Some might even say that the bubble was never even there. Either way it is important to realize that the bubble only existed to Washington University students. We created it. We ignored St. Louis. Since freshman year, St. Louis has been acknowledged as an outer force – one that we are separate from, and one that we have little connection to. I don’t know when it started and it doesn’t matter. What does matter is how important it is to remain clear on its absence.

Knowing that the invisible protection of the bubble does not keep us safe, we now realize that we are not impervious to crime. The assault in Myers was random and could not have been prevented. It was no one’s fault but the perpetrator’s. And, in this way, we need to realize we live in the real world, despite the environment that the Top Care landscapers so carefully cultivate for us.

I applaud the new measures that are being taken by the University, as long as they do not again become a source for apathy. The inclusion of a preventative education program on safety is a very good step if implemented correctly. It needs to stress the individual’s responsibility and the vigilance each person needs to have. Also, the decision to opt for CCTV is better than the constant presence of guards. We go to college, not prison. I’m also glad to see that we are not taking the route similar to Saint Louis University, which requires an ID to be shown when entering the buildings. We are adults, and I’m happy to see that the University is treating us as such.

I am not saying all of us should live in a constant state of fear. That gets us nowhere. But we need to stress the importance of each person’s awareness. We live in the real world, whether we are on campus or not. We should all act accordingly.

Chelsea is a junior in the School of Art and a Forum Editor. She can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

These are mild conditions we accept because this is what our lives are about. We sacrifice our well-being for the end goal. The end goal is different for all of us. For some, it is the initials M and D behind their name that drives them. For others, it is the ability to have their names in history somewhere, whether for art, politics, or just for being good at whatever it is they do. Most of us have lived with the mindset of being the best from that first day of school. However, in this process, we have irrevocably forgotten the most important part about being human: the ability to recognize the miracle of life.

We do not appreciate the absolute brilliance of breathing in fresh air, feeling the skin of the person you love when they touch you, seeing fireflies on a July night. You can see the joy of a child experiencing these things for the first time. To them, these things are magical.

In college, we dissect things down to their essentials and forget the mystery behind these events. We know why fireflies light up and why an emotional response occurs when someone touches us. However, we make the mistake of programming our minds to take for granted these extraordinary occurrences. We should never let knowledge be the very catalyst for closing our minds.

This occurs frequently when a very intelligent person watches a movie, especially a movie based in fact. The person will watch a fictionalized version of a car chase, for example, which results in an explosion. Instead of marveling at the beauty of orange and blue flames erupting from the screen, or the brilliance of modern picture clarity, this intelligent person will become fixated on the fact that there was no catalyst for the explosion.

We should not continue to let our goals and our knowledge cloud the wonderment of life. Enjoy something just for the simple fact that we can. Enjoy your favorite childhood drink. Watch a cheesy action movie. Observe the fireflies in July. Go outside just to feel the wind. And, for the love of God, do not read any deeper into it.

Chelsea is a junior in the School of Art and a Forum Editor. She can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

Sex before marriage only happens when Satan is present (whether he participates or not is a little unclear).

Sex is dirty. It only happens between husbands and wives. Neither enjoys it, because it is dirty and only useful in reproduction. Technically, actual physical penetration is against what the Bible says, but it’s a bit of a crapshoot reproductively speaking.

Holding hands will lead to sex, which will lead to STDs, which will lead to death. Therefore, holding hands equals death. (This applies doubly for homosexual activity).

Birth control doesn’t exist, or it shouldn’t, and any God-fearing person doesn’t use birth control because he/she isn’t even thinking about sex.

Use the pullout method (if you are ignoring the general sin of physical penetration).

Use the rhythm method or the newer Natural Family Planning method.

Petting is a no-no. (On a side note, this one confused the fifth-grade version of me. Did this include petting my dog? I didn’t quite get the implications yet.)

Sex does happen between husbands and wives, but only for procreation. If pleasure does occur, it is an extra gift from God.

As you can tell, there is a lot of guesswork in this type of education. And, when it occurs between several teachers, the lessons become contradictory. The scary fact is that many follow the shoddy advice given above. Many have no place to turn to learn about proper birth control when growing up in a community as I did. Consequently, teen pregnancy and hushed abortions were rampant among the high school kids in my town. Worse, the government is expected to spend around $50 million dollars on abstinence-only “birth control” programs and these programs are targeted to people as old as 29. It is dangerous to teach anyone only half the story. Treat adolescents with the courtesy of full knowledge and prepare them to make the decision with the tools to protect themselves. Unwanted pregnancy happens, but my guess is it will occur less often if we begin teaching young adults ways to protect themselves. So, say “no” to no sex- sex ed!

