Archive for the ‘Frisky Forum’ Category

Safe sex, with or without condoms

Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 | Christian Sherden

So, supposedly all of the parents hate the sex issue of Student Life. This reaction is to be expected. I never used to understand the protection issues that fathers have with their daughters. I mean, all of those fathers were once the boys whom they now intimidate and hurl ludicrous threats at, like “If my daughter isn’t back by 8:30, I will strap you to a tree and pour honey down your pants until fire ants have come and eaten your penis.”

Maybe that’s the point. Maybe these fathers know from the experience of being young what adolescent males have in mind for girls. I am sorry that they think this way, and I would like to allay all of their fears by saying that I only have good intentions for all of your daughters.

I did however finally figure out why fathers are so protective. I was catering a wedding one time when I heard two middle-aged men talking. One asked the other a question: “What’s the worst day of a father’s life? Is it the day you send your daughter off to college, or is it the day she gets married?” The other guy just scowled and clenched his jaw. Balling his fist, all he could do was nod at the query to keep himself from strangling the nearest 20-year-old male. The first guy explained: “Because, when you send your daughter off to college, you know some ___ing ___hole is going to come along and just ___ her (this was accompanied by a fist pounding open palm gesture) and there’s nothing you can do about it. But on her wedding day, you know some ___ing ___hole is going to ___ her that night, and there’s nothing you can do about it.” The two just stood there in silence with wrinkled brows, trying to figure out which of these two scenarios was the most gut-wrenchingly awful. I carefully walked away from them so as not to be noticed and continued serving bacon-wrapped asparagus.

And so I get it. I do. She is your little girl and you do not want anything to happen to her. But she is not so little anymore and to deny her any meaningful sexual relationship is to deny a natural and important part of a woman’s development. Your wives are someone’s daughters too, remember, and for the most part, they seem to have turned out all right. Probably the biggest issue is that you do not want your girl to get hurt. Neither do I.

In fact, I don’t want anyone to get hurt while experimenting sexually, which is why I cannot stress enough the importance of stretching. No matter what you are into, it can always help to be a little more limber. From the missionary position to suspended congress to the pile driver, flexibility is important. There is nothing worse than being in the middle of the Hungarian Bootlegger position, spread out and unevenly distributed as you are, when all of a sudden one person pulls his or her sartorius muscle. I’ve seen it happen a thousand times.

Stretching can also add zest and variety to a dull and lagging sex life. Stances that may have seemed impossible from the pages of “The Perfumed Garden” can go from fantasy to reality with just a few basic daily stretches. When legs can go behind heads, splits become possible and roller-skating while in the act happens, this is when the bedroom really starts to get interesting. Think of how much fun a contortionist has in the sack and know that, with a little work, you could do that, too.

So please, for everyone’s safety and enjoyment, bend over. Oh, and touch your toes while you are down there. You do not want to get a call from an angry father asking why his daughter has a torn abductor as he threatens to beat you to death with the bloody stump of your ass.

Christian is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum Editor. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

Critiquing the Student Life sex issue

Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 | Jill Strominger

Every year, I have to ask myself two basic questions about why Student Life chooses Valentine’s Day to publish a sex issue. The first is: Why does Student Life publish a sex issue? The second is, assuming publishing a sex issue makes sense, why are we publishing it on Valentine’s Day? I believe taking a holiday about love and collapsing it with sex is a mistake. But, as a Forum editor, I have an obligation to write a column for this issue. Still, as a philosophy student, I have an obligation to question the foundations of my obligations. Ergo the following absurd sex issue column.

I have to ask why a newspaper staff feels the need to use its pages to publish an issue about sex. We are far from experts on sexuality, we’re a group that students are supposed to be trusted to report and analyze newsworthy issues. Sure, sex makes for an issue that’s flashy, fun and far more interesting than the latest decision made by the Washington University administration. But are we selling out in the same way papers did when they devoted story after story to covering the more “interesting” Anna Nicole Smith situation? Is it right for a paper to put out an edition that has such little news value? Using the same heading and name it uses for its regular editions?

There are arguments to be made for having a sex issue. You could argue that putting sex out there is important for recognizing sex as a natural part of human existence, and that this is an important step our society needs to take. You could argue that we’re a college newspaper so we should be allowed to have issues that are not focused on newsworthy stories. You could argue that stories about sex do contain important and relevant news for college students.

I still disagree with it. But, assuming we are going to run a sex issue, why are we running it on Valentine’s Day?

Valentine’s Day is supposed to be about love, and particularly in college I think we collapse sex and love far too often. Maybe it’s because right now we’re at a time in our lives where we can’t fully make sense of love. Maybe we’re at the point where we can make sense of sex though. You can see the cause and at least some of the effects right away. Maybe sex is easier, less complicated. The act of sex has obvious stages that can be classified in textbooks. The act of sex has an obvious end. The act of hooking up is finite; we can analyze it. The questions leftover from the notorious “morning after” are rarely questions about sex itself; they’re the more complex questions about love and security.

In so many ways, sex is an answer while love is a question. The act of sex is biology. The act of love is a bunch of questions-it’s philosophy. It’s not a static comfortable space in the world. Love is a question that has to be answered everyday and over time, but primarily everyday. You can’t put together a checklist and know you’ve found love. You find out each morning as you balance your classes, homework, doctors’ appointments, checkbook, hopes, dreams, emotional swings and the needs of the people you love. You answer the question each morning as they do the same.

It’s adding up the way we answer the question of love on a daily basis that defines our relationships with the people we love. It makes an impossible news story. It doesn’t make for good gossip. It does make a satisfying life.

