®lff Saiiy ®ar Mppl
Who Admits to Masturbating on a Saturday Night?
I wore to myself that I’d give it up, not
give in to my desires, allow my mind to
overcome the weakness of my body. I said I
couldn’t take the pressure anymore. Yet, here I
am, writing a guest column, without the duress of
a deadline, even though I spent most oflast semes
ter complaining.
But I am programmed like a good little writer:
every time I hear/read something, I think about
how to incorporate it into a column Every now
and then, I hear something too juicy to resist. Like
now.
With the new year, people made lots of resolu
tions; the paper was M of them on Jan. 1, but
people have started to slack off. I’m noticing more
cigarette butts in the ashtray atour apartment, beer
cans littering the floor and books lying unopened.
Essentially, a few weeks after muttering our good
intentions in a drunken haze, things are exactly as
they were onDec. 31,1994, and on Dec. 31,1993,
and so on.
This year, however, I have one resolution that
I Duly want to accomplish. Nothing so imbecilic as
giving up my Camels or working out regularly or
even keeping up with schoolwork. No, my No. 1
resolution for 1995 is to learn how to masturbate,
following the controversial suggestion of Jocelyn
Elders.
It gave me great pleasure, during my boring
sojourn in Ocala, to read that a public official had
decided to come out of the closet, or, er, the
bedroom.
Elders said that maybe, perhaps, masturbation
ought to be taught in school. Of course, everyone
gasped in horror... a woman talking about mas
turbation as something good, as something that
should be taught. The nation (and President
Clinton) uttered a small “Ick!” encouraged by the
media attention.
You realize, of course, that I wholeheartedly
support this thought. I have never, even in my
drunkest, bluntest conversations, talked about
masturbation with women. It’s more taboo than
saying “c—.”
So maybe it’s more prevalent than it appears,
but somehow I think that masturbation is seen as
somethingnot quite kosher, especially about which
to talk. Education, as in most things is the best
means of curing ignorance.
I do recall hearing of masturbation in those
horrible first years of puberty. It was always the
Author's Views on Land
Use Misrepresented
TO THE EDITOR:
The DTH article “Land-use company
conducts forum” on Friday, Jan. 13, mis
quoted me in almost every instance in
which my words are cited. While some
quotes approximated my words, others are
completely antithetical to what I said.
Please allow me to state and expand upon
the points I made at the forum regarding
the potential development of the Mason
Farm and Horace Williams tracts, and
thus right the record:
1) We should pose a few questions re
garding the assumption that the University
needs to grow. Is such growth precipitated
by projected enrollment increases? Or will
the growth be administrative? While some
uses of the land seem justifiable (such as
affordable housing for students and Uni
versity employees), do we really want to
trade in two of our last large undeveloped
areas for more overhead? Let’s look how
we are growing and then see if such growth
is healthy.
2) In direct opposition to the quote the
DTH fabricated for me, I feel that there is
ENOUGH parking on campus! In fact
each parking lot represents a squandering
of space on an already squeezed campus.
My proposal is to site needed new build
ings on the parking lots, before building a
whole shadow campus at Horace Will
iams or Mason Farm. The same number of
parking spots could be maintained by in
corporating below-ground parking struc
tures. The additional transportation needs
generated by such infill could then be met
with innovative programs to increase tran
sit ridership, commuting by bicycle and
ridesharing. There are numerous cost-ef
fective strategies the University and local
municipalities could use to encourage the
shift away from our expensive and un
healthy dependence on automobiles: more
bike lanes, on-site lockers and showers for
bike commuters, increased bus service ...
the list goes on and on. If such programs
sound expensive, remember that the Uni
versity is already subsidizing private auto
mobile use at an even higher rate (parking
permits on campus do not come close to
meeting the costs of maintaining lots).
