki
Ewing author
responds to Oates
Highly acclaimed author Joyce Carol Oates, who also teaches creative writing at Princeton University, seems to have stumbled upon a very non-creative way to find ideas for her fiction and character development.
Fiction: Oates' short story, "Landfill," published in the Oct. 9 issue of The New Yorker, is about a 19-year-old Michigan State University freshman named Hector Campos Jr., whose body is found in a landfill in April after he has been missing for almost a month.
Fact: This past April, the body of a 19-year-old freshman at the College, John Fiocco Jr., was found in a landfill about a month after his disappearance. Coincidence?
When you consider the College is roughly 15 minutes from Princeton and the story was on the front page of local papers for months, it's kind of difficult to think so. The coincidences continue.
Both the fictional Campos Jr. and the real Fiocco Jr. were named after their fathers, had a penchant for drinking and were athletic. Their cause of death is unknown but it is suspected that after a night of drinking they plunged to their death down a garbage chute and into a dumpster.
They were both reported missing by their roommates in March and their bodies found almost a month later in a landfill. I count at least 10 exact similarities between the two.
Oates is baffled and does not understand why her fictional story set in Michigan could be objected to by anyone close to the Fiocco Jr. incident, and hopes that her story is not viewed as a literal translation of the actual event.
Despite extensive local media coverage and even the national attention the case received, she contends that other than reading an article about it in the New York Times some months ago, she is only vaguely familiar with its particulars.
Oates does claim she drew from incidents at other colleges as the basis for "Landfill." One such incident is the sexual allegations brought up against the Duke University lacrosse team earlier this year.
However, I find it ironic she could draw on something that took place over 400 miles away but is not very familiar with a drama that unfolded only 10 miles from her.
I love the art of literature and it pains me to see it treated with such disrespect. Has it really been reduced to this technique Oates employs?
I certainly hope she does not instruct her students to use a similar approach. If such creativity is deemed acceptable, then what next - lip-synched operas and computer generated ballet?
It is my contention that if "Landfill" is creative license in use, the license be revoked and the driver suspended.
This is a woman who is on the short list to receive the Nobel Prize in literature, ladies and gentlemen.
I can only hope all those ballots marked in favor of her receiving it are thrown down a garbage chute and never found. She should not receive a thing, but give the Fiocco family her deepest apologies and the money she made from the publication of the story and all subsequent rights to it.
Roman Griffen,
Ewing, N.J.
Bigots on a
newspaper staff?
I have a simple question dealing with the comic entitled "Arabs on a Plane" in the Oct. 11 edition of The Signal: Who the hell has the audacity to put something that egregious and blatantly racist in our school newspaper?
I am not normally moved to actually complain about things I disagree with, but this has crossed the line. This newspaper is representative of our student body and the College as a whole, and it's completely unacceptable and inappropriate.
While we as American citizens have a right to free speech, refuse like this doesn't deserve to be printed.
Aside from the fact that it's a shitty joke about snakes on a plane, of course. How do you expect anyone of Arab descent to react to this? They're depicted hijacking a plane and biting people, for God's sake.
Zach Goldstein
(10/18/06 12:00pm)
Dear Kayy,
I've been with my boyfriend for about three years now, and lately I've been noticing some strange behaviors I've never seen before. I'm not saying it's definitely because he experienced a family tragedy six months ago, but that is when I started to notice it more often. He's become extremely obsessed with his "health" - although it seems extremely unhealthy what he's doing. He's been eating close to nothing, and when he does eat it's raw vegetables or something like that. He has been avoiding going out to eat like we always used to and is constantly talking about his weight (even though he's in great shape for a 20-year-old male). I'm not sure if he's been throwing up after he eats, because since this has all started I've been seeing him less and less - but I suspect it. He's always been healthy and would run a few times a week, but now he's skipping classes or other important things to go to the gym for extended periods of time every day. He constantly stares in the mirror and complains about being fat while pinching his non-existent stomach. Our sex life is dwindling; he's very rarely in the mood to do anything, and anytime I address it in relation to his eating habits he freaks out and leaves the room. It's killing our relationship, not to mention the fact that now he picks on me and what I eat! He's never showed anything less than satisfaction with me and my body, but now will comment on how I look in certain clothes or when I'm eating something sweet. I'd say I'm pissed off but I'm too worried to be mad - I think he needs help but I don't know what to do.
Thanks,
Starving for Affection
Dear Starving for Affection,
I'm very sorry for the situation you're in right now. Unfortunately, it's something that many of us go through - we see that a loved one close to us has a problem, and we don't have a clue what's wrong or how we can fix it. Unfortunately, when it comes to issues of eating disorders or body image issues, there is little we can do for them.
Fortunately, you made the right first step - looking for help. Many of us see people around us suffering for one reason or another, and because it's too big or complex for us to handle, we try to ignore it and hope that someone else will step up, or that it will get better on its own. And for most people, it only gets worse.
I am not a doctor or therapist, but maybe I can shed some light on this matter and strongly urge you to contact a professional.
There seems to be several things going on here - your boyfriend is obsessed with his body image, his self-image is unrealistic and he is showing extremely unhealthy eating patterns. It is unfortunate that many people who know your boyfriend may neglect to see that he has a problem.
