Cartoon in poor taste
Dear Editor:
Re: Brian Sotak’s editorial cartoon [Feb. 9, 2005].
I felt slighted by this editorial cartoon mocking the solemnity of Ash Wednesday. For Christians, especially Roman Catholics, Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of a solemn period of repentance and preparation for Easter. Sotak’s cartoon made light of the reverence with which I, and I’m sure other Christians, regard this day, all for the sake of a cheap political jab at the “religious right.”
The traditions of Ash Wednesday are specific to religion, not to political view, as are the traditions regarding any faith’s holy days. Christians, especially those fasting, are called to reflect on sacrifice and our connection to the poor. Instead, I am explaining why “showing my faith today” doesn’t mean that I necessarily espouse the policies of the president of our country. I would appreciate a little more discretion on the part of Student Life when it comes to issues of faith.
-Claire Farnsworth,
Class of 2005
Bush, Catholicism fundamentally differ
Dear Editor:
As a practicing Catholic and Democrat, I am extremely offended by Brian Sotak’s inaccurate editorial cartoon ridiculing the Catholic faith. First of all, the cartoon appeared to be spun off of George Bush’s religious practices. Using both the Catholic creed and a picture of a Catholic bishop, Sotak seems to be implying that Bush is Catholic, which he is not. Interestingly enough, the Democrat that I voted for in this last election is Catholic.
Secondly, Catholicism is one of the most accepting Christian faiths, and that includes acceptance of homosexuals. We do not believe in going to unjustified war (like the war we are currently in with Iraq), and we are an extremely charity-based faith not solely concerned with our own prosperity.
It disgusts me to see the Catholic creed turned into Sotak’s mess of lies. The creed is one of the most revered prayers of my faith, proclaiming our moral and spiritual beliefs. If such slanderous material were created based on another religion’s main convictions, it would never have been passed to print.
Ash Wednesday is a day of repenting for sins and admitting faults, the complete opposite of Sotak’s view that we are proclaiming our “infallibility.” I am so surprised that Student Life would print something so derogatory and misleading about a faith group on campus. It contains generalizations that are not at all based on what Catholics believe in, what Catholics act upon or what Catholics stand for today.
-Stephanie Gallitano,
Class of 2007
Orgasms not Stiritz’s focus
Dear Editor:
Re: “Why do we need more orgasms?” [Feb. 4, 2005].
I, and many women I know, felt differently about Susan Stiritz’s female sexuality speech and hold opinions contrary to those espoused by Roman Goldstein. In his article, Goldstein argues that Stiritz advocated having more sex and that Stiritz held masturbation as superior to sex. I agree with the point that Goldstein makes that quantity is not necessarily as important as quality when it comes to sex. I also agree with his belief that sex can have value over masturbation because of the intimacy it creates between two people. I think, however, that Goldstein perhaps misinterpreted parts of Stiritz’s message.
Often, in sex education classes, the function of the clitoris goes unmentioned since it does not relate directly to reproduction. A male must orgasm in order to impregnate his partner, so sex education classes teach how males reach orgasm. Female orgasm, unnecessary for procreation, frequently goes untaught because to teach it is essentially to teach masturbation. Therefore, many women-including women I know-grow older and, sadly, reach college not knowing the function of the clitoris. Other factors that contribute to this naivety include the inability of women to see their genitalia without a mirror and the myths about female orgasm circulated by our culture (especially in movies and porn).
I, and other women I talked to who went to Stiritz’s speech, feel that the message was not “Have more sex,” or “Self-loving is the only way to go,” like Goldstein claims, but rather that the message was “Let’s celebrate the female body,” or “Learning how your body works is empowering.” Stiritz was encouraging self-discovery, self-understanding and self-appreciation, not nymphomania. Furthermore, when a female knows her body, she can share that knowledge with a sexual partner, enhancing their mutual experience. Upon gaining this knowledge, her partner does not capitulate the right to receive pleasure because, ideally, the desires to give and receive pleasure are not mutually exclusive, as Goldstein seems to suggest.
In other words, the quality partner sex that Goldstein promotes requires the self-discovery, self-knowledge and communication that Stiritz’s talk emphasized, but he overlooks all of that.
-Melissa Miller,
Class of 2006
Reduce waste, reduce tuition
Dear Editor:
As always, I enjoyed reading about the next round of tuition increases in Student Life. Today, as I left my Present Moral Problems class, I noticed a large blue construction dumpster filled with large pieces of discarded aluminum framing. Currently, scrap aluminum sells for $0.83 a pound on the wholesale scrap market.
Last week, I observed two maintenance men lifting two large metal bookshelves in perfect condition into a trash dumpster. If I had a truck, I would have salvaged both of these items and sold them to pay for the tuition hikes. While the University’s officials say they cannot balance the budget any other way, I wonder, have they tried eliminating needless waste on campus? Why is the University throwing money away?
I really don’t need to be served Ted Drewes at every event or “benefit” from the large array of activity-fee sponsored fluff organizations, but I do need to be able to afford tuition. Money should be allocated to pay for substantial costs, and we all should settle for a little less luxury and foolish amenities.
-Steven S. Hoffmann,
Class of 2007