It is also important to examine why so
many students and University staff find it
necessary to live outside of Chapel Hill and
commute to work. Clearly there is a major
lack in affordable housing in ourtown. The
answer to this problem should be an in
crease in affordable housing, within walk
ing distance to campus, rather than more
parking. Take abike down Rosemary Street
and look at the area covered by University
owned parking lots. Now imagine these
voids filled with attractive apartment build
ings (perhaps in the style of Chancellor
Square) to be rented to staff and students at
affordable rates. There would be innumer
able positive effects of such infill: members
of the University community could live in
town rather than commute; additional
downtown residents would increase the
vitality of local businesses; and crime rates
would drop as more people walk the streets
at night.
3) Finally, after we have built upon all
land currently squandered by parking, it
may be time to develop selected parcels of
the Horace Williams and Mason Farm
areas. When this last resort arrives, again,
let’s ensure that such development incor
porates affordable housing so that folks
can avoid the need to commute. Future
development should be oriented toward
alternative modes of transportation: a rail
line passes through the Horace Williams
tract which could be used to ran regular
shuttle service between the two campuses,
and the Canboro Bikeway should be ex
tended to serve this area. Such transit
based development would be far cheaper
little boys, trying to be
cool, who would dis
cuss “whacking off”
(or some similar vul
gar term) during class.
I was utterly fasci
nated.
It seemed so
simple, so fun, so vul
gar to discuss, but my
anatomy was not quite
so simple to under
stand.
I mean, come on, it doesn’t take a lot of creativ
ity/skill forthe basic male masturbation, although
I have heard of some creative variations.
Female masturbation is a different story en
tirely. The most depressing conversation I’ve ever
had was with a group of about 10 sexually active
women, of which only two had had orgasms. The
other eight seemed to be waiting on some charm
ing, experienced lover to discover some secret Spot
that the others had missed.
We didn’t speak of masturbation, but I tend to
think that if those eight women actively attempted
to pleasure themselves, they wouldn’t put up with
lackluster sex; they would at least have some
notion of what to tell a guy to do. The question
eventually arises, “What turns you on?” in one
form or another.
The only way for a chick to answer that, if she
has not yet come upon her Dream Lover, is to find
out for herself, by herself. (I’m assuming here that
most men are really rather easy to please, and
although not always the case, that seems to be
almost a truism.)
I don’t quite understand why masturbation is
seen as bad at all, for either gender. Most people
cite the Biblical tenet of spilling no seed, or, better
yet, Monty Python’s “Every Sperm is Sacred.”
Yet, what’s so bad about it?
I’ve gotten a lot of flak about promotingprotnis
cuity/unsafe sex. Hypothetically speaking, if one
is young and full of those pesky little hormones,
and one doesn’t want to have sex (I heard that
some people feel like that), what does one do?
Abstain? Easier said than done. The most practical
thing to do is to masturbate.
Granted then, that the entire notion of mastur
bation is somewhat looked down upon, but it
appears even more horrendous for women to give
and wiser than paving beautiful greenspace
so that people can have the “convenience”
of being dependent on an economic and
ecological vampire (the automobile) which
sucks an average of $6,000 out of their
pockets a year, poisons our atmosphere
and causes an area the size of Delaware to
be paved every year.
Andrew Koebrick
GRADUATE STUDENT
INFORMATION AND LIBRARY SCIENCE
Gridlock Allows Only
Useful Policies From D.C.
TO THE EDITOR:
Ofttimes, over my morning coffee, I
enjoy the usual vacuous blatherings of die
editorial board’s daily regurgitation of oth
ers’ stale rhetoric in the guise of their own.
Chuckling over the DTH’s bleeding heart
why-can’t-we-all-just-get-alongworldview
gets me through many a trying day. How
ever, “Simmer Down, Newt” (Jan. 19) has
left me wanting for any shred of coherent
thought on the assumption of speakership
by Newt Gingrich.
The editorial board maligns past Re
publican representatives of not having to
“deal with the complex issues of policy
formation. ” Additionally, theeditorial sug
gests that Gingrich should now work with
both parties to produce “productive legis
lation.” In fact, many Republican policy
initiatives, such as the 1994 Kasich budget
plan, the discharge petition rule and the
broadly popular A-to-Z spending cut plan
were beaten down by tyrannical Demo
cratic committee chairmen unwilling to
give the minority party a fair chance. Of
what the board accuses the Republicans,
the Democrats have been guilty for years.