He's simply getting into great shape and working out, they might say. Because anorexia, bulimia and eating disorders in general are associated with young women, people tend to not see it when, for instance, an older woman or young man are displaying dangerous symptoms.
In reality, eating disorders and body image issues can affect anyone, and they affect more people than we realize. Even though not every person goes to the lengths that your boyfriend does to regulate their bodies, obsession about weight, muscle, looks, flab, dieting, compulsive eating and control are everywhere.
Becoming satisfied with our less-than-perfect bodies seems to be nearly impossible in the face of today's media and culture. In the United States, we tend to exaggerate the importance of having a perfect body. According to movies, television, books and the news, certain "looks" are prized and others are shamed.
Society defines success not only by accomplishments like getting a good job and being healthy and happy, but as also being effortlessly flab-less.
If we're not born with the genetic predisposition to have rock hard abs and killer glutes, society reminds us that this can be easily fixed (for a price). If we don't have the time to go to the gym or the self-control to eat healthy, they give us other "options." Everything from liposuction to tummy-tucks to teeth whitening to calf implants to anorexia is available to get us closer to perfect.
It's very sad, and it doesn't have to be this way. In fact, there are things that point to progress. For instance, Dove's "Campaign for Real Beauty," in which images of women of all shapes, sizes, colors, ages and races are used to portray real beauty, is an encouraging development
Surprisingly, even the modeling industry is showing progress.
In Madrid, there has been a BMI (body mass index) cutoff for women - if they are too thin and too unhealthy, they will be turned away. Thirty percent of last year's participants in Fashion Week have already been rejected.
Unfortunately, these are the exceptions. And everything I say here applies to both men and women - the pressure is very strong for men to have big pecs and thin waists just as it is for women to have protruding collarbones and hip bones. Although your boyfriend's experience may appear to be different than a 14-year-old girl who binges and purges, it's really not too different at all.
In fact, they are identical in that they are about control. Everybody deals with grief and pain in different ways. People who are abused by a spouse are more likely to display unhealthy behaviors, and victims of sexual assault are more likely to develop eating disorders. In instances like these, or something like your boyfriend's loss of a family member, people can feel like they have no sense of control over their lives and the world they live in.
This fear can turn into obsession and culminate in dangerous behaviors like self-mutilation or anorexia. A cutter can control his flow of blood; a bulimic can control what goes in and out of his body, even if he can't control the weather or the abuser.
Like you said, your boyfriend's family tragedy may not necessarily be a sole cause, but it may have caused the break. Since he had been invested in physical fitness before, his healthy behaviors may have intensified during his grieving period to a dangerous level.
And taking in all of the other stresses of college life - peer pressure about drinking, drugs and sex; heavy course loads; trying to balance a social life and academics; trying to figure out a major, career and future - it's easy to get overwhelmed.
I'm sure this hurts you. As his partner, you see yourself as the safe place where he should be seeking this comfort. You feel like he should be opening up to you, asking you for help but it's not that easy.
It's hard to admit you have a problem to someone you love, someone you don't want to see your flaws. Your boyfriend is dealing with so much inner turmoil and struggle that he is pushing away the very people he loves the most.
As much as you want to confront him, hold him or fix him, you can't do it on your own. In fact, trying to do those things may just tear apart anything that you have. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you need help - I mean you, not him. Talk to your family, Community Advisors or Psychological Counseling Services. There are countless resources, organizations, counselors, hotlines and hospitals that deal with this issue.
And this issue is serious. Any survivor can tell you about the battle they fight every day in recovery. Unfortunately, some people can't speak, because their disease claimed their life.
I'm not saying this to scare you, but simply to urge you, and anyone who is worried or suspicious of a friend, to reach out to a professional who is trained and can help.
You'll be in my thoughts and I hope your boyfriend gets the help he needs.
Yours,
Kayy
(10/11/06 12:00pm)
Fight for your rights
Despite the fact that apparently the Fourth Amendment is no longer applicable on the College's campus, as exemplified by the actions of Campus Police over the past month, we as students need to exercise our most important inalienable right - the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
The Fourth Amedment of the U.S. Consitution reads ensures that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."
As students of an institution which effectively refuses to adhere to the protections laid out in the U.S. Constitution, we have not only the right but the obligation to speak out and amend the incorrect belief of Campus Police that it is above the law of the land. There have been numerous reports of campus law enforcement officers subjecting students to unreasonable searches and seizures over the past month.
One person with whom I have come in contact informed me that he was arrested for transporting alcoholic beverages on campus a few weeks ago. He told me that he was walking on campus with the alcohol in a duffle bag when he was stopped by an officer on a bike.
After asking the officer on what grounds he was being detained, the officer refused to provide an answer. When the officer asked the student to open the bag, the student refused on the grounds that the officer did not possess probable cause or a search warrant. After he refused to acquiesce to the officer's request for a second time, the officer went ahead and opened the bag without consent. This student was subsequently charged with possession of alcoholic beverages.