Chelsea is a junior in the School of Art and a Forum Editor. She can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

So no one gets the wrong idea, I want to state up front that I congratulate Phi Lambda Psi on stepping up and taking over the duties of the former Women’s Resource Center. I think free pregnancy tests should be available on campus for those who need to use them and Phi Lambda Psi should be applauded for providing this service to Washington University women.

Something about the article “Free pregnancy tests offered on campus” in the Monday, Feb. 5, 2007 issue of Student Life, however, really bothered me. Rebecca Silverman said that “It’s good that the demand [for the free pregnancy tests] was there” and was a need that Phi Lambda Psi could fill. I do not think that it is a good thing that there is a demand for pregnancy tests on campus. It’s a good thing that Phi Lambda Psi was able to fill a need that female students on campus might have, but the fact that there is a need for pregnancy tests (and more so the fact that Silverman seems to think this need is a good thing) tells me that students on campus need to think a bit more about the responsibilities that come along with practicing safe sex. Instead of taking advantage of the free pregnancy tests, perhaps, more students should be taking advantage of the free condoms and other contraceptives on campus. And if these things are not available for students to take advantage of (as easily and freely as the pregnancy tests) perhaps student groups should focus on making them available before making things like pregnancy tests available. In my opinion, pregnancy tests should be a last resort. A demand for contraceptives should be applauded, not a demand for pregnancy tests. If a student takes advantage of the free pregnancy tests available, she obviously either was not responsible enough to seek out the contraceptives available first, or they were not as easily available to her as the pregnancy tests were.

Now, please, don’t get me wrong. I know college students (myself included) are not always as responsible as they should be when it comes to sex. And I also know contraceptives are not always great at doing what they are supposed to do. I am not condemning students who happen to be the victims of bad luck or a momentary lapse of judgment. But I don’t think contraceptives fail so often that “about 20 people” on campus would need pregnancy tests for this reason and I don’t think a momentary lapse of judgment should be more than momentary. I find something wrong with students on campus being content with a need for pregnancy tests. Maybe its just me.

-Luciana Bonifazi

Class of 2007

Since then, we have degraded the holiday down to greeting cards and candy hearts. Love is only the theme, not the main point. Chances are most people have lived through the dreaded Valentine-less Valentine’s Day. This creates the dread that often surrounds the holiday. Therefore, Valentine’s Day, instead of being about love, has become more about the people who do not have someone. Everyone seems so wrapped up in having that special “one.” What happened to celebrating love?

Love does not just come in one design. The relationships that define anyone’s life are not only those between anyone and that special “one.” Friends, family, mentors; these are all more stable relationships than that elusive “one.” The pressure to find that “one” person in time for Valentine’s Day degrades the meaning of the holiday.

This is what I propose: This Valentine’s Day, do not celebrate just that “one” relationship that makes your heart flutter. Celebrate having your friends. Celebrate having your family. Even celebrate yourself. Embrace love in all forms. And do not just celebrate with your friends due to the lack of the “one.” At the very least, do not hide on Valentine’s Day. By hiding or rejecting the holiday, Valentine’s Day becomes even more precious, thereby furthering the mystique of the holiday and creating greater exclusion. By embracing the love in your life, and making the holiday about all love, and not just romantic love, we can take Valentine’s Day back!

With that said, enjoy this holiday and celebrate yourself and the love you have! As Carrie Bradshaw points out, “The most exciting, challenging and significant relationship of all is the one you have with yourself. And, if you find someone to love the you you love, well, that’s just fabulous!”

Chelsea is a junior in the School of Art and a Forum Editor. She can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

As college students, we generally accept that pets are a no-no and have never questioned the decision for a pet-free existence. In the last couple years, however, many schools across the country have been experimenting with pet-friendly dorms. For example, Massachusetts Institute of Technology sets aside four buildings for upperclassmen that allow cats, under specific guidelines, with the main reason being stress relief. Also, Stephens College recently received national press for creating a pilot program that allows for a pet floor under strict rules. The rules included a weight limit of 40 pounds or less, the pet must be spayed or neutered, the student must provide proof that the pet has all its shots and a deposit and waiver must be provided for responsibility of any damage caused by the pet. Included in many of the colleges that participate is the consent of 75 to 100 percent of the floor’s residents and the option to request a non-pet floor. The obvious con to a pet-friendly environment is the possible noise, mess and lack of care. A student who is going through the trouble of registering his or her pet, however, is probably not going to neglect their pet on a whim.