Doubtiess the editors use their own paper
as a source of news. It is thus easy to see
how they have only the side of the story
that their own biases choose to see.
For reasons known not even to the au
thors, the tirade bursts forth with the state
ment that effective Republican leadership
“must leam how to mediate the differences
within the party” while convicting Gingrich
of lacking the wherewithal to so do solely
because he “has launched a no-holds-baned
attack on the Democrats ... .” The sour
grapes routine is getting old, guys! If you
are going to be grumpy, at least make some
sense.
The one accurate statement in the edito
rial is that Americans are sick of corrupt
congressional politics and the huge roles of
special interests. Yet why is no credit given
to the enforcement of all laws upon the
Congress (which until Jan. 4 was even
exempt from the Ethics in Government
Act)? Why are no praises sung for concrete
promises to actupon overwhelmingly popu
lar (and vexing to the special interests)
issues such as term limits and the Balanced
Budget Amendment?
The perennial liberal take on politics is
that Americans want an activist govern
ment because it is government which best
solves our problems. The failure of this
mindset to explain the rise of Gingrich and
the Republicans bedevils liberals every
where. Thus the rest of us have been sub
jected to a barrage of liberal journalist
group therapy under the banner of the
übiquitous “change” theme. But even a
cursory analysis of the last two national
elections leads one to the reasonable con
clusion that most people want to shackle
the ability of the federal government to do
virtually anything except send checks to
individuals. Both elections saw the firing
of the president for attempting to govern
against the will of the people; most notice
ably Bush with his tax hike and Clinton
with his health plan. Unfortunately, Mr.
Clinton was not up for re-election, so the
voters fired his ability to accomplish his
undesirable goals.
Disenfranchised radical moderates such
in to these carnal desires. (Only Sharon Stone can
get away with it.)
Examples of this are all over the place. When “I
Touch Myself’ came out, sung by a female, every
one was aghast.
“I can’t believe that a woman would sing that
... it’s so gross,” was the typical response. And in
that stupid movie “Single vhiite Female, ” the new
SWF roommate, a psychochick, is shown in the
midst of violent masturbation.
The producer achieved the desired effect as the
entire theater audience gasped in honor. Obvi
ously, this chick must be insane if she masturbates.
Any woman worth her Y-less chromosomes can
get a man.
Why do we think like this? An easy answer
could be that the more that women understand
that they can pleasure themselves, without a penis
(or semblance thereof), the more things go awry in
many ways biologically, politically, socially.
And—you’ve heard this line before—people are
resistant to change, especially when that change
involves power.
I personally think that a penis is a comfortable
thing to rely on. Like alcohol, it’s an acceptable
form of pleasure that can even be licensed by god
and country.
Who wants to go into work/class on Monday
morning and talk about the great time they had
fingering themselves after last call on Saturday
night?
It’s an admittance of what can be seen as failure
—being unable to pick up/date/fuck a person and
being forced to rely on oneself. I think that’s one
reason why the people who talk about masturba
tion, who aren’t ashamed of it, are the ones who
are publicly having sex. You’re not going to ap
pear “bad” or “desperate” if you have a regular
partners). Rather, it’s a “natural” outlet for
unslaked desires.
It’s said that a person is incapable of loving
another if they do not love themselves. This adage
seems analogous to masturbation: if sex is truly a
physical display of love toward another, then mas
turbation is a physical display of love toward
oneself. How can a person give and receive the best
sex (love) if they can’t give themselves pleasure
(love)? It’s unfair to expect a partner to achieve
something that you yourself cannot achieve.
Jeanne Fugate is a junior English major from Ocala, Fla.