According to the Fourth Amendment, this incident constitutes an egregious violation of a person's right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Campus Police does not possess the unlimited power to take the law into its own hands. It is our civic duty as students of a state institution to publicize and scrutinize this overzealous exercise of unlawful authority by "law enforcement" officials. I put quotations around the term "law enforcement" due to the fact that true law enforcement officers are legally obligated to abide by the laws which they themselves are enforcing.
While I sympathize with the added pressure put on Campus Police to crack down on underage drinking in response to the pending Fiocco lawsuit, I believe that the efforts of Campus Police to obstruct the proliferation of alcohol have been undermined by its own refusal to adhere to the laws of the nation. The College's students should continue to express their discontent with the way in which Campus Police has responded to the Fiocco tragedy.
Only through voicing our opposition to these illegal abuses of government power can we as students convince the College's administration that Campus Police must be reprimanded and held accountable for its actions. Walking around at night carrying a duffle bag is not an adequate justification for Campus Police to search your belongings.
Simply carrying a duffle bag is not a circumstance that would lead an officer to believe that a student has violated the law by possessing alcoholic beverages. Law enforcement officials are not infallible; they are restrained by the protections of individual rights laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
The job of Campus Police is to ensure the safety of those residing on campus; it is not to overreact and harass students simply for the purpose of demonstrating their authority. Campus Police, if you wanted to create an atmosphere of fear, anxiety and outright anger on the College's campus, then congratulations, you have undoubtedly accomplished that. If you do not agree with me that the mood on our campus has grown dismal, just take a leisurely walk around campus late on a Friday night.
Sadly, you will notice that there are just as many police as students roaming the campus at this time of night. My fellow students, I once again urge you to continue to speak out against the egregious violations of our Fourth Amendment rights which have been occurring over the past month.
Inaction will not serve as a vehicle for change. Only through the exercise of our First Amendment rights can we as students urge Campus Police to once again respect the Fourth Amendment.
Steve Morris
Roaches, earwigs, silverfish, oh my!
As I look at the College's new library, I cannot help but marvel at its pristine beauty. Then, as I am doing a sweep of the building, I see a group study room with a spread of KFC on one of the tables. I know and they know that there is no food allowed beyond the caf?, but perhaps they do not know why. Please allow me to explain.
Flash back to the Roscoe L. West Library circa 2003. The place was a dump. No one ever came to the Roscoe L. West Library. Though I was partial to it, it was dirty. Seriously dirty. Dirty with bugs. Silverfish, earwigs, roaches. How could a library have such an infestation of vermin? The answer: food.
A long time ago, people stopped trying to keep food out. I suppose they just got fed up. Maybe it was after they found the slice of pizza used as a bookmark. Maybe it was the empty cans of beer. Perhaps it was after the volume of silverfish outnumbered the number of books. The bugs were no joke.
The reason there are people standing at the caf? and walking the floors is because we are trying to prevent the same thing from happening to this building. Did you know that every year, we lose 2 percent of the collection due to damage caused by food products?
I know it may seem like a major inconvenience, but it is for your own good. Do you really want to be reading or napping and wake up to a roach crawling on you? It's happened. Do you want to be in the stacks reaching for a book on the top shelf and have a silverfish fall on you?
The next time you think about sneaking food into the library and leaving the wrappers behind as evidence to your insubordination, think about the bugs.
Nina Davidson
(10/04/06 12:00pm)
A word of concern,
I have been extremely disappointed with your article in The Signal. It's incomprehensible why the College permits you to scandalize all these students. Only evil has come out of this world so far, so fornication, incest, seduction, rape and unnatural vices are all OK? Shame on you and your soul. So God and parents are trash for you ... and you tell this to the students. You need prayers badly. The College's priest knows about all this evil going on in this newspaper. We know Satan is loose and desperately trying to seduce students into fornication. Do you know that incontinence is the vice directly opposed to continence? It consists either in the impetuosity or the weakness of a soul which impulsively, and without the counsel of reason, surrenders to evil desires, or after the counsel of reason, is weak and reluctant to accept the judgment of reason. We hope never to see your obscene articles again.
May God bless you and have clemency on your soul one day.
Dear anonymous Kayy-hater,
So, only fornication, incest, seduction, rape and unnatural vices have come out of my column? Would you rather me talk about the rhythm method and abstinence? Because, honestly, that's not realistic. When last I checked, God gave us free will (not my fault), and if people decide to have sexual relationships, to make love, that is their God-given choice. I've never suggested that people should go out and have sex with everybody - in fact, I caution against it in almost every single column. I simply urge people to take care of their minds and bodies, live life with open communication and think before they act. And then I provide them with options and health advice so that they stay safe.
You're right about one thing. Many people, including young people, do act without the counsel of reason - and that's where I come in. I never advise people to take my word as Gospel. Instead, I present them with facts, options and a safe way to carry out their decision. My column is more social commentary and interesting observation than it is a guide on how to live your life.
I also have a question for you - what do you deem "unnatural vices"? Carnal desire is one of our primal instincts. How else could we have populated this beautiful planet so quickly after the Flood? In all seriousness, I'd like to hear your definition of "unnatural vices." If that means bestiality, necrophilia and toe fetishes I'm right there with you, but if it has anything to do with homosexuality, physical pleasure or straying from traditional gender roles, I guess we are mutually sickened by each other's ideals.