A pet-friendly dorm on- campus may not necessarily be an answer. But, I feel if ResLife began a pet policy off campus, there could be many benefits to both students and the school. Firstly, off-campus is a more plausible place to own a pet. Presumably, you have more access to the outdoors in an area that already may be occupied by non-Wash. U. pet owners. Secondly, the National Institute of Health (NIH) has concluded that pets have a relaxing effect on their owners, which may help lower blood pressure and cholesterol. It has also been concluded that pets have been known to lower stress levels and calm the nerves. This would be an obvious benefit to a Wash. U. student (I believe everyone can agree that Wash. U. is stressful.) Lastly, the added perk of pet ownership may entice students who would normally stay on campus until death (or graduation, whichever occurs first) to move off campus, thereby possibly alleviating the risk for a repeat of this year’s housing crunch.

Therefore, this is what I propose:

1) Allow pets in select Wash. U. off-campus apartments.

2) Put a weight limit of 40 pounds or less on the animals. (Size isn’t necessarily a problem until someone tries to squeeze a Great Dane into a Wash. Ave. apartment.)

3) The pet owner must register his/her pet with ResLife by providing a current record of their shots and by leaving a deposit.

4) The pet owner must be responsible financially for any damage that occurs due to their pet.

5) If any of these rules are broken, it may lead to immediate expulsion of the pet.

With a good set of rules in place, I feel that the benefits of pet-owning in a college setting could be endless. Furthermore, if the benefits do prove to be good, the school could choose to further implement a pet policy in on-campus, upper-classmen dorms.

Chelsea is a junior in the School of Art and a Forum Editor. She can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

This case is a great black mark on our judiciary system, one that to this day has not been corrected. Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were victims of a modern-day witch hunt. Due to their interest in paganism, black clothing and heavy metal music, they stuck out like sore thumbs in the predominately Baptist community. Furthermore, there was a strong belief among the officials running the case that all child murders and mutilations were satanic rituals of sacrifice. It was this belief alone that the prosecutors pushed to prove the three’s guilt. During the process of the investigation, there was an eyewitness report from a nearby restaurant owner that an African-American man covered in blood stumbled from the crime-scene area around the three boys’ time of death, but the blood evidence from the restaurant was lost.

You may be asking why this is relevant now. The truth of the matter is that injustice does not have an expiration date. As a nation, we cannot let oversights like this go uncorrected. It corrodes the very fabric of our justice system. No government, whether national or local, should have the power to convict someone just because they think, act or have different beliefs than the greater public. If those boys wore anything but black and listened to something besides heavy metal, they would never have gotten into this position.

If this sounds horrifying, there are actions that can be taken to support the West Memphis Three, as they have come to be called. Supporters have started a Web site to spread awareness and to give those who want to help the opportunity. The Web site is www.wm3.org. By not caring for this travesty, we show a lack of care in a working justice system and are therefore softening the foundation on which our country was founded. So, go out there, buy a T-shirt, write a letter or e-mail your friends; it really doesn’t matter how you choose to help – just as long as you try.

All information from this article came from www.wm3.org and www.crimelibrary.com.

Chelsea is a junior in the School of Art and a Forum Editor. She can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

First, Bauhaus has been an institution of a party the last three years of my life. And, despite its late arrival this year, it seemed to be a popular choice for Saturday night’s festivities. However, a ticket is needed for this great spectacle. This is where the problem lies. Every year since my freshman year, way back when, the School of Architecture has run out of tickets to this joyous occasion. What baffles me is the need for the tickets. Are the tickets really that necessary? If they are really necessary, make more tickets. Or if for some reason you can’t due to fire codes, University code, or some other silly little code, find a larger venue to accommodate the crowd that tries to get in every year.

Second, I’m in the School of Art. With this choice comes a whole other set of annoyances that much of the student body doesn’t have to deal with. For instance, students of both art and architecture have one place to get food during the day. The Art-Arch Cart, or Doris Cart as some call it (after the fabulous woman who works the food Mecca of the Sam Fox School of Design), carries soups, sandwiches and an assortment of pastries and delectable goodies. However, it is only open until 2:30 PM. This only covers half of the average art student’s day. After that, art and architecture students must resort to the vending machines, which would be made much easier if, say, the card readers actually worked. Lastly, the University just built two new buildings, which could have easily included some sort of food accommodation to the art and architecture students who put in long hours in their studios, but neither carry anything more than a vending machine (and I’m not even sure if they carry that).

