The semester has gotten off to a strong start. The success of this year’s newly revamped New Student Orientation helped catapult the entire student body into the right mindset for a new year. The arrival of our new president represents a fresh chapter in Grinnell College history.
After the tumultuous events that occurred at the end of last semester, we take heart in the promise of a new year. The fact that things have gone relatively smoothly gives us hope that the year will remain as harmonious as these past few weeks have been.

Still, we should not assume that the year will continue smoothly without steady effort from the community. Grinnell is the place in which we have all chosen to spend a significant number of years. We all have a responsibility to the school, our fellow students, staff, faculty and all members of the outside community to maintain the comfortable environment that we all appreciate.

It’s easy to take things for granted in this community where we so frequently tout “self-governance” as our crowning quality. But we all have to remember that without the dedication and constant effort of every member of the community, self-governance is as meaningless as fourteen letters and a hyphen.

Grinnell is a community unlike any other, and as long as we all play our parts, this could be an excellent year.

This is the beginning of the End, and I’m feeling all sorts of confu-stalgia. So let’s hit play on that end-of-summer-camp-photo-montage-PowerPoint and cue up some Vitamin C on the boom-box. Ch’yeahhhh. Also, if you don’t understand that reference, I probably hate you.

My classmates and I will all be presumably graduating in something like less than twenty days or so. No, if you’re asking, I do not have a job yet, and no I am not planning on trying to get rejected from grad school. As my vigilance for this impeding emotional catastrophe, a.k.a Commencement, has been telling Chewbacca to kick on the hyper-drive, I’ve been doing a whole lot of thinking. That thinking, namely, has been about what it is that I can take with me so that I can keep “living the dream” even as I set sail on a “Deadliest Catch” without Mike Rowe to guide me ashore.
In a search for some answers about what’s been of use over the years, I recently decided to go back and read some of the angsty things which I wrote to myself as a precocious young dream-liver. You know, notes on post-its, Myspace rants, the usual. Back in the wonder years of first-semester, I had an experience which some might find unsurprising for someone so self-aware of their need for affirmation and attention. I was concerned with why people couldn’t just like me NOW, and why I couldn’t just feel like all my relationships were perfectly centered from the moment they started. “Well duh, first-year-Tim, no sh*t you found it hard. You can’t just show up to a joint and have it all fall into place, especially not when everyone older than you is on Red-Alert for overtly extroverted first-years.”

I tried going to therapy. You’d think you’d feel special when you’re paying them to listen, but apparently becoming a doctor of something doesn’t always mean that you’re the kind who knows how to help people. My sleep got worse. I felt anxious all day, especially right before bed. Next came the multi-month debate about what I’d be compromising if I tried anti-depressants, more formally referred to as SSRIs, the mind-numbing devices given out by Big Brother. Zing.

Three years, one month, fifteen days, and six prescriptions later, I can tell you exactly what it is that I’ve compromised. I’ve compromised my faith in the monolithic narrative of The Progress of Science for a provisional acceptance of the short-story that “sometimes, some methods work out for some people”. I’ve compromised my libido, my heart, and my memory, for a semi-functioning social life and the ability to get out of bed in the morning. I’ve compromised time, money, and a transcendentalist conception of the “independence of man” for the fairly consistent capacity to choose to want to stay alive. I wouldn’t say I’ve compromised everything, but it’s definitely been enough for me to take notice.

Getting older has helped, with the exception of that moment at the dessert island when you fear for a few seconds that you’re really all alone. What it really has taken mostly is just a f*ck ton of patience. That with a little courage in the mix, frequently adjusting the proportions in order to blend the perfect “self-esteem” cocktail. Patience to slow down and get to know people and not rush myself to have unrealistically meaningful relationships, but courage to make myself vulnerable to somebody if that’s what’s on my radar. Patience to remind myself that I’m not my papers, tests, or my grades, but courage to try to make the sacrifices necessary if I want to work harder next time. Patience to know that being at Grinnell is not supposed to be any sort of experience other then the one I envision for it, but courage to do the work necessary in getting there.

I defer to a corny, unsophisticated message which I wrote a poster that hung on the wall of my dorm room. I used the poster as a place to put this constant reminder. I wrote, in red sharpie: “Get up, Tim, and get out of bed. The drugs won’t do it for you.” Now I’m not suggesting all Grinnellians everywhere get themselves a good pocket mantra, but I am asking that they at least take a moment to do whatever is necessary to remind themselves to have just a little more patience, a little more courage, or a little more whatever.

Basically, the unfortunate moral of this story is that I’ve learned that you can’t always rely on other people and that sometimes you have to do the heavy lifting yourself. Don’t just wait for your SA or your parents or your professors or Student Affairs to show up and make it all better. They might. They should. But that doesn’t always mean they will. Take care of yourselves, and take care of each other. Do whatever is necessary for you to feel capable, and then pay it forward. That’s the only way we’re going to make it through this thing in one piece.

Or you could say the hell with my advice, the hell with this crap about care, and the hell with this whole damn column. Who am I to tell you what to do with your life, right? Well, you’re right Duder-otomy, I’m not really anyone in particular. But I like your moxie for calling me out on it, and that’s why I challenge you to make it that easy. What a cool breeze of awesome it would be if life were that simple and if cherries and rainbows just fell into our laps as a magical unicorn galloped through the gates of Valhalla. I’ll keep my fingers crossed. However until then, I’ve got no intention of giving up on any of you, or any last bit of myself for that matter. At least I’m hopeful that when that day comes, maybe then we’ll be “living the dream”.

Not satisfied?

Your turn.

I really don’t care if you wear sunscreen.

People will tell you that graduation isn’t really the end, but rather the beginning of a whole new adventure, the first step on the next phase of the wonderful journey of your life: this is why the ceremony is called commencement. That is a cliché and cliché is just a fancy French word for “lie.”

When you leave Grinnell, you may be surprised by how the real world works. There are a few things you should keep in mind.

Self-governance doesn’t apply in the real-world. Instead, there are laws. Lots of laws. You should familiarize yourself with them.

It turns out that some holidays are not nationally recognized. October 10 and April 20 have no special significance after you receive your diploma. When those days roll around next year, take a minute to let out a huge, sub-free sigh and then get your ass to work.

There is no 100 Days or anything like 100 Days for adults. At least, I’ve never been invited to a 100 Days-type party for grown-ups. If you find out that there is one, please e-mail or Planlove [arnertim].

The day I graduated from college, my mom presented me with a used 1992 Plymouth Sundance. Her gift to me was the down payment and I was responsible for paying off the balance of the loan. I made monthly payments over the next three years. When it was finally time to get rid of that sweet ride, I took it to a junkyard figuring I could sell it for scrap and parts. The guy who ran the place gave me $50 only after I argued for 10 minutes that his initial offer of $40 was unacceptable. There’s a lesson in there somewhere, but I’m not sure what it is.

At the commencement ceremony, you’ll hear some interesting statistics about the graduating class. Some statistics, however, you can only find here.

Out of the roughly 400 seniors who are graduating: 278 of you committed intentional or unintentional acts of plagiarism. 176 cited Wikipedia as a source without any hint of irony. 131 of you can name all of the cast members of Jersey Shore but only two of the Beatles. Seven of you read “The Canterbury Tales” in its entirety, and you are the seven seniors best equipped to handle the many challenges of the modern world. 356 of you will have attended Block Party. 13 of you will remember attending Block Party.

But the Senior Class cannot be reduced to mere statistics. Each of you has an important story to tell and a song in your heart. For most of you, however, that song is probably something by Lady Gaga or Miley Cyrus, and I find that horribly depressing.

Hey, do you realize that the next time someone calls you a “senior” the word will be followed by “citizen”?
Some readers may object to the tone of this piece because it doesn’t adhere to the conventions of an end-of-the-semester, pre-graduation send-off column. Some of you are undoubtedly thinking, “Professor Arner, we know that you’re an amazing teacher, an incredible scholar and a great writer. You also carry yourself with an intense sophistication nicely tempered with youthful charm and enthusiasm. But while you’re keeping it real, as a man of your integrity and stature always does, could you also give us some words of encouragement?”

I can and I will. Your time here has allowed you to grow and mature and develop in important ways. You’ve received a quality education, both academically and socially, and you can leave here knowing that you possess a variety of skills that will allow you to meet the exciting challenges that lie ahead. It’s now time for you to take your place in that proud tradition of Grinnellians who carried their education with them into the broader world and made a positive impact on their communities. I know that you’ll make us proud.

But in these difficult economic times, keep in mind that if you’re ever short on money, you can sell a used copy of “Oh the Places You’ll Go” on Amazon for $3.52.

Now let me get personal for a minute and reflect upon my own time here. As I mentioned, this is my last column for a while, as I’m officially retiring from the column-writing business. I am grateful to have had this opportunity to be part of the Finest Student Newspaper West of the Cedar River and East of the Mighty Des Moines.

I need to thank the editor of the Opinions section for her support and guidance during the writing of each column; she deserves a lot of credit for shaping the final product. I also want to thank the editors-in-chief for the past year, who worked tirelessly each week to bring the S&B to the entire Grinnell community. I’m not kidding when I say that these three amazing students have absolutely earned my admiration and respect, and it was a tremendous pleasure working with them.

My own humble contribution to the S&B during this past semester has been a labor of love. I had hoped that it would be a different kind of labor, the kind where a man receives a monetary reward for his services, but it’s been a labor of love instead because these jerks have refused to pay me. Was the title of my column not a big enough clue?

In the end, however, maybe I shouldn’t be in it for the money. Perhaps it’s more important that I gave people something to think about, provided some valuable guidance with regard to topics like bowling and vampires and believing in yourself. I live to give, my friends, and I hope that you’ve enjoyed what I had to offer. As you go out into the world, I especially hope that my words will help you achieve great things, and that one day you’ll find yourself in the position to give a little something back. Because I’m serious about that 100 Days thing. Holler at your boy.