It is the impracticality of certain socially conservative beliefs that keeps women dying from unsafe abortions and gives fuel to the AIDS epidemic fire. Of course, you probably believe these people deserve their fate. But as long as women are being raped, I will be a full supporter of birth control and reproductive rights. If it wasn't my choice to have sex, I shouldn't be forced to face the consequences.
Your furious letter states that The Signal and my column create evils, including rape, when in fact I am one of the biggest advocates for sexual assault survivors on this campus. Have you ever held a woman after she has been sexually assaulted? Have you ever looked into the eyes of someone that has been impregnated by a torturer and tried desperately to give them advice without crying? Probably not. I hope few people have to learn that agony.
In fact, you'd be surprised to know that personally, I probably would never have an abortion because of my spiritual and religious beliefs. However, I am white, privileged, middle-class and dating the person I plan on marrying, so getting pregnant wouldn't be the end of the world. But it's not my job to tell others that they have to do the same - because I am not them.
You seem to think that your idea of morality should reign over all other people's. Or maybe not your morality, but that of God. Don't bother sending me quotes from the Bible, because I won't read them. The Bible is simply interpretations by human beings, molded and edited and exploited as political propaganda to ruin the lives of those who are un-Christian, "immoral" or female. I have never criticized God, Jesus Christ, Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Isis or whatever else. Whatever you believe, that's fine. I do, however, at times reference historical events in which institutions, that may happen to be called churches, have oppressed those who did not deserve it.
The bottom line is, your beliefs are impractical, unrealistic and ... sad.
I'm not questioning what you do with your own personal life - sit in a dark room all day for all I care, never experience the miracle of love, and physical love at that (until you get married of course, and realize you know nothing about pleasure and intimacy).
Stay repressed, closed-minded and judgmental for all I care. You can even honestly believe that Eve and all women are the downfall of man because of our "seductive" and evil qualities - because that's your choice. I just hope you don't get a book deal.
You seem to read the Bible, but seem to have missed the chapter on free will. You simply cannot comprehend the idea of choice.
Well, of course we're allowed to choose our path if it's the same as your choice, and that of God's. Has God spoken directly to you? If not, I don't want to hear from you again.
Actually, I'd like to thank you for reminding me that people like you actually exist. It's good to know not everyone at the College is as liberal and open-minded as me and most of my readers.
The bottom line is, think whatever you want about me, my column and my millions of fornicators. We don't need your help. Offer your clemency and criticism to someone else, because I have a personal relationship with God that you have nothing to do with.
I have never said God or parents are trash. In fact, they are two very important elements in my life. Fortunately, my God and my parents are beautiful souls who embrace everyone, treat everyone equally and with kindness and have a truly grateful and content outlook on the world. The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree (unless it's picked by Eve, my sister).
If my column bothers you so much, stop reading it. I thank you deeply for saying that my column has such a huge effect on the students of the College, many of which are already fornicating everywhere on campus, without my suggestions of what positions to use. I didn't realize I was that important.
May God bless you with insight and liberation one day.
Kayy
(10/04/06 12:00pm)
Last week, the College released its 2005 Annual Security Report, complying with its obligation under the 1998 Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Police and Campus Crime Statistics Act. The report highlighted a few areas of interest, which, judging by the trend the office of Campus Police Services is setting in its broad crackdown on alcohol offenses, should only become more interesting when the 2006 report is released next year.
To begin, we're pleased to see the College's timely filing of its report as its relationship with the obligations of the Clery Act have been, to say the least, spotty in the past.
In 2001, the College faced fines when the federal Department of Education uncovered that it had failed to disclose three forcible sex offenses that had occurred in 1996 and 1997. Since then, the College has striven to comply more tightly with the stipulations of the act.
Last year, however, showed another breach of the College's responsibilities under the legislation. In October, The Signal reported that Campus Police had lagged up to 40 days behind schedule in its reporting of incidents under the Clery Act. The federal law states that incidents must be reported in the publicly-available log within three days. After our article printed, Campus Police quickly got the log up-to-date.
What we see this year, however, troubles us. The report notes an increase in alcohol offenses - 707 for the year, up from 676 in 2004. Considering the dual efforts of Campus Police and the Ewing Township Police Department to crack down on underage drinking by the College's students, we expect to see a significant spike in these numbers next year.
Only six weeks into the semester, we have heard an alarming number of instances of parties, on campus and off, getting broken up by law enforcement. More students are getting cited for underage drinking when they might have escaped in the past with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Ewing Township has started issuing steep monetary penalties for underage drinking, even threatening jail time if students are unable to pay.
While we sympathize with the pressure the College is under with the threat of a lawsuit at the hands of the parents of John Fiocco Jr., we can't help but think that law enforcement might be overreacting to some extent.
Our college experience - our life experience - is formed, in some degree, by behavior that may be deemed by some as "irresponsible." We have all engaged in these strange rituals of college, crammed and confused in hot basements or bars, mixing with strange people.
And yes, there will be victims. That is an inevitability. All the police in the world could not stop us. But what we learn is far more valuable, defining ourselves through our misguided adventures, pushing our limits so we know where they are.