I propose that on the day of the year that is supposed to be devoted to love, we actually think about love. About our family, our friends and also our romantic interests. Let’s pick another day and possibly another venue to analyze sex.

Jill is a junior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum Editor. She can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

The Contest: Getting Freudian

Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 | Dennis Sweeney

We have this thing, the people I live with and myself, and it’s about not masturbating. It’s this contest, consecrated a Saturday ago at 10 in the evening, where we put in five dollars, and the last man standing gets the 25 bucks. It’s on the honor system, of course.

We couldn’t let in people who had girlfriends. The assumption is that they don’t need to do it anyway.

And, would you believe it, one of my suitemates has already bitten the dust. Less than one full week without-well, you know-and he capitulates. “Yeah, but I already had gone three days before that,” he told us while he was still in the contest. Kind of a premature excuse, it was.

The point is that it is physically difficult for most guys to participate in this kind of challenge. You look at a guy, and a lot of times you say, “There’s no way he does that. You know. That.” Thing is, though, he probably does. One fellow in my suite who I could have sworn never masturbates, and never even needs to, was complaining after the first day of competition. “Good sir,” I told him, “I didn’t even think you ever did anyway.”

We have these conceptions about people, and we carry them through the majority of our life, and they are generally applicable in whatever way we need them to be. That guy is really good-looking, that guy is a total cheeseball, that guy can bench press 225 pounds. That girl is beautiful, that girl has a bizarre sense of humor, that girl is just one of the guys. We assume that our conceptions of people are somewhat absolute and that today and tomorrow they will be true. But, I say, human sexuality is the great leveler.

It’s pretty weird to use our (not) masturbating contest as an example, but it’s currently what we’ve got on our hands. I am sorry to say that it does not include any observation whatsoever about the autoerotic habits of women. I can’t say too much about that, because I don’t know.

But I am pretty confident in asserting that no matter whom you are talking to, one of their primary drives is sexual.

I hate to get Freudian and say it’s our sole purpose in life, but one thing is pretty unarguable-that the reason we (and all other animals) evolved the way we did is because we are good at having sex with each other.

It’s kind of sad because most of the time we pretend that’s not the case. Freudian again, I guess, but flirtation and dating and all that jazz are just a bunch of speed bumps on the road to sex. Unromantic perhaps, but it often is the case. We habitually bide our time and delay the inevitable so we don’t feel dirty when the actual time comes. My ever-wise roommate says: “Denny, everybody wants sex, so I don’t understand why I’m not having sex all the time.” I’m with him. He’s a good-looking fellow.

Sure, social constructs and everything. But the truth is like the “Everybody poops” paradigm, except it speaks to, instead of a relatively involuntary natural urge, a main motivation behind most people’s actions. Everybody, then, is an extremely sexual being. It’s a crucial part of understanding people.

Our idea as a suite was to start some kind of at Wash. U. This might be a little much. But the least we can do is remember that everyone is driven by sexuality. It might be nice if we could all put aside just a little of the “No, I don’t do that!” pretense.

I think we can safely say, with my roommate, that everybody wants sex, in some form or another. So, really, why aren’t we all doing it all the time?

Dennis is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

Sex, music and our evolving toleration

Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 | Altin Sila

I was browsing through YouTube videos the other day when I came across an episode of “Crossfire” from 1985 in which the brilliant Frank Zappa was the guest. He had come onto the show after testifying before Congress about the possibility of government censorship of popular music. Tipper Gore and many other politicians’ wives had become very upset over the sexual lyrics of some of the popular music at the time and Zappa, along with many other musicians, appeared in front of Congress to defend music and stand against government censorship.

As I watched the older conservatives hurl insults at Zappa for supporting such “garbage,” I began to realize how sex has always been a controversial component of popular music. I also began to realize how far we’ve come as a society in terms of what we tolerate, despite the controversies.

In 1956, Elvis Presley was the most obscene performer popular music had ever seen, because he shook his hips and made girls go crazy. He was so obscene that Ed Sullivan refused to show his hip-shaking on television in 1956 and forced his cameramen to only shoot Elvis from the waist up. That same year, a judge in Jacksonville threatened to have Elvis arrested if he shook his hips onstage.

In 1967, Jimi Hendrix shocked many of the hippies at the Monterey Pop Festival when he essentially made love to his guitar on stage (before setting it on fire). Shortly thereafter, his onstage performance frightened many preteens when his band opened for the Monkees on tour.

In 1968, John Lennon and Yoko Ono released an album called “Two Virgins” in which the two posed nude on the cover. Many copies were confiscated by state governments and most stores sold the album in brown paper bags.

After Congress intervened in the 1980s, the familiar “Parental Advisory” label became required on albums containing content deemed indecent by the Recording Industry Association of America.

And who can forget the events of this decade? Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” resulted in the largest fine the Federal Communications Commission has ever given out, and Madonna and Britney Spears’ onstage kiss caused an uproar.

Yet we still tolerate quite a lot. Lil’ Jon is free to yell “skeet skeet skeet” on the radio, and Soulja Boy can talk about super-soaking hos. I wonder what that Jacksonville judge might have to say about that.

So, where does all this leave us? Over time we’ve grown to tolerate more and more explicit sexual content in music. Where does sex in music have to go? What more is there to do? I’m not sure what will be tolerated in 20 years, but I sure can’t wait to find out.

Altin is a senior in Arts & Sciences and Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

ResLife: Twin beds are too small

Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 | Staff Editorial
Scott Bressler

Looking to have sexual relations? It can be fun, but not if you have a TINY BED.

The moral of the story: ResLife, a twin bed just doesn’t cut it. When it comes to sex in beds, bigger is better.