Unfortunately, hurtful and generalizing statements aimed at such groups as Grinnell College male athletes as well as, more specifically, the Grinnell College Football Team have been expressed profusely. If every member of either of these two groups organized, participated, and/or was aware of the extent of the vulgarity and hurtful nature of what was written, I would not object to these broad statements, but this is just not true. Should we convict an entire group for the actions of a few?

This incident is generally being termed as a bias-motivated incident, a classification I could not agree with more. But should we meet bias with more bias? Should we meet ignorance with more ignorance? By pigeonholing an entire organization or group that some of those individuals happen to belong to, are we are doing any better than they did? Is that not how hurtful stereotypes and generalizations start, when the actions of few are generalized to many? Should we not hold ourselves to higher standards than them by striving to be more thoughtful and conscious?

—Curtis McCoy ’10

1. Personal, egalitarian and respectful interactions among all members of the college community.

After events of last weekend, and after many significant events from this year, these values appear to be under attack from members of our community that are all affiliated with the same athletic team. The football team, specifically, has among its members the people most responsible for countless oppressive actions on campus over the past year. Not all members of the football team are responsible, and many share our disgust at the actions of their peers. There are also many members of the team who have no power to stop other members from acting in such an untoward manner. I have seen many examples of members of the team stand up against acts of hate and sexism, but it is my belief that now greater, institutional action must be taken against the entirety of the team, even if the entire team is not responsible.

There is no doubt that several members of the football team share responsibility to for many despicable and inherently anti-egalitarian behaviors. This must be addressed immediately before an even more severe event makes the issue unavoidable. I have witnessed maddening displays of chauvinism, sexism, homophobia, threats of sexual assault, and misogyny throughout the year from members of the football team, and these specific perpetrators never seem to get the message that their behavior is unacceptable. If we attended an institution with a Greek system, and these actions had happened in a fraternity, the Chapter would be disbanded immediately. Similarly, if the college funded a random student group with tens of thousands of dollars, and that hypothetical student group so stepped over the line, the college would not continue support the group with such generous funding. The institution would feel embarrassed to be affiliated with that organization. I cannot imagine any other organization on campus that could so blatantly trample on the core values of our college while keeping its funding secure. The football team should be afforded no more special treatment.

I am not asking that the football team be eliminated. I am, however, asking that the college not lie in bed so comfortably with a group that creates a hostile and offensive environment on campus. Furthermore, I am not laying out a plan for disciplinary action—I believe that others are better suited to construct a proper response to deal with the current situation. I have no plan here to fight broad issues of male privilege and misogyny that pervade student culture here on campus. All I ask is that the Administration reevaluate its monetary commitment to a team that appears wildly out of line with its mission statement.

In order to realign the College with its mission statement, I propose that action must be taken against the football team as a whole, regardless of size of the group responsible. I propose that the Administration make significant cuts in the budget of the football team. I propose that SGA aggressively petition the Administration to make these cuts immediately, and for the cuts to be significant. If our stated values relate to “egalitarian” and “respectful interactions among all members of the college community,” funneling money to this student group is unconscionable and antithetical to the values that make us who we are.

We exist as an institution committed to making people feel safe while they learn. Generously funding a program whose members routinely make other members of the community feel unsafe flies in the face of what we love most about Grinnell College. If we continue to fully fund the football team next year we are all complicit in condoning the actions of a student group known for perpetrating acts of explicit and implicit violence, and threats of violence, against vulnerable members of our community.

—Jon Richardson ’10

When I read your article last week about “Selah to celebrate Grinnell Community,” I must admit my contentment to see the caption of “Party boasts funding raising red short run.” As an organizer of the Hoofin’ It 5K event, I was elated to read about the coverage of the event along side with Selah. However, my enthusiasm steadfastly flagged as the perusal of the entire article informed me about “a 5K Red Short Run fundraiser, named for Osgood’s infamous jogging attire.” Although I clearly recognized that the article focused primarily on Selah, the complete abridgement and recognition of Mortar Board’s efforts for Hoofin’ it 5K, if I may opine, was definitively disappointing.

As part of the national college senior honor society, the Grinnell College Chapter seeks to encourage social justice and community service for Grinnell community. This year marked the 6th annual recurrence of the Mortar Board’s Hoofin’ It 5K. The goals of the Hoofin’ It 5K race are 1) to consciously fight poverty by raising money for Mid-Iowa Community Action Group (MICA), which provides locally fresh produce to poor families and Heifer International, which donates sustainable gifts of livestock to the poor in 115 countries around the world, 2) to encourage health and fitness in the Grinnell community, and 3) this year, we collaborated with College and Alumni Relation for the Red Short Run.

Admittedly, the Hoofin’ It 5K committee is very thankful for the opportunity to collaborate with College and Alumni Relation to incorporate the honoring aspect of our current president, Russell K. Osgood. Their assistance of placing our registration form on the Selah website and providing the red shorts for the event was greatly appreciated. However, I would like to clarify that the extensive planning and efforts reposed solely on the 30 Mortar Board volunteers that orchestrated the Hoofin’ It 5K event. Ranging from the logistical aspects of composing an elaborate contractual proposal, seeking City and County’s Approvals, obtaining insurance for the participants, to the multifaceted labors of informing every family along the route, investing over $2100 in awards, food and t-shirts, this 3-month undertaking was utterly disparaged in the simple “5K Red Short Run fundraiser.” Neither the Mortar Board nor the Hoofin’ It Committee was even cursorily mentioned.

At the risk of sounding like a finicky curmudgeon, I must still assert my chagrin at the negligent curtailment of the event. I apologize for the callous run-on monologue (which must surely comprise of several dangling modifiers given my current sleep-deprivation), but I seek only to forefend the assiduity and the dedication of many volunteers for this poverty issues charity event.

Love and kittens,

­—Jacques Ambrose ’10, Mortar Board Vice President and Hoofin’ It 5K Co-chair

Many athletes, especially those of certain sports, feel pigeonholed into a certain cohort of campus society from the moment that they set foot on Grinnell soil. Their cultural backgrounds are often very different from the atmosphere they have been thrust into at Grinnell. For example, before college, I had never interacted with a gay person, African American person, or Hispanic person. Simply by definition, it takes a person from a background like mine time to adjust to Grinnell.

One would think that a community such as Grinnell would be tolerant, patient and understanding of the difficulties associated with the transition many athletes are making. Instead, athletes and football players in particular are ostracized. The raised eyebrows when a muscular male actually contributes to class discussion, the changing of walking trajectory and lowering of gazes when a football player passes, the flat-out denials that football brings any benefits to the campus; we notice it all. Much of the rhetoric concerning this issue has focused on “the campus community.” For many of us, this community does not exist; we were never offered a part in it, and have been very clearly excluded.

In the cultures that some football players come from, words like misogyny, feminism and heteronormativity are without tangible meaning. As such, the party that happened Saturday did not raise any red flags for some participants. The words “violently sexual” have been used to describe the events of the party, but anyone there would contend that sexual violence was not a part of the equation. The party was seen by some as an opportunity for friends to get together as a group, a time to hang out and consume delicious Jell-O shots. In other words, a party with many similarities to the countless others often held on this campus. Some aspects of this party crossed the line, but please believe me when I say that myself and others meant no harm. Clearly, people are upset, and rightly so, and for that I am truly sorry.

When news came out that a possibly offensive party had taken place, rather than attempting to hear both sides of the story, and indeed without hearing almost any of the facts, phrases like “aggressive hurt-machines,” “everyone judge the shit out of these kids,” “why does Grinnell even have a football team?,” and “you’re a coward,” have been used in the public domain. Strong terms like “Misogynistic,” “hate-crime,” and “bias motivated incident,” are everywhere. For a campus that prides itself on being socially just, the response to persecute these individuals was nearly instantaneous. In many eyes, the football team has clearly become a bastion of misogynists, rapists, and privilege; everyone on the team is seen as guilty and irredeemable. Small wonder that the divide between football players and the campus at large is so wide; blind distrust and hatred tends to do that.

Some might ask, why after their year(s) at Grinnell, do football players not understand? The simple fact is that most people at Grinnell are holding athletes to a societal conception that they have not ascribed to, let alone been invited to be a part of. The atmosphere is ripe to integrate athletes into Grinnell as a whole, but the deep-rooted prejudice that greets athletes on campus is an almost insurmountable obstacle for doing so. The Cunnilingus party is absolutely indefensible, but it seems that the campus has decided to fight hatred with hatred. Scapegoating and ostracizing an already marginalized group on campus, a group made up of great people, goes against every value that Grinnellians claim to hold dear. What I find most problematic is that no one is attempting to understand the different cultures surrounding football players and why this made them think such a party was okay, and have instead turned to alienating, marginalizing, and potentially expelling them. Rather than turn to hate, I encourage everyone to learn from this horrible event and work to create a truly diverse community at Grinnell.

—Jake Thompson ’10

The main point of this letter is not to talk about what happened, which is a matter for campus judicial processes, but rather to talk about how we can move forward from this. I have always wanted to be a coach that places as much priority on developing intelligent and thoughtful men and women as I do on developing a successful team on the field or the track. Even though the incident was not limited to football players, nor was every player on the team present, we are prepared to move forward as a team to face up to this matter. We can not undo the damage that was done, but we will move forward, striving to be an asset on this campus, not a detriment to it. We want to be the embodiment of this school’s ideals, not the exceptions.

We are prepared to take the necessary steps to accomplish these things, beginning with accepting whatever punishment is handed down from the College Hearing Board, as well as any ramifications for the team. The first step is to better educate ourselves on a variety of issues pertinent to this campus. I would like to work together with several groups on campus, including the Offices of Student Affairs and Diversity and Achievement, DVA/SAC, and the Gender and Women’s Studies department to develop a series of educational programs for the team next fall. This will become a regular part of our pre-season practices and meetings and an addition to the NSO programs. The football team will also work with DVA/SAC to determine an appropriate group to perform service projects for next fall and in the foreseeable future.