(10/04/06 12:00pm)
Stone-walled:
ROTC speaks up
This letter is in response to Tom Stone's article "No Place for Military on Campus." Before I get started, let me introduce myself as a senior history major, athlete and Army ROTC cadet. I'm also a Democrat. If Mr. Stone wishes to write for this paper it should be expected that he is held to some standards. His facts are wrong, and his assumptions, besides being hurtful and misleading, are completely fabricated.
Mr. Stone writes that "it is common knowledge that the military experiences persistent difficulty in meeting its monthly enlistment quotas." However, he cannot support this "common knowledge." In fact, the Army reached its recruiting/retention goal of 80,000 on Sept. 22 of this year. The 80,000th recruit was a 23-year-old graduate of Rutgers University, and she is training to be a Signals Intelligence Analyst or a Cryptologic Linguist.
Mr. Stone also makes the argument that the military exploits people who are in "desperate" financial situations. In reality the military's recruits represent the American population, as most recruits come from the middle class. The claim that the only people willing to volunteer for the military are ones who need money is ridiculous.
There is not a cadet here at the College who joined the program for the money. In fact, only two cadets (myself included) are having their education paid for by the Army. People join the army because they want to, not because of some "backdoor draft" our government has pulled off on us. Mr. Stone does not understand what drives the cadets and soldiers here at the College.
Mr. Stone, you have every right to believe what you want - but never open your mouth and claim to be speaking for me. You have never walked in my shoes and the fact is you couldn't. I support my country and my flag, but most of all I support the Constitution - that is the oath I have taken: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." If you want to call me jingoistic because of my beliefs, then you are the ignorant one. You can write what you want because of the soldiers who choose to defend the Constitution.
Calling these people jingoists, na've and desperate is embarrassing, and a responsible news organization would not stand for that. My experience in the Army ROTC has been an extremely positive one. I've learned leadership skills, personal responsibility, made lifelong friends, gained confidence and prepared myself for a career in and out of the military. Mr. Stone, your kind of shock journalism is a cheap trick that doesn't work on intelligent people like those in this school. Look up the word professionalism, and the next time you write an article don't claim to speak for someone you don't know. I have my own voice - I don't want yours.
Duane Clark
While I share Mr. Stone's concern for the high human and fiscal costs associated with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I feel his nonsensical tirade found in last week's Signal cannot go unanswered.
As a graduate of the College and the Air Force ROTC program, I take great offense to his characterization of young people who choose to join the military as unwitting, desperate jingoists. Mr. Stone should be ashamed of himself for making such spurious generalizations about his peers simply because he is frustrated with current U.S. foreign policy.
Is it possible that some young people may actually want to serve their country in these troubled times, regardless of how they feel about Iraq or our national leadership?
Could young people actually gain some marketable skills such as leadership and management experience, language training or an advanced degree while serving in the military? Apparently the answer is no, at least according to Mr. Stone.
He would have readers believe that enlistees and cadets cannot grasp the realities of a military career with their feeble minds and that their financial need causes them to be tricked into service. Do scholarships or other benefits play a role in attracting recruits? Certainly, but those joining strictly for the money rarely make it to the end of the ROTC program, let alone active duty. By making such claims that enlistees and cadets are categorically being duped, Mr. Stone reveals his own ignorance.
Mr. Stone also seems to ignore the fact that we have an all-volunteer military. It's not up to him if you or I join. Furthermore, it is important to understand that the military is a vast revolving door that relies on a continuous stream of manpower just as much in times of peace as in times of war. Our "cynical military masters" need the influx provided by recruitment and ROTC to keep manning levels stable as those currently serving leave or advance in rank and retire. If we were to indefinitely cut off the manpower stream just to protest Iraq, our senior officer and enlisted ranks would be reeling in 15 years time.
Unless Mr. Stone believes the military should be abolished all together (in which case he should just come out and say so), I think he'd agree that this is not a desirable outcome.
Finally, I'd like to point out to Mr. Stone that the military leaders in charge of manpower, recruiting and the like are not part of the policy-making process, as he would suggest. Their job is strictly to organize, train and equip the military, not to decide when and where it will fight. Apparently Mr. Stone is not familiar with the concept of civilian control of the military.
I appreciate Mr. Stone's deep convictions and I wholeheartedly support his right to voice his opposition to U.S. foreign policy. However, I suggest that next time he save himself the embarrassment and simply ignore the recruiters rather than pen another inane outburst.
1st Lieutenant
Christopher E. Diehl, USAF
Class of 2004
Boys, don't cry ...
After reading last week's letter, "Man-bashing is the new black," I spent the rest of the day infuriated, not at the amount of "man-bashing" that is apparently plaguing our television sets, but at the obvious ignorance of the writer to the amount of "female-bashing" that occurs every day in our society.
Women and young girls are constantly being presented with unrealistic images of body types, including the classic thin-waisted, big-breasted woman that only 5 percent of the American population has. What about the 95 percent of women who will never look like that naturally, but are constantly being told by the media that in order to be desirable, one must look like that?
I'm not negating the fact that it is disturbing to see either of the sexes being degraded in commercials, but the fact of the matter is that women are constantly made to seem inept, dumber and weaker in hundreds of commercials and magazine ads every day.