READERS’FORUM
The Daily Tar Heel welcomes reader comments and criticism. Letters to the editor should be
no longer than 400 words and must be typed, double-spaced, dated and signed by no more
than two people. Students should include their year, major and phone number. Faculty and
staff should include their title, department and phone number. The DTH reserves the right to
edit letters for space, clarity and vulgarity. Send e-mail forum to: dth@unc.edu.
as myself look to last November with glee
just shy of that of Republicans. With the
power of government divided, only those
policies that are indeed productive have a
chance of being enacted. While liberals
will not see their utopian health care, nei
ther will conservatives see the end of wel
fare. Hopefully, all of us will see term
limits, a glide path to zero deficit and a
more responsive democracy. The people
have spoken. They have said, “Gridlock is
good!”
Jonathan McMurry
GRADUATE STUDENT
BIOLOGY
SHS Inefficiency Keeps
Prescription From Student
TO THE EDITOR:
Dear professor,
I’m very sony that I did not have my
assignment ready to turn in today. I thought
that I had budgeted my time well, but I was
wrong. I didn’t figure that I would have to
spend an hour on the phone with Student
Health tying to ask a simple question.
Luckily, I don’t have a major assign
ment due tomorrow, or I may have had to
use that excuse. See, Icalled Student Health
today so that I could get a prescription
filled. I had been getting my prescription
filled at home and having my mother send
it to me. In November, I decided that it
would be easier to just get it filled at Stu
dent Health. They wrote me a prescription
for the first three months but couldn’t let
me have refills until my medical records
from home arrived.
Well, it’s been three months, so I de
cided to call Student Health today to find
out what I needed to do to get my refills. I
won’t go into the gory details, but I will tell
you that I talked to six different people.
That was after I got to listen to a busy signal
for half an hour. When the phone finally
rang, I was expecting to hear a computer
ized voice say, “Welcome to Caroline.”
Some of the people I talked to were
friendly and some of them were rude. But,
not one of them could tell me what I had to
do to get my prescription refilled. They all
suggested answers, but all of them were
wrong. I really think that a university this
big would benefit from some efficiency.
So, it’s 5 o’clock now, Student Health is
closed, and I still don’t have my prescrip
tion. I figure that I will walk on over there
tomorrow so that I don’t have to hear that
busy signal. But, that’s after I stand in line
for two hours at the Cashier’s Office to get
my scholarship money.
P. S. I was at the Cashier’s Office at 7:15
a.m. They have “misplaced” my check.
Tamara Reynolds
SOPHOMORE
EDUCATION
Student Stores Doesn't
Care to Meet UNC Needs
TO THE EDITOR:
Student Stores claims they are on the
students’ side. As the end of my stay at
UNC approaches I have seen little evi
EDITORIAL
dence to support this claim. I maintain
they are just serving themselves. Attheend
of every semester I leave the building seeth
ing about how badly I’ve been ripped off
during buyback. I may as well have just
given them my perfectly good textbooks.
After forking out some $250 for my
books on Monday; on Friday afternoon
around 3 p.m. I went back to return two
books which I would not be needing. Mis
takenly, I went to the near-deserted second
floor where one of the many sales staff
standing around the cash registers waiting
to take in yet more students’ money told
me I needed to go downstairs to the cloth
ing department. In the back comer of the
building two long lines of approximately
20 people stretched out before two over
worked but very polite ladies who had
been there since 7:30 a.m. While I waited
in line, one of the two machines went
down and the remaining line grew quickly.
One student asked if it was possible to go to
any of the other numerous silent cash reg
isters in the building, only to be told returns
would only be taken at these two ma
chines. Needing their money for the long
weekend most chose to endure the wait for
the sole cash register, while the registers
upstairs remained silent.
This system seems to indicate Student
Stores is more than willing to take our
money, but we have to go to great lengths
to receive refiunds from legitimate returns.
I do not believe that Student Stores pro
vides any real service to the student body,
instead it’s just milking us for all the profit
they can get. They claim a portion of their
profits go toward student scholarships.
Perhaps fewer students would need schol
arships for books if they lowered their
profit margins, particularly on used books.