The next, and perhaps most important step, is to help foster dialogue on this campus. I believe we will better understand the ramifications of the incident by speaking openly with our fellow students and colleagues. I believe we will learn more by speaking openly with members of all different campus communities, and I want to be a leader in this. I would like every member of this campus to know that I am more than willing to speak with them about this incident or about the best ways to move forward. My office is located in the Fitness Center, my phone extension is x3824, and my email address is pedersej@grinnell.edu. Contact me at any time.

Once again, I am truly sorry for the pain caused by this incident, and sincerely hope we can move forward and create a stronger, more unified campus.

Thank you.

The thought of every woman on campus wondering whether her name was slandered and if so, in what way, enrages every member of this staff. A hideous concept for a party at the expense of members of our community can never be justified. Understandably, some individuals come to Grinnell with less experience than others in recognizing bigotry, though that lack of experience cannot be cited as rationale for oppression. Ignorance does not excuse hate—ignorance requires education and adaptation by the freshly informed.

The core Grinnell values are clearly presented in every college guide, pamphlet and website page that carries the Grinnell College name. Presumably, those responsible had some idea of what our community expects—which in most cases is not much more than an elementary respect for one’s peers; if for some reason they did not, they had at least nine months to learn. It is completely unacceptable that in early May those responsible still somehow manage to trip over that low bar of expectation and claim benign ignorance as the cause. What’s even less acceptable is Grinnell’s perpetual acceptance of such a lame excuse. It’s time to put a foot down and make an example out of those responsible. If we don’t, we let them trample everything that makes our institution exceptional and get off with a simple shrug.

Defenders may claim that one should not condemn the group for a few of its members, yet this leads to an endless line of blame, from the party goers to the party organizers to the environment in which the party organizers were raised. Someone must step forward, take blame and accept the punishment. Beyond that, claims of a hypocritical response by the community are simply wrong. We, as a community, are responding to a private event thrown by a group that fostered bigotry that would never be allowed by the community as a whole.

The few who still defend last weekend’s event ask for additional time, patience and understanding as the responsible parties assimilate into the Grinnell culture and learn Grinnell values. This is an illogical plea for a simple reason: the systematic degradation of other people for amusement is not a Grinnell specific value.

In order to prevent incidents like this in the future, we hope new measure will be taken involving social justice training to the entire student body. Possibly, one or two tutorial periods could be devoted to this crucial topic. Additionally, we hope that the college continues to support and expand programs, such as the AJust spring training, that bring in outside experts in social justice training to educate a group of students. This process helps build a strong system of peer education for the future of Grinnell. We hope that though much damage has been caused by this egregious misconduct, the good coming from changes instituted from this point forward will surpass these acts of injustice.

Dear “Gripping”,
Well, the good news for you is that this almost certainly is not an STI! Unless he is experiencing other standard STI symptoms (itching, burning, redness, rash, etc.) he probably is simply suffering from a very common problem. Your sources are indeed correct— gripping very hard during masturbation can decrease penile sensitivity and consequentially make it difficult to get off if you are engaging in an activity (with or without a partner) that holds onto the penis less tightly than you are used to.

There are several different ways that you might try remedying this solution. First, do not masturbate without some sort of lotion or cream, especially if you are uncircumcised. Not only does it decrease sensation, it can also lead to very unpleasant penile chafing that puts your penis completely out of commission for quite a while! We sell packets of lube at the Sexual Health Information Center, but you can also invest in various masturbation oils and creams, available online, or at sex shops (check out the Lion’s Den a few miles West on I-80 for a good selection!).

Also, you and your partner should be conscientious about gripping less tightly, and gradually he will get used to getting off without what is affectionately known in some sexual health circles as “The Iron Vise Grip of Masturbatory Death.” After a little while, you and your boyfriend should be enjoying sex where he gets off easily, and everybody is experiencing maximum penile sensation.

It sounds like you and your boyfriend have been communicating well about this, but it is also important to be frank with partners about what is comfortable for you! With a little switching up of your routines and honest communication about how you are both feeling in terms of sexual pleasure, you should be out of the grip of your sexual hardships soon enough!

Dear SHIC,
I’ve been having a bit of an awkward problem lately. My boyfriend and I have been having sex very frequently lately, and I’ve noticed that my vagina is becoming looser. I’m worried that this is something that can’t be fixed. Is this normal, and is there anything I can do??
—A Little Too Loose in Loose

Dear Loose,
Vaginas come in a variety of sizes—everyone’s is different and it is hard to generalize about size. However, there have been a few studies done about this topic. One study found that an un-stimulated vagina (vaginas generally expand when stimulated or aroused) had an average length of about 2¾- 3¼ inches, and about a ¾ inch width at the back of the vagina. When stimulated, the average lengths increased to 4-6 inches, and the width at the back of the vagina increased to 2 ½ to 3 ½ inches—about a 40 percent increase.

You’re probably not worried about vaginal length, though. You’re probably more worried about the width of your vagina. See, the way it works is that there is a ring of muscles surrounding the lower third of the vagina. If these muscles get damaged, or become thin or weak, you can start feeling dissatisfied with your vaginal tone. This ring of muscles contracts during an orgasm and may affect the intensity you experience. These muscles also naturally get weaker as you get older (giving birth vaginally can also weaken the muscles).

Well, the good thing is that if you’re unhappy about the strength of your vaginal muscles, there are ways to improve it! First, physical exercise has been linked to better developed muscles. Although there hasn’t been much research done on the effects of Kegel excercises, they have been linked to increased muscle tone. But it is more likely that you are simply more aroused when your vagina feels less tight. And there is definitely no chance that having more sex will lead to a “looser” vagina, since the vagina is muscle, and it doesn’t make sense to suggest that the more you use a muscle, the less firm it would become.

Love always-
SHIC

The Sexual Health Information Center is a student-run resource center located on the second floor of the JRC (Multicultural Suites, Suite S). SHIC offers confidential one-on-one peer education sessions and also sells condoms (more than 20 kinds!), dental dams, lube, pregnancy tests and more for affordable prices. Come visit during our hours of operation:

Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday: 6-8 p.m.
Tuesday, Friday: 4-6 p.m.
Sunday: 12-3 p.m.
You can also reach us by email: [SHIC]
Or by phone: x3327

While walking through the loggia on the day that I had to write my article, I saw a poster which said that “the best counter to the anti-abortion movement is the truth.” With all due respect, I find this statement condescending and false. The points they make on the posters are true—making abortion illegal endangers the lives of pregnant women who get illegal abortions, a large percentage of women have unintended pregnancies and contraception could prevent unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, none of this has anything to do with the argument of pro-lifers. Pro-lifers are not arguing about the convenience of abortion being illegal—they are arguing that murder should be illegal. Before I go any further, I’d like to say that I’m neither pro-choice nor pro-life, rather I want to point out that the flaws in this debate and propose a solution. Some societies ban all abortion and contraception while others allow infanticide—I do not see it as my place to judge. It may seem that I am arguing more against pro-choice arguments, but that is because most students are pro-choice and I don’t see the need to preach to the choir on the benefits of legalizing abortion.

The abortion debate is so acrimonious because the two sides are talking past each other (and because life is on the line). One can see this in the names of the sides—“pro-choice” and “pro-life.” Pro-life people are not opposed to a woman having control over her body—they just see a fetus as a different body rather than a part of a woman’s body. Pro-choice people are not against life—they just do not see a fetus as a life. Ultimately, the debate is over when life begins—at conception or birth or somewhere in between. This is a moral question with no rationally determinable answer. You can say that a fetus is totally dependent on its mother for life and is therefore not a human being but things are not as clear-cut as that. A fetus in its third trimester can survive on life support and a newborn baby is still highly dependent on its mother—both would surely die without support. So in fact what we are looking at are degrees of dependency up to about the age of five. I do not know of any societies that practice infanticide after five, which seems to imply that almost all societies see six-year-olds as people.

This is yet another instance of problems stemming from the belief that there is a universal truth all societies should abide by, a totalizing ideology which opposes the notion that there can co-exist more than one set of beliefs or customs. Those who believe that life begins at conception believe that it is an absolute truth which cannot be explained away. Those who believe that life begins at birth cannot accept that abortion could in any way be murder.

However, neither of these are universal, scientific truths. Certainly there are some people with more nuanced views, such as those who see abortion as a kind of murder that may be worthwhile since it could represent a major inconvenience to the woman (especially in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the woman’s life). However, they are still saying that a fetus is still not a full life, as most of them would not be okay with a mother killing a three-year-old because it was inconvenient to her. Ultimately even this more nuanced view is still a moral judgment of at what point inconvenience trumps life.

What I propose then is that Roe v. Wade be repealed and each state be allowed to vote on at what point abortion on request should be allowed—at conception, start of second trimester, beginning of third trimester, or birth. There would be a runoff between the two categories with the most votes if there were no category with more than 50 percent of the vote. The same question would also be asked for when abortion would be allowed in the case of incest or rape, and when abortion would be allowed if the woman’s life was at risk. I think this works best at a state level because moral opinions vary greatly based on region (I’ve already stated my opposition to countries as big as the United States in the first place). However, this would also work on a national level. The point is that moral decisions should be made by the people rather than by 9 old guys.

Now to console both sides of this debate. First to the pro-life people: you were never going to ban all abortion all over the US anyway. According to the Wikipedia page for “abortion in the US,” two-thirds of Americans believe that abortion in the first trimester should be legal and most believe that it should be legal in the second trimester in cases of incest, rape, or risk to the woman. The objections of the pro-choicers will be greater because they happen to be in control of the situation right now. Consider, however, that only the most conservative states (if any) would ban abortion in the first trimester and even those would probably allow it for the circumstances above. More states would probably ban abortion (with exceptions) in the second trimester, but, according to an article from the Guttmacher Institute (www.guttmacher.org), 88.7 percent of abortions are in the first trimester, so this would have a relatively small effect. Also, if a woman really wanted an abortion she could drive to the nearest liberal state. In general, this move could help Democrats in the polls since many people vote for Republicans simply because they care about abortion.