The truth is that it is much more common to have women portrayed in subordinate roles than males, as documented by sociologist Erving Goffman decades ago and media analyst Jean Kilbourne in recent years.
Furthermore, the amount of "violence" that occurred when the wife hit her husband while fighting over the TV remote pales in comparison to the violent scenarios in which women have been portrayed in the media.
If the extent of violence against women in advertising, as well as in real life, only involved being elbowed over a remote, I think a lot of women would be very happy. As psychologist Jean Baker Miller has often mentioned, it is common for the dominant group to lash out whenever they feel their privilege is at risk, and I think that is exactly what has happened here.
So I also suggest not switching that dial next time commercials come on during your TV show. See whether you can justify the amount of "female-bashing" occurring every day.
Kristen Wozesniewski
(09/27/06 4:00pm)
1) Though Roscoe may not be the coolest name for a mascot, being called the Lions is pretty awesome. On the other hand, I have no idea what a "sooner" is. If I did, I would probably hate the name even more. What is the worst NCAA mascot name?
LK: The University of California-Santa Cruz Banana Slugs. At first glance this is a horrible beyond horrible mascot name. There is no intimidation in a slug. Maybe a bit of disgust, but no intimidation. However, John Travolta did wear a Banana Slug T-shirt in "Pulp Fiction." This raises its cool level a tad. The students did vote on the name and even fought for it. But seriously, would you really want to be the "Slug of the Week?"
RL: As far as Roscoe goes, I agree - it's a pretty weak name. I would've suggested something from the Thundercats, but that's just me. The worst name in the NCAA, though? Oh boy, that'd have to go to the University of Hawaii Rainbow Warriors. Commonly known as the Warriors, their full title does indeed include Rainbow, and no, that fabulous name isn't just limited to their crew team. On the surface the mascot looks pretty fearsome - a bare-chested native Hawaiian wielding a big drum - but when you add in a touch of rainbow paint, well, I'd be happy just to know that my university's representative wasn't getting pedicures on the weekend.
PL: I think the most unoriginal, uninspired and inanely misused NCAA mascot belongs to the University of Oregon Ducks. Oregon didn't even take the time to create its own mascot because it is none other than the beloved Disney character, Donald Duck. Now, don't get me wrong; I love Disney and I love Donald Duck, but to my knowledge, Oregon is and never was in any way associated with the late Walt Disney and his conglomerate. Disney was born in Chicago, and the closest he probably ever got to Oregon was Los Angeles. So, Oregon, you have been warned. Rethink this mascot thing, or I shall have to proclaim your university the worst mascot school in the country.
RV: I have personally always found the Rainbow Warriors display a very wrong image and I am sure they wish they could ignore the rainbow part. For that, and the additional idea of naming our mascot after a thundercat (but not Snarf), Ray gets as many points as I can give him - 3. The Banana Slugs are just a sad, sad team name by any standards, and defending its name is even more sad - 2 points Lauren. All Disney characters are a bad choice for mascots; I don't see anyone taking up Mickey as a mascot. Why? Because it's a horrible idea. So is Donald - 1 point Pat.
2) What championship team from last year is most likely to repeat this year: men's soccer, women's soccer, women's lacrosse, the Flying Pineapples Ultimate Frisbee team or some other team which I didn't even mention but you see going all the way?
LK: Because lacrosse lost its best players to graduation last year - goalkeeper Megan Marquardt, midfielder Bridget Bigley and the unstoppable phenom, midfielder Lauren Dougher - it will be a lot easier for women's soccer to repeat. Though the team did lose goalkeeper Alissa Kacar and forward Brittny Boyd, it still has some big names on the field, like All-American Dana DiBruno. Let's just say it will be a good year for sports all around.
RL: Women's soccer. While the lacrosse team lost six players to graduation, including both goalkeepers and Bigley, and with the men's soccer team already struggling early in the new season, women's soccer leaps off the page at me. Women's soccer is off to a 3-0-2 start, but the record doesn't tell the tale of the tape correctly - its rock solid defense has allowed only one goal the entire season, as freshman goalkeeper Jessica Clark continues to impress with four shutouts thus far. Fresh off of a 5-0 blowout of conference rival Montclair State University, the soccer team looks poised to springboard into another dominating year. As far as Ultimate Frisbee - no comment.
PL: For me, the answer is quite simple. Despite many great performances last year by several different teams, the team I would put my money on, were I a betting man, would be the women's lacrosse team. Last year was the the team's second straight national title and the 13th overall in the school's history, and it wasn't that long ago that the program produced a six-peat - yes, a six-peat - of national championships. Taking a glance down last year's roster, the champs fielded a relatively young team in 2006, so with another year of intense playoff experience under everybody's belt, I expect the lacrosse team to be fully recharged in 2007.
RV: As a big fan of soccer in general, I have to say that men's soccer is letting me down at the moment and maybe I should start rooting for women's soccer, because Ray has convinced me to put my faith in them - 3 points. The lacrosse team is legendary, even if it did lose a star or two. It previously went six years in a row, so it can bounce back - 2 points Pat. Lauren's answer gets the last point.
3) What can the College do to get more people in the seats for the home games of various sports? Please avoid violence whenever possible in your answer.