They must be raking it in. From now on it’s
Tar Heel Textbooks and Franklin Street
Pro-Lifers Think Violence Justified
In his column of 9 Janu
ary (“No Need to Add
Hysteria to Abortion
DAVID BAIN |
GUEST COLUMNIST
‘Debate’”), Tadd Wilson wonders why the middle
classes are so much more outraged by the murder of
abortion clinic employees than by the everyday vic
tims of inner-city violence. One tempting reason for
this outrage surely is that, unlike ordinary murderers,
Paul Hill and his ilk seem to be dramatic cases of
citizens trying to achieve political ends by mortal vio
lence; they seem to illustrate a decreasing respect for
the proper methods and channels for exerting political
influence in a liberal democracy. Wilson agrees: “pro
lifers ha ve every right to believe exactly as they see fit, ”
but still “no individual employing mortal violence as a
tactic is worthy of participating in a movement dedi
cated to ... saving lives.” And this is the sort of
comforting thing that you’ll find both pro- and anti
abortionists saying: Whatever the rights or wrongs of
abortion, it is quite wrong for any one to employ mortal
violence as a political tactic.
Though comforting, surely that’s false. Consider
first an analogy: Imagine that you lived near the
Auschwitz extermination camp during the 1940s in
Nazi Germany and in order to hamper the process of
mass murder that you knew to be occurring there, you
started to kill those who were operating the camp.
Many would suggest that what you would have done
would be at least permissible and perhaps positively
praiseworthy, even though you certainly would have
employed “mortal violence as a tactic ... in a move
ment dedicated to ... saving lives.”
Now remember that many anti-abortionists believe
(truly or falsely) that it is as wrong to kill a human fetus
as it is to kill an innocent adult human. Given this belief,
surely it’s reasonable for the anti-abortionist to think
that he has good moral justification for trying to
hamper the operation of abortion clinics by killing
their employees. Why? Because, if his belief about
abortion were true, the operation of abortion clinics in
1990s America really would be no less a case of mass
murder than the operation of the death camps in Nazi
Germany. And I’ve already suggested that many of us
would support mortal violence as a tactic used to
undermine the latter kind of mass murder, so why not
the former kind, if that is what it is?
Admittedly Nazi Germany, unlike the United States,
was not a democracy and thus the avenues of peaceful
political influence that anti-abortionists might employ
in the States were just not available to those Germans
who objected to the Holocaust. Imagine, however,
clothing stores for me.
Greg Newman
SENIOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Science Column Expands
'Liberal'Arts Educations
TO THE EDITOR:
I am writing in response to the editorial,
“Reader Doesn’t Like Having His Igno
rance Thrown in Face” by a very sharp
tongued Brandon Sharp (Jan. 19).
Having been at UNC-CH for the past
fouryears, I have read many editorials that
have compelled me to respond. However,
this is the first time I have chosen to do so.
And, rather than scathing Mr. Sharp with
“Sophomoric” criticisms such as the ones
he included in his editorial, I would just
like to make a few important points:
The column to which Mr. Sharp made
reference, “Weird Science,” is written by
someone whom I have known for almost a
decade, Monica Eiland.
One word that comes to mind instantly
when I hear the name Monica Eiland is
“intellectual.” Not only am I aware of her
superior intelligence in the field ofbiology,
but I am also aware ofher ability as a writer
from both her column and from attending
a writing conference with her some time
ago.
I can assure you that “Weird Science”
could be filled with esoteric terminology
and concepts familiar to only those with a
strong science background. However,
Monica has not only chosen to make the
column “light” in science babble but also
interesting and certainly comprehensible
to any literate human being (much less a
Carolina student).
In addition, Mr. Sharp fails to realize
that this prestigious university has an im
mense and growing number of science
majors who go on to become very success
ful medical doctors, dentists, research sci
entists, pharmacists, etc., etc., etc. Falling
into this group, I can certainly declare that
it is a relief to pick up a DTH and read a
column that not only has a very different
perspective than the norm, but also does
not involve bashing Newt Gingrich or dis
cussing the political straggle for freedom of
the Lemmings in the Northern Alps.
Finally, I could not help but notice the
irony of this whole editorial.