Like the majority of campus and a hefty portion of alums, we love Tit Head. For some, it’s a beautiful excuse to expose themselves and their less ‘appropriate’ ideas. For others, it’s an invigorating excuse to sit/stand, slightly intoxicated, and cheer and jeer their peers’ movies. And for everyone, it’s an excuse to fill Harris auditorium and enjoy a film festival that comes only once a year to one place.

The mainstay of Tit Head is, obviously, the films. But alongside the films are several important factors, such as the host, the offbeat awards ceremony and audience participation. A balance between these areas is all needed to keep Tit Head an event, and not just a rushed screening of films. This year was an event, but the amount of films shown—32 total—many of which exceeded the already lengthy five-minute limit, makes the future of Tit Head seem destined for unwelcome change.

Because digital cameras and editing are the unanimous choice for students now, larger chunks of film can be edited in shorter amounts of time, by relative novices. While this development is good, as the more movies submitted in the vein of Tit Head, the better, it also could lead to an overcrowding of the film festival if new rules aren’t adapted to measure the cementation of Tit Head’s atmosphere.

If the organizers stuck fast to the five-minute time limit, minutes could be shaved off of movies that everyone already thinks are too long. Even better, a 4-minute time limit could be adopted. The best films of Tit Head (and the “best” terrible films), usually fall well under this mark, already. It is in the drunk and tweaked interest of Tit Head to be short and sweet, not long and opining.

Furthermore, if organizers held and stuck to a deadline, there would not be a resulting shortage of films. Instead, people who truly felt strongly about Tit Head would know to finish their movie on time. And, the resulting pool would be lower, giving time for the host to perform their job and keeping the audience interested long enough to stick around for arguably the best part of the night—the awards, both traditional and quirky. This year, very few audience members were left at 11:30. Next year, if there were five to ten more minutes of films, and the one-intermissioned, no-bathroom-break, no-beer-allowed event went until after midnight, how many people would stick around for the whole event?

It is about the night, not the films. Do the right thing.

Chloe:

After this year’s Titular Head, the masses cried out “that sucked” and “that was awesome” and “man, that was just weird” like they do every year. What’s strange about this year is that for one reason or another, students think there is a way in which we can “fix” Tit Head.

Fix? Fix Tit Head? Fix what about Tit Head? Okay, granted the show ran a bit long, security not allowing people to leave Harris was wack and the fact that they weren’t giving out soda was unfortunate. Personally, I think the fact that Harris was packed far beyond capacity, despite the draconian no-peeing rules, and the nearly three-hour run time, makes it the most successful Tit Head in a long, long time.

If anything needs to be changed, it’s not really in a rulebook. We can’t say, “Oh man, whoever is running Tit Head CAN’T let people turn their movies in late.” Why not? It’s their prerogative. Having movies turned in late doesn’t necessarily have any effect on the quality of the film, it just has an effect on the amount of sleep Mark Sullivan gets. The idea that a film can’t be submitted late is similar to the idea of a paper being submitted late—except I don’t think professors get drunk and rowdy in order to judge papers (but you never know).

Well, we could cut the amount of movies shown. How? The chairperson arbitrarily decides which he/she doesn’t think should go in? Half the point of Tit Head is to make TERRIBLE films. The other half is to make awesome films. But the real point is that anybody can submit anything and then EVERYBODY gets to boo it.

Let’s just address the length of Tit Head for a second. So many films were submitted that it ran for three hours. Some students may not know this, but Tit Head used to have a lot of talking in between films, a lot of banter with the audience. But so many people were so excited about submitting films that we barely got to enjoy the comedic genius of Margie Scribner.

Well, the movies could be shorter. Oh wait, there’s already a five-minute time limit. Just because you think your film can capture the hearts and souls and attention of a crowd of 500 drunk people doesn’t mean that it actually can. Nobody’s can. Five minutes is an extraordinary amount of time for anybody to pay attention to. So I guess the answer is really self-gov that shit and when it says five-minute time limit, stick to it.

Mostly, we just can’t pretend that Tit Head is a serious endeavor. There may be a space at Grinnell for a real film contest that doesn’t involve gold spray-painted items from Goodwill as its prizes, but that space is not Tit Head, so we should stop pretending it is.

We echo SGA’s call for faculty and staff members to work more explicitly to promote diversity. They are an invaluable part of Grinnell’s identity and their involvement is needed to change Grinnell. We look forward to seeing how SGA and Residence Life enact this resolution.

Before I start all my ungrateful jibber jabber, let me just say that I appreciate all the feedback that I got on last week’s episode. I am glad to know that I’m not the only mofo out there with deconstructive classroom politics on the mind. However, for fear of burning pedagogical bridges or charging the entirety of Grinnell academics with being on its way to the glue factory, I will refrain from tackling any more of this “dream living” project for now. Instead, I would like to turn to a different but multifariously occurring impasse that has been particularly inconvenient over my travels in real life dream-land. I’m talking about the specific yet totalizing unproductive lifestyle that I’ve fallen into and how it makes me come across as a lazy sack of…

So here I am, inside on a beautiful afternoon, with an eye turned towards impending doom that comes as a no-surprise accompaniment to my inability to write a newspaper article in a timely fashion. Yet all I can think about is how this is not the first—and probably not the last—time that I have been entirely unable to produce any sort of work before its expected deadline. Many professors that have come to know me over the last 18 months might be familiar with this ever growing capacity of mine to willfully withstand the necessary grade demerit that accompanies handing in a paper two or three days after scheduled, if at all. While obviously wanting to reiterate all of the apologies I’ve made about such behavior in the past, I’m not looking to use this as an opportunity to make some sort of public confession. And while I can additionally grant that it might be beneficial to martyr myself on behalf of self-conscious underachievers worldwide, it is certainly not my M.O. Instead, my intention is simply to perform a diagnostic on the genesis of this malaise, that is, of my academic decomposition. Perhaps such an analysis, a look into why I feel like I’ve only grown further apart from your standard “self-sufficient self-starter” Grinnell College student type might just do the trick for finding the way off of this lazy susan and put some “life” back into this dream.

On Monday morning, I was confronted in my psychic life with the following rather pessimistic declaration. “I am routinely disappointed by my inability to follow through on all of my good ideas.” The example of choice was the Titular Head film that I had planned and designed at the end spring semester of my second year. So now we are talking two good years of incubation and cogitation only to wind up on the morning of “Day Due” with my head in my hands and my heart on my sleeve. All I could think of was how disappointed I was to have to leave this dream in the past tense with nothing else to show for it but a half-assed storyboard covered in dust above my refrigerator. “When did I get so lazy?” I thought. “How can things I enjoy still end up being so daunting that I’d rather spend life on the couch with Doritos, then putting in work on a dream?”

As far as I can remember, I’ve been one of those artsy fartsy creative types who’s excited about learning, putting his mind to things and more or less making time for projects and endeavors. I would have chewed your ear off about the extensive Lego universes that I erected on my dining room table between 1998 and 2000. But here I’ve been in college with opportunity after opportunity to dive into exciting and complicated texts, divergent theories and other books written by old white men, and yet I can’t quite seem to muster the same chutzpah.

The fear used to keep me going. Do you remember the fear? That type that tells you that if you happen to get below your expected GPA then you’ve somehow blown up your spot. But it would be too simple of an explanation to chalk up an inability to do work on time to a change in medication or for having spent a semester abroad. So what is it then about turning into a senior that taught me it’s ok to eat a down letter grade? How did I reach a point where starting assignments after the deadlines became the norm, not an exception to it?

My intermediately nuanced conception of psychology leads me to believe that it’s a heightened sense of fear and rejection that has made it so difficult for me to put the pedal to the metal, so the speak. It seems easier to put off the prospect of screwing up then to face it in spite of my dread. Why not take the movie or paper, these projects that I’ve grown emotionally invested in, and postpone them past the point of achieving perfection? That way, the bar is already set low, and you don’t have to risk having given it your all.

What will it take then to get the ball rolling? Sometimes it’s as simple as a choice. Other times it’s a good friend who knows the chords to strike to push you over the edge. Then you’ll find yourself trying to stay up all night in the CCL editing a film at the last minute, reminding yourself that the perfect project isn’t a perfect one, but one that gets finished. Yeah that’s it, the reminder. A reminder that the reason we do projects and papers is that we look forward to making them in the first place. We look forward to seeing our dreams come to fruition, not just having something to be judged and deemed worthy of our own or other’s high praise. The point of this crap is to go through it, not get through it to have a prize at the end. Forget all the expectations that you’ve brought onto yourself from your family, your school, or even yourself. The prize ain’t some turn around “Go,” but to have the courage to play the game in the first place. That’s where we’ll find all that we need to survive. Not satisfied? Deal with it.

This is not simply a beautiful piece of art, but it is, in fact, the trophy that was awarded for winning 1st Place at Grinnell Relays 2009. Of course, last year’s impressive Relays win was a team effort, and it would be inconsiderate and tremendously egotistical for me to claim sole credit for our victory. On the other hand, I’m the one with the trophy and the column, so the rest of those fools can wallow in obscurity.

Looking back over my first two years here, I can honestly say that Grinnell Relays was the most fun experience I’ve had. (The International Bacon Day Celebration is a close second. The times I’ve been in my office and heard students on South campus blasting tracks from Dr. Dre’s “The Chronic 2001” are all tied for third.)