Third, I live in the Loop Lofts. While my actual living situation is very comfortable, there are a couple of additional annoyances to living here as well. The gated parking lot, which is meant to keep the residents and their cars safe when moving to and from the parking lot, is a pain to enter and exit. The gate frequently doesn’t work and has recently been prone to close early on someone’s car. The card reader is insanely far away from the average person’s window, so the resident often has to leave their car to open the gates, which is not an ideal situation when it’s 2 a.m. Also, the shuttle schedule on weekends is a little ridiculous. It doesn’t start running until noon and only comes once an hour. This means that if you have somewhere to be before noon, you have to find other means of transportation. And, if you have an engagement after noon, you either have to be there really early or really late.

Last, why does our school always insist on putting the luxury of its benefactors before the needs of its students? About two weeks ago, the aforementioned new buildings were dedicated. To prepare for the arrival, Bixby Hall was painted from the first floor to the third floor, during classes. The painters dredged in and out. The construction workers were drilling and jack hammering. Now tell me, how many of you can concentrate on anything with a jackhammer going to town on the wall right outside of your classroom? During this time, both the Givens and Walker parking lots were closed. Being the only two parking lots for commuting art students and teachers, it proved very difficult to find parking for the better part of a week. With all the distractions going on, how was anyone supposed to concentrate? I realize that benefactors financially make up most of the money we use. But, those people would still donate if they had to go inside a new building rather than a massive parking lot-sized structure instead. It’s infuriating at times.

Overall, I must say that these are the opinions of a minority on campus, i.e. art students and Loop Lofts residents. And, for that matter, it may only be my opinion. But, without anyone discussing the things that annoy them, they will never be part of a discussion for change. So, while these matters are not of great importance to many, some are very important to the very hungry art student or the person who gets a headache from the sound of a jackhammer on concrete. Whether it is something as simple as saying “this is annoying” or as complicated as proposing a solution to global warming, it is always important to be part of the conversation. With that said, here comes the shameless plug: write to me (the e-mail address is below!). I would love to hear what annoys you.

Chelsea is a junior in the School of Art and a Forum Editor. She can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

I was merely pointing out that as girls, we unfortunately have to be more careful with our appearance. I realize while reading my article that I did not stress the danger in dressing in a nearly naked manner. (To clarify, I never said anything about mini-skirts or low-cut tops, only underwear.) We, as women, are subject to more scrutiny than men. Therefore, dressing in underwear in public is going to be received a certain way. Whatever the case, you have to be prepared for the consequences. To suggest that by this statement, however, that I theoretically support rape or am a rape apologist is absolutely absurd.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I have seen how rape apologists affect those who have been raped. I have sat next to a friend who couldn’t get anyone to believe her, including her boyfriend, simply because she was “asking for it.” Forced sexual activity isn’t acceptable, regardless of “inviting” garb.

For this very reason, among the obvious annoying social ramifications, which I apparently focused on too intensely, I mentioned this issue last week. It is important for women, myself included, to watch the way we present ourselves to the greater public, so that we do not end up in a situation we are not prepared to handle. It has been statistically proven that women are more likely to be the victims of sexual crimes. It is unfortunate, but very true. So, when I say that you can dress like a skank, but be prepared for a backlash, I did of course mean the social ramifications. However, I should have stressed the unwanted and potentially dangerous consequences, which is the only thing I would like to amend.

My opinion is just that: my opinion. Regardless of whether or not anyone likes it, it is what it is. And, it is most certainly not the opinion of a rape apologist. If anything, my experience with my friend is what has helped form the opinion I hold on the importance of not being naked or nearly naked in public. No girl should willingly put herself under the scrutiny that may follow. That being said, how much about a person can anyone know by just reading one dimension of her opinion and her personality? It is just as vacant as forming an opinion on someone’s wardrobe on Halloween, which is what is so adamantly objected to in this case. I meant the article in a somewhat casual “hey, this really irks me” kind of way, and apparently did not formulate my opinion clearly.

Rape is a serious issue and just as there should be no excuses made for it, it should never be taken lightly. The label of rape apologist, which is very offensive and hurtful, should not be thrown around lightly, especially in the case of a poorly written opinion editorial. So thank you for pointing out the responsibility I have to always write clearly about everything. And to clear things up, so that everyone knows where I stand on this issue and similar issues:

There is no excuse for rape.

All people should have respect for themselves.

Women, unfortunately, need to be aware of how people are going to judge them and that some of those people are pigs and can and will put them in bad situations.

Judgment, unfortunately, does happen.

Snap judgment, whether through appearance or through a misconstrued article, is bad.

Always try to be aware of how you are presenting yourself to the world (apparently I need to follow this as well); not everyone has the best of intentions.

Chelsea is a junior in the School of Art and a Forum Editor. She can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.