Abstinence can be secular
Carla Gharibian’s column on sex and abstinence (“Get the info before having sex,” May 19) raised a few issues for me. I am a virgin who will be getting married this summer after graduation, and I am very much looking forward to sharing wild and passionate, albeit awkward honeymoon sex with my husband, who will also be a virgin.
I do not consider myself a prude, a puritan or sexually repressed. I am simply a woman who has chosen to reserve my sexuality for just one person for life.
While our religious faith and traditions no doubt play a large part in our decision to wait for our wedding night, I can explain in fully secular terms why my fiance and I have done so. What could possibly make sex any better than knowing that we are free from worry over AIDS and STDs? What could be more fun than knowing we are clean slates, coming to each other with no expectations or comparisons to the past, with our whole lives ahead of us to figure out ourselves and each other?
We have been able to get to know each other fully, to talk about all aspects of our lives and to fall in love without the complications sex brings. We have been able to build a strong foundation for our lives together, and sex will be a wonderful expression of the commitment we have to one another. We are in no way fearful of our sensuality. We are merely placing the significance on sex that the rest of the world acknowledges but often abuses.
Everyone seems to think that sex is so important, and I completely agree. That is why I am waiting until I am prepared to give it the special respect it deserves.
Heather Gonzalez
Fourth-year, political science and public affairs
<br></br>
Grand Salon was a grand study spot
I graduated in 1984, years before Circle Drive and University Research Library were re-branded in honor of Chancellor Charles E. Young. During my time, what we now call the Kerckhoff Grand Salon served a purpose that was more central to the mission of study and teaching: It was a study lounge.
Yes, in those days, the number of study lounge seats available to students in Kerckhoff was greater than it is today. This lounge had grand proportions, a baronial fireplace, a filigreed ceiling, stained glass and a mezzanine ““ with more study seats. It was a wonderful resource for students as well as occasional visitors who, in those less crowded days, were not prohibited from using it.
It pains me to consider that this remarkable study space was taken away from students, especially when, during visits to campus late in the term, I see students camped out on stairways, hallway floors and outdoors for lack of suitable study space. We may have a gentle climate here, but that doesn’t mean that outdoor conditions are always comfortable or appropriate for studying ““ especially considering that one often needs to use a laptop.
Judging from my observations, renaming it “Charles E. Young Grand Study Lounge” would have been far more useful.
James van Scoyoc
Class of 1984
<br></br>
Christian faith should be explored
In “Fear is poor way to spread God’s love” (May 21), columnist Avni Nijhawan misunderstood and misrepresented the primary message of the Christian faith.
The Christian gospel reveals that we are more flawed than we ever imagined, but can be more loved and accepted by God than we ever hoped ““ all because Jesus Christ died in our place, for our sins. Bad news is precursor to good news.
Nijhawan hears the good news of God’s salvation and immediately reacts with indignation that someone would attack her self-image and righteous standing. In other words: “I do not need to be saved and how dare you for saying so.”
As a fellow human being, I genuinely sympathize. But I also affirm that people are deeply narcissistic, and this addiction to self utterly warps how we think about God and life.
Communicating fear is one element of spreading God’s love in a world where no one is good. Even the good acts that we do are self-justifying attempts to prove we are “good enough” and feel better about ourselves.
The author demonstrates this frightening reality upon suggesting, “They ought to invite students to events that make them feel good about themselves, like through community service.”
The Christian message is not that we are special, but that God is awesome. His forgiving salvation offers good news for bad people. I invite every one of you to visit a Christian organization and witness the incredible hope and meaning it has given to me and countless others.
Benjamin Du
Graduate student, urban planning
Member, Grace on Campus
<br></br>
Nationalized health care is costly
In defense of his columns on nationalized health care (May 13 and May 20), Alex Pherson raises a number of concerns that a large majority of Americans have with the same government that brought us lines at the post office running our health care system.
On May 18, Kennan Cronen of Bruin Democrats responded that it is “invariably the rich and the insured” who have reaped the benefits of the best technology the world can offer. This assertion, however, does not fit the facts at hand.
What about something like cancer, for which a nationalized health care system would seem better suited to treat all citizens equally? A 2008 report of worldwide cancer survival rates paints a much grimmer picture of nationalized health care. The United States, with ““ as Cronen noted ““ its “inefficient system,” has a five-year survival rate of 91.9 percent. Canada’s rate is 82.5 percent. Europe, the pinnacle of nationalized health care? A lofty 51.7 percent.
Cronen noted that “people who live under universal health care may “˜grumble’ about it.” One recent example of a “grumbling” person, who by Cronen’s argument we must assume should be grateful to be in a country with nationalized health care, was 58-year-old Janet Tunstill of England. Tunstill had to wait nearly 10 hours for an ambulance to take her home after her medical treatment at her local state-run hospital.
The goal of nationalized health care is not to provide the best health care, but to provide cost-effective health care ““ cost-effective to the government, that is. In Great Britain, citizens have been forced to re-mortgage their homes to pay for treatment from other nations ““ treatments that their own state-run health system is “rationing” because of their higher costs.
The government should never be in a position to tell any person what medical treatments he can or cannot have based on the costs to the national budget. Pherson has raised the general concerns, and we need only look to our neighbors in Canada and Europe to see the true costs of the objective facts of nationalized health care.
Michael Ries
Fourth-year, political science