LK: I wouldn't know when the football games were without having to look it up myself. The school should try something fun, like those refrigerator magnets with all the schedules on it, because obviously people are going to the fridge an awful lot these days. There should be much more promotion for our sports, like giving away pompoms and towels outside the student center the week before the big game against Rowan University. Some people are not even aware that Rowan is our rival! I mean, wouldn't you want to go to a game where you can see fellow students kick the Profs' asses? I know I would, just for the pun.
RL: The College bills itself, first and foremost, as a premier academic university. In my experience, the athletics of the university and the corresponding programs haven't been pushed nearly enough to warrant big crowds or a rabid fan following. Here's more food for thought: What are the two collegiate sports that draw the biggest crowds? That would be football and basketball. How many times has the College nabbed a D-III blue chip player in one of those two sports? Those are the players that, when working together, electrify crowds, win games and build followings. Until the College pushes its athletic programs more and then grabs top-notch D-III players, we're going to continue to draw less than impressive crowds.
PL: First, stop doing homework on the weekends. Get out and go see a game or three - especially if you're not a sports fiend like me. I don't need to go see a baseball game. I've seen and played many a baseball game in my life. The people that need to come out to these games are people that know nothing about them. In my experience, you're in a room with someone who's not crazy about sports and you're watching TV and you turn on a game. By the end of the game (or, perhaps, within five minutes), he's more into the game than you are. It's human nature; when given the proper exposure, people become curious about what they don't understand. So really, I've got to conclude that it is timid sports non-enthusiasts, and not a legion of lazy sporting fans, who are to blame for the poor attendance at sporting events here at the College. So if you're not into sports, get out to see a game! I promise, you'll thank me for it.
RV: For really impressing me with what I have always known, but never really internalized, Patrick gets 3 points. For the "We should do that!" award, Lauren gets 2 points. For giving a great answer, but just not good enough this round, Ray gets 1 point.
(09/27/06 12:00pm)
Week by week, we have been trying to chronicle the effects of the devastating cuts to the state's higher education budget. The story is massive, the repercussions more far-reaching than we could ever hope to elucidate.
As we all know by now, the College lost more than $8 million in state funding this fiscal year. This is the latest and most costly cut in what has become an annual display of diminishing state support for its institutions of higher learning.
Since 2002, when the cuts began, the College has sought ways to tighten its belt. We have seen faculty and staff positions left vacant (we thank Beth Paul for becoming the College's permanent interim administrator) or eliminated entirely. We have seen our enrollment increase. We have seen energy-saving initiatives. We have been forced to rely ever increasingly on private sector donations to fund programs. We have been told to provide our own toilet paper, our own light bulbs. Worst of all, we have seen our tuition bills getting ever higher, jumping from just over $5,000 for an in-state student for the 2001-02 school year, to this year's grand total of $7,615.
And we have taken it all in stride. We have sympathized with every effort. We have written to our legislators. We have staked out the Statehouse. We have demonstrated for deaf ears.
In the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education's recently released National Report Card on Higher Education, New Jersey was graded a D in terms of affordability. Perhaps, though, we should smile at this mark, considering that 43 states were given an F.
According to the report, the average family in New Jersey - the wealthiest state in this blessed union - will devote 37 percent of its annual income to put a student through college this year.
It should be noted as well that the country's richest state is also home to its poorest city, Camden, where the average household income is just $18,000 a year.
These poor marks are a slap in the face to the rest of New Jersey's exemplary educational ranking. We received an A in preparation for higher education, and an A- in participation.
It may be years before New Jersey lawmakers come to their senses. Maybe it will happen when they see the state's best students being siphoned out of the state or to big-name private schools rather than staying here at home. And a one-time $1,000 scholarship (more like signing bonus) is not much of an enticement.
New Jersey's students are ready, willing and able. But unfortunately, in these times of tighter job markets and fiercer competition, with the rest of the world looking with hungry eyes at the lofty American standard of living, we are not granted equal opportunities to learn.
All we are really learning is that it is not ability that counts so much as it is your parents' bankroll.
(09/27/06 12:00pm)
Dear Kayy,
There's this girl who lives on my floor that I have a crush on . this is really hard for me to admit. I haven't talked to any of my friends from home or school about it because I'm pretty confused . I've had several boyfriends with whom I've had healthy relationships and a happy sex life . I've never had feelings for another girl before, and I don't know if it's for real. I think it is though, because I feel for her the exact same way I've felt for guys in the past. She makes me laugh, and is beautiful, and I get really nervous and excited when she's around. I know that she's a lesbian because she was dating a girl at the beginning of the semester but they broke up. I'm honestly not really concerned about other people finding out, although it bothers me a little bit. I just know people will be surprised, and I don't know if I'm a lesbian. This is the first time I've been really attracted to another woman. I really want to kiss her, or talk to her about it, but I don't know if she'll laugh at me because I'm straight. What should I do?
Thanks,
From Straight to Gay in Five Seconds Flat
Dear from Straight to Gay,
When I first read your e-mail I hesitated because I didn't know where to start. So instead of procrastinating, I decided to do some surfing.