When I agreed to join a group of first years and a few other professors on a Relays team, I had no idea what I was getting myself into. When I was given a T-shirt and promised free beer, I figured I’d show up. When I saw Prof. Wayne Moyer light a toilet on fire to signal the start of the competition, I knew I was in the right place.

What made Grinnell Relays so much fun for me was not just that my team, The Sparkle Ponies, won most of the major events, but that we only needed to cheat a few times to do so. We won the Social Construction event in which we had to represent “race” using only marshmallows and toothpicks (I didn’t contribute to the project so much as heckle the opposing teams), the event where we had to form a math equation using the bodies of all of the team members, and the untying of the Human Knot. We would have won the Paper Airplane Toss, too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids.

Almost as valuable and important as winning (which my team did, by the way. We won.) was the way in which the spirit of Grinnell was very much on display during that cool, rainy day in late April. The range of events forced participants to exercise both their bodies (tug-of-war, the DAG-inspired swordfights) and their brains (the aforementioned Social Construction and math equation events), with creativity and ingenuity being encouraged and rewarded.

I find it surprising that more students and faculty don’t get as excited as I do about Grinnell Relays. Grinnell Relays is billed as “The Original Community Builder,” and it can be exactly that. I felt an important bond with those students and faculty who braved the weather and the mud and my obnoxious-but-always-hilarious trash-talking in order to socialize and compete and celebrate our community through sport. As the semester hurries toward Hell Week and Finals Week, the Relays are a great chance to recognize those values we hold most dear: camaraderie, teamwork and drinking beer at 10 o’clock in the morning.

As a first-year professor, I particularly appreciated the opportunity to interact with students outside of the classroom and to get to know a variety of students who I had not had in my courses. It is important for students and professors to remember that in addition to recognizing and performing our respective roles in terms of formal education, we are all part of a larger community that is built on trust and mutual respect. At its best, Grinnell Relays can be a carnivalesque experience that fosters a tighter community across the campus by allowing students and professors to work together toward a shared goal in the spirit of healthy competition.

Of course, for most of those competing, the goal of winning will never be achieved as long as they’re facing the mighty Sparkle Ponies.

Allow me to conclude by briefly addressing those members of the campus community who are positive, enthusiastic and caring enough to come out for Relays tomorrow:

You are all punks. The Sparkle Ponies are #1. We won it all last year and we will win it all again this year.

Our very name strikes fear and confusion into the hearts of our adversaries. Granted, it’s usually more confusion than fear, but confusion can be very disorienting. And it is when you are at your most disoriented that the Sparkle Ponies will gallop toward victory, and you won’t even notice when we’re cheating.

Do you have what it takes to compete with the Sparkle Ponies? Can you roll with a bunch of second-year students and a guy who reads Middle English for a living? Will any team but the Sparkle Ponies be taking home the 2010 Grinnell Relays trophy? The answer to all of these questions is “neigh.”

You might tell yourself that coming in second place would be respectable, but we all know that second place is just a fancy term for “not winning.”
The only thing Chuck Norris fears is fear itself. And the Sparkle Ponies.

I’m not going to bother quoting Ezekiel 25:17, but you know I‘m thinking it and I know you’re thinking about me thinking it. Think about it.

I’m looking forward to the Grinnell Relays, and for all of my bravado and machismo, however well-deserved it is, I really appreciate the chance to play and compete and generally have a good time.

I just hope our good time culminates in me getting another trophy to display in my office, something that reinforces, at least in my own mind, the fact that I’m a winner, even if means that I end up looking like a horse’s ass.

Real Men is a collaboration between several campus groups including Student Affairs, the Center for Religious Studies and Social Justice and the Athletics Department (see the article on page 10). The main goal of Real Men is to spread awareness of sexual assault and make more men the preventers, rather than perpetrators, of related sexual crimes. It is an interesting approach to a complicated and often taboo problem. And the fact that Real Men is tackling the problem head on without many reservations is admirable.
One aspect of Real Men that will benefit the campus community is a mandatory workshop planned for incoming male athletes. By doing this, almost a third of incoming male students will receive education on sexual assault before they even begin classes. Taking an hour or so out of New Student Orientation is a small cost for an essential and eye-opening experience that benefits both the students involved and the campus as a whole.

Along with other workshops for the entire campus community, Real Men will hopefully lay some groundwork for other students to form additional groups that will appeal to specific populations in order to further create a campus where a higher number of individuals will feel safe. Good job, Real Men. Keep doing the right thing.

If anything, off-campus senators have a heavier workload than on-campus senators. Not only do off-campus students live all over Grinnell, but also abroad, as students taking a semester abroad fall under the off-campus cluster. The task of organizing dozens of students who live within a few hundred feet of each other and their senators is difficult enough—imagine that except the students live all over the town and dozens of countries outside the U.S. Why current off-campus senators should be required to represent more students with a wider area of residence makes no sense. If anything, with an additional senator, that senator could focus their duties on keeping students living abroad informed and involved.

Furthermore, there is essentially no drawback to adding another senator to the off-campus pool. As an unpaid position, the only overhead cost of a fourth senator would be a few cents extra for whatever meals, snacks, etc. are provided for Joint Board. And maybe the labor required to pull up an extra chair at Joint Board sessions. Regardless, there are essentially no drawbacks. It seems the only drawback in some senator’s minds might be the dilution of current voices in a meeting with one extra person. But isn’t that extra senator just a reflection of the democratic principles of SGA?

In short, it doesn’t make sense to have fewer senators representing off-campus, per capita, than anywhere else on campus—at least one senator should be added to the off-campus representation to balance out Joint Board and senatorial duties. Unfortunately, since this decision has been thrown back to the committee, will not be resolved this semester, and cannot be brought back to the table until after senator elections have happened next fall, any modification will likely not take effect until Spring semester 2011. But that’s no reason to avoid the issues. Heed our call, Joint Board, and do the right thing.

Students who feels that living on a gender neutral floor is a necessity for safety, comfort, or other reasons may email Laura Gogg [gogglau1] and request gender neutral housing if they feel uncomfortable outing themselves through the regular room draw process. You also have the opportunity to live on a gender neutral floor if you have an interest in supporting and sustaining a floor community that is safe and affirming of all gender identities and expressions. Choosing to live in gender neutral housing makes a statement about the type of community you want to live in. Student Affairs can only assign physical spaces with a gender neutral label. From there, students must work to create the ethos that drives this safe space.

As gender neutrality becomes further institutionalized on campus, we’re confident a more intentional gender neutral community will develop organically. However, as we continue to learn about what it means to sustain a gender neutral floor and support housing options that are more equitable, safe, and comfortable for all students, it’s essential that we actively engage in this process. We encourage all those interested in living in gender neutral housing to sign up during room draw and to direct questions and comments to [tag], [srcenter] or [ajust].

—AJust Grinnell, the Stonewall Resource Center (SRC), and Transgender Action Group (TAG)

Have I gone too far? Am I wrongly conflating myself with marginalized others so that I may indulge my selfish desire to be one of the “glorious oppressed?” I don’t believe so, Grinnell. My training here in the humanities never ceases to remind me of my privileged status which so often demands rigorous attention to its dangerous historic and symbolic value. Yet my training is still telling me that something is wrong with this law and the way in which it makes its presence known, not only on this campus, but also in my mind. Its mandates have caught my conscience, effectively subjecting me to constant paranoia as an Other. It has effectively infiltrated a part of my life and categorized me as a smoker in order to name and regulate me as a problem that is an abnormality which should be considered a threat to the integrity of the system. I’ve been branded, shunned and exiled.

“Oh, get over yourself,” you might say. But look at the logic and look at the procedure. We’ve been told that security has its ever watchful eye out for smokers and will quickly bring us to the authority of a judicial committee should we violate the law by smoking on campus. Now, when lighting up, that ever present judicial eye gazes through at us from the very confines of our now paranoid minds. That gaze differentiates us from others, making us aberrations of the law who have no space as an identified smoker on campus. A smoker is now a smoker by the authoritative naughty no-no finger of lawful classification. We are therefore literally pushed to the periphery of our own domain, forced to smoke far from the center of campus to the edge of an arbitrarily delineated space. The effect of this arbitrary delineation only serves to supplement our confusion, never really leaving us at peace of mind as to whether or not we are in accordance with the law. The ill-defined center of the acceptable Grinnell student is now denied to us in a subtle way. I had to chuckle at those innocent smoker’s outpost when I realized that the barbarian the outpost was installed to prevent from entering the state was none other than myself. Where once I thought nothing of identifying myself as a smoker, I am now made constantly aware of the “erroneous” behavior I’ve adopted and the necessity to hide my abjection from the public eye in the dangerous no man’s land between speeding car and glass riddled curb.

Listen Grinnell, I’m not trying to blow smoke up your ass or in your face. I understand that it is a filthy habit that may have the potential to harm others (thanks for reminding me The State of Iowa, I forgot to lead a citizen’s dutiful life) and by no means do I wish to have the right to smoke around those who would prefer I not do so. All I’m saying is that I feel the way in which the law is enforced has made me feel violated and marginalized, and that perhaps there are better ways to arbitrate the law so that all parties have a free voice in the affair, and furthermore, so that smokers and non-smokers can live together in communicative and empathetic ways. Can’t I just sit in my favorite spot in the middle of a field when no one’s around and indulge myself in my own foolish vice? A vice that is my LEGAL right to choose. Dearest Grinnell, don’t teach me to think outside of the lines of what’s proper and then expect me to be dumb and silent as I am condemned to be defined there.

—Stephen Walkiewicz ’10

Dear “Shocked:”
As far as Depo-Provera goes, your problem is not unique. In clinical trials for the birth control shot, over 2/3 of women gained an average of five pounds in the first year, and continued to gain about 3.5-4 pounds each year following. However, the shot does offer certain advantages that other birth control methods do not offer. For example, the shot is used only once every three months. Also, the pregnancy rate among injectable birth control users is less than one percent due to limited chances for incorrect usage. While the shot does not protect against HIV or other STIs, its birth control effects begin as soon as the first shot is taken, which is not true for other methods (notably, the birth control pill). Another downside of using the shot is that women may lose significant bone mass density with extended (more than two years) use.

