Update your sex advice
I’m aware that the sex column in The Hatchet has been the source of much controversy this year and there are many criticisms for having a sex column in a student newspaper – even an independent student newspaper. I for one am not opposed to a sex column. Sex is not only enjoyable and essential to keeping the human race alive, but it’s a part of our health and so we are obligated to learn about what our body is going through, whether privately, or through a sex column.
This brings me to my next point: It does not benefit the student body to be reading outdated and inaccurate information in the sex column. While I give props to Marshal Staggs for trying to decipher the female orgasm, (“Figuring out the Female Orgasm,” Mar. 2) I think he needs to update his information. As compelling as Anne Koedt was 40 years ago, we know so much more about the female anatomy today. For instance, the clitoris, although externally looks like a nub, in fact extends far deeper into the pelvic region. What you stimulate through vaginal penetration, besides the G-Spot, is the shaft of a clitoris (yes, it is very similar to the penis).
Also, I encourage Marshal Staggs to think outside the box when offering solutions, such as obtaining a clitoral orgasm. People have been having sex long before the invention of electricity, let alone vibrators. In fact, there are many positions, including a slight variation of the missionary position, that help a woman achieve the clitoral stimulation to orgasm.
Maybe instead of looking at experts from 40 years ago, search into the many free online Web sites that provide this information and more. It’s good to be informed about the body, but please, stop feeding us the wrong information.
Lisa VanArsdale, Freshman
Is Hobbs worth it?
As a graduate of the George Washington University (1995), I have been hooked on Colonial basketball for more than 15 years since watching my first game in 1991. Let me be clear about something, I do not expect the team to go to NCAA Tournament every year. I am not one of these spoiled alumni who think that this team should be in the round of 16 or an Atlantic 10 champion every year. I understand that down years occur. I watch it happen in Maryland and Georgetown every five to eight years.
It was with a bit of reluctance that I read Andrew Alberg’s column on March 2, 2009 (“‘Hobbs-Speak’ Sets Bar Too Low”). I feared I was about to read an article from an angry student over another bad year of basketball in Foggy Bottom. I had already read apologists for Coach Hobbs in The Washington Post (see John Feinstein’s article earlier this year) and feared this was the opposite side of the coin. In the article, Coach Hobbs is quoted as saying that making the A-10 tournament “would be an overachievement considering that you have to understand that the program was shaken .”
At first I agreed with Coach Hobbs. These kids have been through a tough time this year: a fourth player off the team in 18 months, a second finish of 13th or worse in the conference likely, losses to a team playing their second year in Division I ball, etc. However, it rose in my mind a far larger question: What are the expectations on an individual who makes $500,000 or more from a private University?
If the expectations of a private organization on a high six-figure salary are to have their team finish in the bottom two positions of the Atlantic 10 Conference, as a business owner, I would tell you they are overpaying for the position. I recently got a letter from President Steven Knapp telling me how the University has made it through the rough waves of these economic times because of smart investments. Clearly, paying someone mid-six figures to finish last or next to last in athletics is not one of them.
Harry Henderson, Alum