I typed in "gay test" (don't ask why) and the first thing I found was this website at channel4.com that had a "gay-o-meter." I had to answer a bunch of questions, and it would supposedly tell me how "gay" or "straight" I was. After checking my gender, I was asked things like "Do you know how to change your oil?"; "When you move into a new apartment, how important is it to you that you immediately redecorate?"; and my favorite of all, "When you were young, did you want to be a doctor or a nurse?" Yack!
None of these questions has a single thing to do with my sexual orientation! Even the questions like, "Do you frequently use lube in the bedroom?" still have nothing to do with who I prefer to sleep with! The only question that came close to getting to the point was "Do you get off on lesbian porn?" But I know straight guys and straight women who get off on lesbian porn, so what's that supposed to mean?
Once I completed the test, answering truthfully and honestly, I was given my score: "Kayy is 50 percent Gay! Congratulations! You've scored right in the middle (of "too straight" and "too gay") and are a happy and well adjusted hetero babe!" (My favorite part is my congratulations for being straight.)
When I filled out the test as a man who sleeps with women, the questions were even more disgusting and stereotypical than the straight woman's, and my score was: "Dick is 73 percent Gay! Women like you, don't they? Little do they know that you're a wolf in sheep's clothing ready to pounce!" (Don't get me started.)
Needless to say, this really concerned me. The quizzes were chock full of strict gender norms that are hard or impossible to follow at times. If I want to shave my head, does that make me a lesbian? If I'm a guy who likes interior decorating, am I gay? What the hell?!
But, surprisingly, the part that bugged me the most was that when asked a question, I only got two options to choose from for my answer. When asked for my preference on a certain topic, I would either have to answer, for example, "Totally all the time!" or "Oh my God never!" I had a lot of trouble answering these questions because often neither was true for me. It's unrealistic to say somebody has to be one or the other.
And look where we are, back at the breaking binaries party we started last week! In case you missed out (I'm offended), last week I talked about how when it comes to sex, hardly anybody is a saint or a slut, and that we all fall somewhere in between.
That's where I was going with my tangent above - people think that if you do one thing, think one thing or feel one thing, it determines your character and entire being.
So I can imagine how worried you may be right now. In fact, I don't have to imagine. I was there once. I freaked out. I wondered if I was bisexual or even - gasp! - a lesbian. All the feelings were new to me and I didn't know how to handle them, let alone communicate how I felt.
For a little while I played with the idea that I was a bisexual, simply because I was attracted to one woman in 18 years of heterosexual tendencies. When it comes to sexual identity, we do have a slight break from dichotomies. While it's safe to say the mainstream accepts man and woman as the only two gender categories, we recognize that not everybody is decidedly gay or religiously straight. So they throw the word "bisexual" at us and think it will solve all of our problems - when in fact it might complicate things even more.
Instead of taking our feelings at face value - a physical and/or emotional attraction to a person that just happens to be of same-sex persuasion - we freak out and think we've suddenly become a new person with a new body, a new set of desires and a new personality altogether. I think it's safe to say that if you go for it with this woman, nothing about you will change except how you relate to her, and perhaps how you judge and see the world around you.
To reiterate what I said last week, people are quick to label. If we all had personal label machines, we'd probably walk around sticking them to people all day long. Categorizing, grouping, "othering," whatever you want to call it - lumping a group of people together and assigning them stereotypes makes understanding them much easier.
Unfortunately, that really sucks for those of us who aren't 100 percent anything.
In one of the most poignant quotes I've ever read, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick stated, "How does sex go from being about countless acts to being about two states of being?" My interpretation of this is, as human beings, we naturally feel desire (some more than others) in different ways and toward different people - how we express them in thought and practice does not determine who we are (gay/straight). I've heard of women who consider themselves lesbians, even though they're attracted to men, because of their feminist ideologies. Some men consider themselves straight regardless of the fact that they receive oral sex from other men.
What I'm trying to get across, in a very roundabout way, is the fact that you shouldn't be freaking out. Don't put yourself through an existential crisis just because you think another girl is beautiful and down to earth. Kudos for saying you're not too worried about people finding out; that's really big of you. Because unfortunately, even though labels are simply "social constructs" it would be na've to say that they have no effect on our lives. Labels in and of themselves are meaningless, but those meanings we attach to them can cause drama or danger.
And since you're enlightened like that, I'd say go ahead and talk to her. If you were more concerned about coming out to parents or something like that, this would be a much deeper issue I'd hesitate to touch. I have a feeling this woman is already onto you - if she's flirting with you she certainly thinks you're a cool person, and although she may be pleasantly surprised if you expressed interest, I doubt she'll laugh or think any less of you.
You never know what will happen after becoming intimate with her. You might fall in love, feel no more attraction to her or other women, or you might experience more pleasure than you'd ever imagined possible with men. You might come out of it proudly wearing a label like lesbian, or heterosexual or bi.
The fact is it's your choice. My boyfriend often jokes with me, "Can you please be straight for like five minutes?" when I comment on the attractiveness of another woman (because I think there's nothing wrong with that). I just laugh because if I was forced to check a box on a survey, as much as I hate those things, I would check heterosexual. But in an ideal world, there would be more options. I take a page from Samantha Jones' book on this topic: "I'm trisexual. I'll try anything once."
If only we could all be so enlightened.
Good luck with your adventure!
Kayy