Birth control pills can also cause some side effects, although they are less common than the weight gain seen in Depo-Provera. These include nausea, headaches, breast tenderness and irregular bleeding. Every pill is different, so it is hard to predict how each pill will affect any one person’s body, so you need to work with your doctor to find the best fit for you.

Birth controls have also been reported to decrease sex drive (because who doesn’t love a good dose of irony?), but this has been neither supported nor refuted with clinical studies. The great thing about birth control pills is that there so many kinds that there should be one that works well without causing these unpleasant side effects. Also, when taken properly, the pills are more than 99 percent effective at preventing pregnancy.

The diaphragm, while not a commonly used method of birth control nowadays, has very few reported side effects. These can include bladder infections and allergic reaction to the spermicide on the diaphragm. Additionally, diaphragms must be fitted at a clinic, adding extra inconvenience.

Other options include intrauterine devices (IUD) and the Implanon, both of which offer long-term protection against pregnancy (up to 12 years for IUD, 3 years for Implanon), but can be more inconvenient. The Implanon requires a minor surgical procedure to insert and remove and can cost $400-650. IUDs can cause infections, especially in women with multiple partners.
So, essentially, every method of birth control has advantages and disadvantages. What’s important is that you find a method that is comfortable and convenient for you. If you want any further information, talk to your doctor, stop by the SHIC, or set up an appointment with Central Iowa Family Planning (number below), and anyone of those places would be happy to help.

Dear SHIC:
My boyfriend and I just had sex for the first time two weeks ago, and we’ve been going pretty much constantly since then. Things were going great, until I noticed an unusual discharge. Someone told me this could be Chlamydia, or some other STI. What are the symptoms of Chlamydia, and what can I do if I have it?
Signed,
Feeling “Chlammy” in Clark

Dear “Chlammy”:
While your friend is correct, unusual discharge is a common symptom of Chlamydia, there is no need to panic just yet. Vaginal discharge is quite normal, and in fact is a natural response to help clean and prevent infections. However, an “unusual discharge”—that is, a discharge that is colored (not clear or white) of has a smell of consistency that is abnormal for you personally—that is something that could definitely be either Chlamydia or another STI. Chlamydia is an STI that can be contracted by both males and females, and the symptoms can vary from person to person. Common symptoms include unusual discharge from the penis or vagina, burning during urination, and pain/bleeding during sexual intercourse. However, some people do not show any symptoms at all, even if they have the infection. The best thing you can do (if you think you have an infection, or even at the start of any sexual relationship, infection or no) is going in with your partner to get tested for STIs. That way, you can know if either of you has invited an unwanted third party to your sexual encounters. Chlamydia can be treated and cured with antibiotics.

It is important to note that these sympotms are not sure-fire signs that you have Chlamydia (nor is a lack of symptoms a sure-fire sign that you don’t). These symptoms are common among several STIs, most notably gonorrhea. The only way to know for sure is to get tested.
For more information on Chlamydia and other STIs, you can call your doctor, visit Central Iowa Family Planning, (on 5th Avenue at the corner of 5th and West Street in downtown Grinnell) or come visit the SHIC on the 2nd floor of the JRC to look at our informational pamphlets.
Central Iowa Family Planning also does STI testing! Call (641) 236-7787 to set up an appointment.
Hope this helps! Good luck with that discharge!

Love always-
SHIC

The Sexual Health Information Center is a student-run resource center located on the second floor of the JRC (Multicultural Suites, Suite S). SHIC offers confidential one-on-one peer education sessions and also sells condoms (more than 20 kinds!), dental dams, lube, pregnancy tests and more for affordable prices. Come visit during our hours of operation:
Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday: 6-8 p.m.
Tuesday, Friday: 4-6 p.m.
Sunday: 12-3 p.m.
You can also reach us by email: [SHIC]
Or by phone: x3327

The loss of the smallest languages do not worry me so much—that may be inevitable and in some ways necessary for industrialization. The median language has only 7,500 speakers, which is obviously impractical in the modern world. However, I think languages of five million plus people are sufficiently large to be efficient, since there could still be large cities within the region where it is spoken. For example Swiss German is secure in its existence because of the strong Swiss feelings of identity. It is used in all spheres of life (except in the mass media and in school where standard German is taught) in spite of the fact that it has only around four to five million speakers.

It is the potential loss of these relatively large languages that worry me because it has dire implications for the future of cultural diversity (for which linguistic diversity is a proxy). Swiss German’s neighbor to the north, Low Alemannic has largely been replaced by standard German—largely because of the suppression of it in school plus the lack of Low Alemannic feelings of identity.

These things can be changed, but will ultimately be irrelevant if these languages have to compete with behemoth languages that have more than 100 million speakers due to either recent (in the last 500 years) conquests of huge areas (Mandarin Chinese*, English, Portuguese and Russian) or recent population explosions due to the incredible yields of wet rice production using modern technology (Hindi, Bengali and Japanese). In the absence of mass media and government coercion, the areas of recent conquest would be slowly diversifying culturally. In 1,000 years, Latin diversified into dozens of languages (French, Occitan, Spanish, Venitian, Italian, etc.) As we can see from Japan, populations that experience massive population explosions tend to reverse this trend and shrink after they become highly developed and quality of life (i.e. not living crammed really close together) becomes more important to people.

What am I proposing then? For one, far less restrictive language policies. In the cases of mega languages (which are inherently mutually intelligible within themselves), people should be allowed to write how they talk. On TV and radio they should talk like the people in their region talk rather than effecting an artificial standard. I do not know how much languages would diversify in these conditions because of increased day to day contact with people from other regions in the modern world. At the very least though, we should not try to prevent diversification of languages that already dominate vast areas with drab uniformity.

My second suggestion is more controversial and is one which I am myself not so sure about. That is to split the largest countries in the world into smaller ones and combine the smaller ones into conglomerations (such as Yugoslavia). The idea behind this would be partially to create stronger feelings of separate identity within big countries which could encourage the creation of separate identities and to increase efficiency by reducing bureaucracy and separate sets of laws in the small countries.

Another good reason for splitting up big countries is that if the government of a large country makes a major mistake, it has massive repercussions. 20 million people died under Stalin because there were hundreds of millions of people in the Soviet Union. Although these catastrophes were both created by totalitarian regimes, there is no guarantee that they could not happen in a democracy—a nuclear war could have easily broken out over Cuba, had Kennedy not stayed cool. Also, democratic governments can dissolve into despotic ones, such as with Napoleon and Hitler.

Also, for hundreds of years China was shut off from the rest of the world because of the existence of a giant state. This changed China from the most technologically advanced region of the world to a backwater. Had China instead been divided into smaller countries (as Europe was), there could have been some countries open to outsiders and some not. As the closed Chinese countries had seen the success of the open ones, they might have changed to become open as well. Columbus first lobbied the Portuguese king for funds, then the Doges of Genoa and Venice before reaching success with the King of Spain. Had Europe been under one King and if he had said no, Europeans would have taken centuries longer to stumble upon America.

I suggest then that large countries (such as the U.S.) be broken up by popular vote. In the census, people would be asked to rank adjacent counties in the order of how much a person would want to be in a country with them. A computer could then find the natural breaks and divide the country (such as the U.S.) into chunks between 25 and 50 million people (an arbitrary number, but the mean population of a nation state in the world today is 33 million, so why not?)This process might be repeated every hundred years, since cultural affinities change. Naturally, free trade and travel would still exist between these countries like in the EU, in order to preserve economic efficiency. We could then have English diversify into 10 to 50 different languages and unique cultures in the U.S. over hundreds of years which would make life more interesting and meaningful while still maintaining our material wellbeing.

Interestingly, this is already happening with American dialects, which are differentiating from each other naturally among all but the highest classes, who are highly mobile. My suggestions would however make it happen faster and perhaps to a higher level of diversity than would happen without them.

There are just barely a dozen microbreweries in Iowa, but one local brewer, Mason Groben of Madhouse Brewery in Newton, IA, represents a new and exciting potential trend (see our story on page 5). Groben, who runs a two-man business out of an old Maytag warehouse, has plans to brew and bottle beer to distribute throughout Iowa.

Brewing began just last month, and while Groben does not get all of his ingredients from Iowa, he brews, bottles and transports his beer from 20 miles away. An investor is also growing Iowa hops to be used in later beers. This budding brewery has the chance to give Central Iowa a little something more to root for.

At Grinnell, we love our PBR and whatever McNally’s has on fire-sale. It’s usually relatively tasty stuff—and cheap. But when offered with a choice between the massive factories that pump out macro-brew by the tons, and a 6-tanked room run by a guy in Newton who happens to have a dream, maybe every once in a while, we can reach for something a little closer to home.

While we as editors try our best to focus on the most pertinent stories every week, we can only do so much. Through debate and eventual consensus we arrive at the stories we publish. Unfortunately, however, that debate is only among a handful of editors, and often leaves important voices unheard.

The S&B is not only student-run, it is student-owned through the contributions it receives from the student activity fee. So since you already own the S&B, you may as well take active ownership of it. We would like to invite the entire Grinnell community to voice their opinions on everything the S&B does from stories to photos to the layout of thesandb.com.

Without your opinions, we can only do so much, so please do the right thing.

—2010-2011 Editors-in-Chief, Jai Garg ’11 [gargjai] and Lucy Bloch-Wehba ’11 [blochweh] (in absentia)

While we find these concerns to be reasonable, we also strongly disagree with the administration’s argument on several levels. First and foremost, we like getting naked. Second and secondmost, this is a tradition with its roots reaching much further back than just this year’s team, and the administration has offered no reason as to why the tradition should be broken now of all times. Finally, the reasoning that prospies and alumni will be here this weekend holds little weight considering that they have almost always been present for the streaking. Furthermore, any alums who return this weekend likely would have themselves been exposed to the distance team’s streaking habit when they attended, and shielding prospies from the realities of Grinnell does a disservice both to them and the admissions process.