I, a senior Biology major, am trying to
remedy the myopia of someone who obvi
ously shows a propensity towards the lib
Monday, January 23,1995
that it were the case that Nazi Germany in the 1940s
had been a democracy just like the United States,
except that the vast majority of its predominantly
gentile population were so rabidly anti-Semitic that
they repeatedly and overwhelmingly voted in fair
elections for a program of extermination of the Jews.
Would this now make it wrong for you to start shoot
ing employees of Auschwitz? If not, then nor does the
fact that America is a democracy undermine the anti
abortionist’s reason for believing that his slaying of
abortion clinic employees is morally justified, given
his belief that aborting fetuses is murder.
Another response to my claim would be to say that
violent tactics are a very inefficient means of reducing
the number of abortions performed. However, even if
this were true, consider again the case of Nazi Ger
many. Even if you were persuaded that killing
Auschwitz employees would have no impact at all on
the number of Jews killed, mightn’tyouhave defended
your killing of Auschwitz employees on the basis that
they deserved to die since they shared responsibility for
the murder of millions of humans? Similarly, then,
mightn’t the anti-abortionist argue that his killings can
be justified as an exercise in retributive justice rather
than as a means to the reduction in the number of
abortions, and wouldn’t this be reasonable given his
belief that aborting fetuses is murder? I must enter an
important caveat: I abhor the killing of abortion clinic
employees. But that is because 1 think that the anti
abortionist’s belief that it is as immoral to kill the
human fetus as it is to kill an innocent adult human is
just false. Thus, the difference between Nazi Germany
and 1995 America is just that the extermination of
Jews was mass murder and the killing of fetuses is not.
Buttheunsettlingconclusionremains.Weshouldn’t
be seduced by the following slogan: it is wrong to
employ mortal violence as part of the pro-life battle
whatever the rights or wrongs of abortion. Rather, the
permissibility of such extreme tactics seems to depend
precisely on this question of whether or not abortion
amounts to mass murder. If the anti-abortionists’ be
lief that it does amount to mass murder were true, then
why wouldn’t they be right to employ the sort of tactics
that a small minority of them already have? I happen
to think that their belief is false. Perhaps, then, it is of
this that we must try to convince them, since if we try
to convince them that no end (at least in a democracy)
could ever justify mortal violence as a means, we’d be
trying to convince them of something untrue.
David Bain is a graduate student in philosophy.
eralarts.
Hmmmmm... I can’t ever recall using
myopia in the same sentence with liberal
arts.
Mr. Sharp, I encourage you to read
Monica Eiland’s column, “Weird Science,”
every Tuesday to at least expand your
horizons and your knowledge of the sci
ences but more importantly to realize that
not everyone is like you.
Trent Rigsbee
SENIOR
BIOLOGY
Congratulations on New
'Weird Science' Column
TO THE EDITOR:
Any publication’s purpose is to serve
the needs of the readers.
A newspaper, being a publication, has
this as one half of it’s dual purpose, the
other half being to report the news and
local happenings.
I have made reading the DTH part of
my daily routinenowforalmost fouryears,
and there have been many times that the
only items that I have found to be interest
ing are the sports columns, the campus
roundup or Calvin and Hobbes.
Recently, however, there has been an
addition to the DTH that I have enjoyed,
the “Weird Science” columns written by
Monica Eiland.
I find it refreshing to read her column,
because it is, at least for the DTH, new and
innovative, as well as being interesting to
someone who has spent a good portion of
his life studying the natural sciences. I
know how hard it is to be a science major
and still find time for other activities, and I
have a lot ofrespect for Monica’s ability to
both be a biology major, and find the time
to articulate the ideas for her column.
I just wanted to say, “Way to go!” to
Miss Eiland, and to encourage the editors
of the DTH to continue publishing her
column, even if it causes some readers
frustration.
If readers like Brandon Sharp (“Reader
Doesn’t Like Having His Ignorance
Thrown in Face,” Jan. 19), don’t find her
column interesting, and don’t want to leam
about others’ viewpoints, they don’t have
to read it, but what exactly are they looking
for in an education?
Michael Zvonar
SENIOR
CHEMISTRY
11