Let us be clear; we have a full respect for the administration’s viewpoint, but the arguments they have given make little sense to present now instead of 5 or 10 years ago, and are further based in a concern for the deception of students past, present, and future.

­—Erik Jarvis ’12 and Jordan Bell-Masterson ’12

However, we’re surprised to learn that a college that has, over the last year, stressed the instability of its financial situation continues to move forward on these large-scale projects. While we are troubled by the fact that the administration has undertaken this construction project at the expense of drastically more important measures like financial aid and scholarships, we acknowledge the potential benefits these spaces proffer. Considering this fact, continuing with the project should necessarily include the commitment to highly efficient designs that reduce resource consumption and limit environmental impacts. This college has already seen the folly of counting on a prosperous future and consequently withholding endowment spending, and one of the best ways to ensure the long-term financial stability of the college is to be conscious of limiting operating costs.

Further, the college has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions below 2010 levels by forty percent, and if these construction projects go forward, the college may lose out on the opportunity to meet that goal unless the buildings are highly efficient. Achieving these levels of efficiency will mean more than simply tacking on green features at the end of the design process. It is necessary to prioritize the efficiency and environmental sustainability from the very outset of the planning stage. For these reasons we hope that if and when the administration moves forward on these construction projects, it requires the architect to prioritize the efficiency of the buildings in their initial layout and design.

Besides insisting on efficient architecture, one way to ensure that the buildings truly meet the needs of the college is to involve the campus community in all stages of the planning of the projects. Too often this administration has failed to effectively realize such opportunities and as a result has seen the distrust and ineffective design that can rise out of such shortcomings. Those who will use the space in the future can say best what features will most adequately serve their needs.

—Nathan Pavlovic ’10 and Caitlin Vaughan ’10

In honor of the spring I’m returning to a previously abandoned column about Valentine’s Day. It’s being published now not only because I am lazy, but also because V-Day may have originally been celebrated closer to this time of year rather than on Feb. 14.

Everyone knows that Valentine’s Day is a day to celebrate love, but you probably didn’t know that the inventor of Valentine’s Day was my main man, Geoffrey Chaucer, who, by his own account, was one of the most unlovingest and unloved men of his age.

The tradition of honoring Saint Valentine dates back to the 5th century AD, and it originally recognized two Christian martyrs with that name who had supposedly been executed on that day. None of the legendary accounts found in classical or medieval hagiographies mentions anything about romantic love, candy hearts or the Hallmark greeting card company.

It seems to have been Chaucer and his literary buddies, namely John Gower and Sir John Clanvowe, who first wrote poetry associating St. Valentine with love during the late 14th century. These are unlikely founders of what has become a holiday for celebrating romantic attachment and dedication. Gower is most famous for a long Middle English poem called the “Confessio Amantis” (“The Lover’s Confession”) in which a young man spends so much time trying to learn about love that when he finally feels ready to enter into a relationship, he is so old that he can no longer perform sexually. This work was a big hit in its time—now it seems like it could be adapted as a Cialis commercial.

Chaucer’s association with Valentine’s Day is no less strange. In each of his major narrative poems, Chaucer presents himself as a man forced to spend time with books because he has been spurned by the God of Love and, by extension, all the single ladies. He doesn’t do a good job marketing himself as a potential lover, either, as he presents himself in “The House of Fame” and “The Canterbury Tales” as rather stout and somewhat surly. He’s less like Paul Bettany and more like Samwise Gamgee.

His Valentine’s Day poem is “The Parliament of Fowls,” in which Chaucer’s narrator dreams about how fine feathered friends from all over England gather on that day to choose their mates. The Parliament is a loud, chaotic gathering of young, lusty singles looking to pair up for a brief time. It’s kind of how I picture Harris parties but with less booze, better poetry and slightly more bird poop.

Problems arise when three males all vie for the talon of one especially sexy female eagle in a 14th century version of “The Dating Game.” In the end, the female asks for a year to decide which suitor she will choose, and the rest of the birds are forced to likewise delay their coupling until the situation is resolved, thus forcing the male birds to depart with a serious case of blue bills.

Despite the lack of resolution and the bird’s deferment of desire, the poem ends with a song in praise of Saint Valentine and a celebration of the season: “Now welcome, somer, with thy sonne softe,/ That hast thes winters wedres overshake/ And driven away the longe nyghtes blake!” Certainly it seems that Valentine’s Day belongs more to April than to February.

But what are we to make of a Valentine’s Day poem in which nobody gets what they want, in which love is denied rather than achieved? The answer, I think, is found in the poem’s opening line, which hinges on the word “craft.”
Chaucer’s poem reminds us that love and desire, knowledge and power, will and virtue are all achieved through a process that plays out over time. These things require learning, which is not the immediate acquisition of obvious truths but the difficult development of particular skills that allow one to evaluate facts, options and interpretations. And this is what makes this poem so fitting to the spring as a reminder of what it is we’re doing here.

The second half of the spring semester typically involves a mad dash toward the finish line. As I speak with students about final projects for my classes or about post-graduation plans, there is a palpable sense of urgency in reaching the end. During my time in the classroom, it often feels like students are less concerned with the immediate questions of what’s happening during that particular class meeting because they are thinking ahead to what is due for the next class, what will appear on the final exam, or what they hell they are going to do After Grinnell, all the while thinking “soon this will all be over.”

It is important to remember, however, that pleasure exists in the doing, not the having-done.

This is what the medieval founders of Valentine’s Day understood, and their poetic selves happily sacrifice the satisfaction of their own desires in order to guide us through the process of thinking about our own. While spring brings the promise of a semester’s end and, for the seniors, the hope and dread of imminent graduation, the focus on outcomes often blinds us to what we’re coming out for in the first place, which is to learn rather than to have learned.

Of course, both in learning and in love, we require some sort of recognition for our efforts, some sort of sign that our hard work has or will have paid off. The reward may take the form of a long-awaited first kiss or an A for a particular class, but the practice of one’s craft in achieving these goals will continue to pay off over time.
And so this column, having been long-delayed and craftily written, is my Happy Belated Valentine’s Day to you all. It’s been a long time coming, and I hope it was worth it.

Editor’s note: That’s what she said.

As some empirical scientists might report, the sun is shining, the birds and the bees are bumpin’ uglies and every last bit of the 20 foot snow pile in the Kum & Go parking lot has effectively melted. Spring is finally upon us, and Spring Break is officially over. Now is the time to buckle down and earn our keep. Instead of breaking out the towels, sun block and Bucket-o-Margarita, we’ve got to start putting all of those second mortgages, trustee scholarships and FAFSA bell grants to work.

For some that might mean putting in those extra secret hours on Burling 5th trying to find the perfect 18th century beauty product magazine advertisement for your History of Nearly Irrelevant Obscurities seminar, or for others it might signal only a dozen or so more cram-jam sessions left for trying to fashion your blown glass Watson and Crick double-helix replica into a functional piece of drug paraphernalia. However, for me it indicates something of a different sort. It marks the beginning of the end of this whole college shaboom shaboom, and the need to kick these Dream Living interrogations up a couple of DEFCON worry-wart points before the Future makes its Blitzkreig.

So here’s what I’ve been thinking of. With all this rising pressure to camp out in GenComp and tough through our finals like an Oscar De la Hoya sparring partner, my concerns have been growing increasingly more ‘meta’. What is it about the taking-classes-thing in general that has been good, bad, ugly or useful? Are there any profound maxims that I’ve learned about learning over the course of my….. learning? Can I take this printed-media opportunity to work through some concerns that I have about the future of academics at Grinnell College and about how to keep them out of the gutter? Of course I can, because this is my newspaper column and I have only so many chances left to be so diatribically opinionated.

Here are some thoughts. A few weeks back, a professor made a comment that struck my fancy. This talented scholar (whom is luckily from my own department) brought it to the attention of an all-campus audience that professors, a lot like students, are really actually just people—people with responsibilities, desires and reputations to uphold much like anyone that you would more or less find anywhere.

Now, I will make a David Foster Wallace-sized caveat and ask you to refrain from shooting me—the messenger—for having only just yet simply stated nothing other than the obvious. What continues to resonate with me from what this professor said is how this similarity, this parallel in realities between students and professors, is a dynamic frequently effaced over the course (no pun intended) of our time here. Theory jargon aside, what I mean here is that there is a tendency on both sides of the divide to disengage pedagogue and pupil from the very present realities that each of them share by virtue of their being real people in the same place with similarly disparate needs. I think there is very often a veil of ignorance placed over the fact that students and teachers might have more to talk about than just what’s been highlighted on paper.

Here’s where I try to be consistent with the logic of my project and more or less cover my ass by admitting ignorance about the classes I’ve never taken and the students and professors whose experiences might prove wrench-like when thrown into the systemic flow of my theory. Ok good. Now granting efficacy to my sneaking suspicions and hunches, let’s examine an example of what I’m referring to. Say you’re in such-and-such class about so-and-so topic with whose-a-face up in front as the teacher. You’re assigned this reading and that writing assignment to better your engagement with the subject. Why? Well, it’s on the syllabus of course, and that’s probably all you need to know. Maybe it’s canonical according to leaders of the field, or maybe it’s brand-spanking new and meriting our analysis.

Any of these would be a perfect opportunity to dive into the dark murk depths of the cracks in this relationship in a way sympathetic to Professor X’s aforementioned analysis. How frequently do class and teacher ever discuss the point of their assignments, the means of production that go into influencing course material, course assignments and even the overall structure of the experience? Who points their radar at the underlying conflicts and forces going to work in a classroom dynamic to make it stuffy, awkward and dry or vibrant, provoking and intense? And what is even more, why is it that students and professors alike seem so patient with keeping up the “business as usual” of making the classroom a place designated for the production of only very specific kinds of knowledges? I hope I am not just conjuring up this skepticism, because it seems rather apparent over here on my side of the court.

Maybe there isn’t any desire to give classes this kind of self-conscious facelift, which I guess is ok, except that what I’m ostensibly trying to do here is make a value judgment. I’d like to be able to say that if classroom experiences were ones that encouraged students and professors to make themselves psychologically vulnerable to each other, they would also be more open to the project of creating a self-aware journey qua learning, which would ultimately be better for the whole sha-bang. I might not even be alone in this regard, which means maybe it’s only a lack of available tools and vocabulary that keeps students and professors from going at the underpinnings of whatever it is that structures our course dynamics.

Now, you might be thinking, “What kind of alternative scenario are you looking for here, Hederman? It sounds like you want to take the rigorous academic work specific to each discipline and classroom and turn it into group-therapy.” To this I might respond, “Not just yet, bro-donculous.” Here we are in the heartland of America with ourselves, Daddy Warbucks, Uncle Sam or even Roger Foger class of ’69 footin’ the bill for this not so ‘limitless’ educational opportunity. But why pay such a boatload of money to not even take the time to “talk about talking” and “think about thinking” in classes where the chance is readily available?

Sure your basic survey intro courses might need to pay respectfully “holler back” at European style auditorium lectures reminiscent of mandatory high school assemblies, but the rest of the student faculty ratio ought to pull up its britches and get its hands dirty. I think the unique opportunities offered in a place as small and close-knit as Grinnell allow for the possibility for us to do more than just textual summary and regurgitation. Why not also try to make transparent the baggage that students and teachers bring with them to this supposedly ‘liberal’ arts hullaballoo?

Obviously it’s an ongoing process that would probably require a re-evaluation of the aims of our whole educational experience at this college, but perhaps I’m not so opposed to such a grandiose revolutionary proposal. Here is where I admit my tendencies towards a half-baked Marxism in my call for not just a form of pseudo class-consciousness, but also a “course-consciousness” of sorts—a consciousness where participants engage in working through the troublesome material reality facing their classroom environments.

Students and professors are all real people with real problems that they bring with them to the process of becoming better educated. Perhaps if we can re-learn how to accommodate the reality of these personal differences we might also learn how to think differently. None of us are clean slates ready for informational storage and retrieval, sponges for the soaking, putty for the molding or any other caricature-ization posited by a strictly positivist reduction.
There’s more work to be done in the classroom than simply passing the torch of Knowledge from one generation to the next. If we can start to take the time to give other aspects of this ol’ education the attention that they deserve, maybe then we’ll be “living the dream.”

Not satisfied? Deal with it.

Formerly, students were dropped from their parents’ health insurance plans at the age of 18 unless they were continuing their education. Upon graduating from college, those students would then lose their coverage, leaving them to not only pay for things such as graduate school and possible relocation costs but their insurance costs as well.

Starting in August, regardless of enrollment in higher education or marital status, people will be able to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans until the age of 26.

This new law will allow Grinnellians greater freedom in choosing what to do after college. With the economy still recovering, the partial relief of a large financial burden is crucial for many students still looking for employment. Further, students interested in doing service work after college will no longer be burdened with unaffordable insurance costs.

In addition to the health care benefits, the overhaul also contains the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which will alter how students receive their aid and the amount and time period that accompany the aid.

First, student loans will no longer come through banks. Instead, starting July 1, 2010, students will receive grants directly from the government, which allows the government to lower certain restrictions. The window for repaying loans will now be lowered from 25 years to 20, with loans being forgiving thereafter.

Also, starting July 1, 2014, monthly payments on student loans will be lowered to 10 percent of discretionary income from the current 15 percent. Unfortunately for many of us, this only applies to loans taken after the date, but prospective students coming to Grinnell can look forward to saving a greater amount of their income post-graduation.

Most importantly, the maximum Pell Grant will increase from the current $5,550 to $5,900, allowing more low and middle-income Americans to attend college.

That being said, the actual cost of the legislation will not be known for a long time, so while projections show a reduction of the deficit, many are afraid that our generation will have to pay for this legislation later.
So while the verdict is still out on the overall effects of the bill, it appears that college-aged Americans will now be able to save on costs and have greater choice in following their career paths—a welcome relief to the world of rising college costs and uncertainty.

Still, it remains clear that a better form of communication could greatly ease the minds of students, faculty and staff in the event of similar future circumstances. The already established text message service, though a good idea, clearly went widely unused, and in times of a power outage a solution completely non-reliant upon electricity seems more sensible. A select number of predetermined locations could have bulletins posted with information regarding weather, classes and any other critical information. Additionally, a more clear protocol regarding classes could be constructed and could be adjusted based on whether a professor requires electricity for their lesson or whether the room will have enough natural light, with back up rooms planned for those lacking illumination. Though power outages are rare on campus, we should still be thoroughly prepared for one, especially as more severe dangers may arise during that time of vulnerability.

You’re not alone. Most people who enter the wonderful world of oral sex at some point realize they shouldn’t have ordered the garlic bread at their romantic dinner. There are actually many foods and substances that will change the way you taste—that goes for everybody, regardless of your equipment. The party lifestyle doesn’t help: caffeine, tobacco and hard alcohol will all make the problem much worse, as will some recreational drugs like cocaine. Diets high in red meat, fish and especially dairy are also likely to leave your partner with a frown (and yes, vegans have a reputation for having “good taste”). There are other culprits: garlic, onions, cauliflower, broccoli, junk food and the avoid-at-any-cost ultimate mood killer, asparagus.

There’s good news, though! Anything sugary and acidic, like candy, juice and fruit (pineapple is a popular choice) will help make your emissions sweeter, and staying hydrated will mellow the taste out. Even some spices like cardamom and cinnamon are reputed to be effective, and of course playing with flavored lube, whipped cream and chocolate syrup couldn’t hurt (but clean up well afterwards, or you risk a bacterial infection). Popping a mint in your mouth before you start can be exciting for both you and your partner. It’d be a great field for some experimental inquiry by our dear readers. If you REALLY care about making your partner happy, though, you’ll both get fully tested before deciding to have unprotected oral sex! Infections ranging from annoying to life-threatening can be spread that way, including herpes, hepatitis B, HPV and yeast infections. We sell flavored dental dams and lube at the SHIC, and we should have flavored condoms starting later this semester.

Finally, we want to remind our readers that it’s very important to find out if your partner really wants to have oral sex. Sexual contact is never ok if only one person wants it to happen, and we all sometimes tell our partners we don’t want to do things in indirect ways. If you occasionally remind them that they never ever have to have an excuse to not want to do something sexual, what you do decide on will be that much more exciting.

Dear SHIC,
I got the Gardasil vaccine at my last doctor’s appointment. Does this mean I’m safe from HPV? What is HPV, exactly?

Congratulations on taking an important step to protect yourself from Human Papillomavirus (HPV)—the most common sexually transmitted infection. You are indeed now safe from the most common harmful forms of the virus. Various strains of HPV can cause genital warts and cancer. Currently, 50 percent of sexually active adults will have some form of HPV at some point in their lives, and in 90 percent of these cases, the body will take care of it within two years, usually without any symptoms.

There is no cure for the virus other than your own immune system. However, with HPV, as with most health issues, prevention is the best medicine. The FDA has approved two vaccines to protect against HPV. Both vaccinations come in a series of three shots over a period of six months, and your immunization is NOT complete until you have had all three! Both Gardasil and Cervarix are approved for women ages 9-26. Gardasil was also approved for men ages 9-26 in October 2009! Gardasil protects against the strains that cause nine out of 10 cases of genital warts, as well as the two types most commonly linked to cervical cancer. The vaccines do not completely eliminate your risk of infection, and cannot eliminate an existing infection, but they are extremely important preventative measures for any person, especially but not limited to those who plan on being sexually active in the future.

There are over 40 different types of HPV and not all are created equal. Some cause genital warts. Warts vary in appearance—one small bump or several—small or large, raised, flat or cauliflower shaped. Warts do not cause cancer and can either be treated or left to go away on their own. Rarely, HPV may also cause warts in the throat, a condition known as recurrent respiratory papillomatosis or RRP. Many strains of HPV have no medical repercussions at all, but where the virus gets serious is its potential to cause cancer. The link between HPV and cervical cancer is well-documented and widespread. The cancer risk is not limited to women (or their cervixes), however, because different types of HPV can also cause cancers of the vulva, vagina, penis, anus and head and neck, including tongue, tonsils and throat.

The vaccines are most effective before you become sexually active. HPV is spread through vaginal, oral and anal sex. Any extensive skin-to-skin contact can transmit it, even non-genital contact (fingers, etc.) and it may be passed on when neither person has symptoms nor is aware of an infection. This means that while safe sex practices help your chances, they do not completely eliminate the risk of getting HPV. Even if you have already had sex, the vaccine is still a valuable weapon against strains that you have not been exposed to.

Any sexually active person is at a high risk of getting HPV. The HPV vaccine is available from your doctor, or from a reproductive health care provider such as Planned Parenthood or Central Iowa Family Planning. Sexually active women should schedule regular Pap tests, because the strain of HPV that causes cancer can only be detected by changes in cervical cells. There is no FDA approved HPV test for male-bodied individuals, so the only thing our male readers can do is make sure they and their partners get vaccinated as soon as possible.
Love, the SHIC

SHIC has a chic new question box located at the information desk in the JRC! Just slip in your questions, or e-mail them to [SHIC].

SHIC Hours are: Monday, 6-8, Tuesday, 4-6, Wednesday, 6-8, Thursday, 6-8, Friday, 4-6, Sunday, 12-3
Feel free to drop in or call us at x3327!