$40000 tuition divided by 36 courses divided by 27 hours means one class hour is costing $41. per hour. Who cares about the subject, you’re part of the DARTMOUTH CLUB!

$160,000 tuition makes it $165 per hour. But still a great deal.

Another spot-on article by Hicks. While sexual health is a critical public discourse for this campus, sexual pleasure is a very private, individual experience. The College should not be funding such reckless and irresponsible use of College funds. I especially like this passage:

“Sure, there may be students on this campus who are interested in learning about the vast range of orgasms or how to use anal beads.”

Mr. Hicks, keep writing.

First, I hope for the sake of your future wife that you learn about the merits of orgasms.

That point aside, Sexperts is an organization geared towards improving sexual health on campus in every sense of the word and to say that offering workshops about personal pleasure aren’t important speaks to the immaturity of the author. I’m sorry the words “learn how to have an orgasm” hurt your eyes when you read the email but that doesn’t mean that the rest of campus is nearly as juvenile as yourself and should be deprived of such opportunities.

Grow. Up.

This is quite possibly one of the most ignorant opinions the D has published since I’ve been here. Not only does the author completely miss the point of the organization he’s lambasting, but he also calls for a level of censorship that is completely unacceptable on liberal arts campus! If the author thinks that sexual health is only about staying away from STIs and having safe sex, he’s sorely mistaken (and frankly could probably benefit from going to the workshop!) Healthy sex is good sex, satisfying sex, and fun sex. Being able to know how to pleasure yourself and your partner is obviously very important. The fact that the author thinks that teaching people about how to have better orgasms is “polluting campus life” is a sad statement of his level of maturity. Seriously, if you’re still “personally disgusted” out about talking about sex, you need to grow up. You’re 20, it’s time that you stop acting like cooties still exist. The sexperts have always stuck to their mission: teaching people how to have safer and better sex. Nothing they have done deviates from this. Clearly the author has NO IDEA what the mission of the organization is, because otherwise he wouldn’t have written this article. And so I say to the author: DO go there. You, more than anybody, need the experience.

This is quite possibly one of the most ignorant opinions the D has published since I’ve been here. Not only does the author completely miss the point of the organization he’s lambasting, but he also calls for a level of censorship that is completely unacceptable on liberal arts campus! If the author thinks that sexual health is only about staying away from STIs and having safe sex, he’s sorely mistaken (and frankly could probably benefit from going to the workshop!) Healthy sex is good sex, satisfying sex, and fun sex. Being able to know how to pleasure yourself and your partner is obviously very important. The fact that the author thinks that teaching people about how to have better orgasms is “polluting campus life” is a sad statement of his level of maturity. Seriously, if you’re still “personally disgusted” out about talking about sex, you need to grow up. You’re 20, it’s time that you stop acting like cooties still exist. The sexperts have always stuck to their mission: teaching people how to have safer and better sex. Nothing they have done deviates from this. Clearly the author has NO IDEA what the mission of the organization is, because otherwise he wouldn’t have written this article. And so I say to the author: DO go there. You, more than anybody, need the experience.

I agree with the previous two commenters. Did something happen to forever taint your view of sex? Get over yourself and stop spreading your negativity to the rest of campus.

I think safe sex is as important as you say, and I comment Sexperts for doing good work on that front so far. However, I don’t see where you get off condemning discussions centered around other aspects of sexuality. Sex isn’t all gloom and doom and potential infections, and I don’t see why Sexperts should limit their coverage to those areas only. You may not be interested in learning how to use anal beads or educating yourself about orgasming, but how the hell do you know if “most of campus” doesn’t find that kind of thing interesting? Did you do an campus-wide survey? I’ve never been interested in the Equestrian Team or the Wrestling Club, but I’ve gotten plenty of blitzes from them, and don’t begrudge their right to advertise their groups. There’s this nifty little thing called a delete button. I suggest you use it.

I’m happy to see more discussions cropping up about sexuality. I think Sexperts is providing a valuable, reliable resource for students who are interested in sex toys and various sex practices.

I don’t see any of this as risque, I see it as perfectly normal.

You said yourself that what you should have done is simply delete the e-mail, and yes, that’s what you should have done.

Whether you like it or not, many people in college are actively looking to explore their sex lives and make them more pleasurable. Facilitating that is one of the purposes of Sexperts. That way people who are looking for that information don’t need to feel ashamed that they want to enjoy sex and have to keep it secret.

The cardinal mistake you’re making is that you assume that the very existence of the e-mails and the program are somehow an attack on your personal choices or the choices of anybody who choose to keep their sexual preferences private or save sex entirely for later. I’m reminded of when I attended a discussion event last year where one female student said going to the sex comedian for this past V-day made her feel like she was being “attacked” for not wanting to have sex.

Don’t go to the event, or delete the e-mails. Those things are for people who want them, and those who don’t are just as free to ignore them and not consume them. It’s the same logical fallacy people make when they assume more available resources and rights for LGBT people is somehow an attack on the straight lifestyle. It’s just not true.

If you want a college campus ruled by some sort of moral absolutist standard, perhaps you should have gone to Bob Jones University instead. Otherwise, don’t get on your high horse every time you get a blitz for something you don’t like. That would be like me writing an op-ed piece every time I got a blitz about an acapella show.

I think Jasper has smacked himself down:

(from http://thedartmouth.com/2010/06/29/opinion/hicks)

Indecent Disclosure

By Jasper Hicks, Staff Columnist

Published on Monday, August 9, 2010

Last Friday, Jasper Hicks ’12 wrote a column bemoaning Dartmouth’s “liberal discussion of sex” (“Over-publicized Orgasm”). Hicks’s piece was but the latest in a long line of opinion articles whose topics are based solely on the author’s personal grievances. In these rant-like articles, the individual complaints of the author overshadow good reasoning and argumentation. Written for an audience of one, these columns read more like a diatribe than an argument. They are precisely the types of articles that have no place on the opinion page of The Dartmouth.

Of course, personal grievances should be included in opinion columns. After all, a major feature that separates an opinion column from a news article is the author’s judgment, which is undoubtedly influenced by personal experiences. But when the author’s personal injustices consume the article and take precedent over argument, reason and logic, the author starts to lose their audience. Alas, they have written a column solely for personal edification.

A distinguishing feature of an opinion article that is consumed by personal grievances is the overuse of the first person. In the first half of Hicks’s article, for example, almost every sentence either includes “I” or “my”. While use of the first person can be helpful in an opinion column to state a personal opinion or describe an anecdote, its overuse proves detrimental. No longer making an argument, the author has begun a rant that alienates readers who cannot relate to her experiences.

From here, the author typically makes the mistake of introducing a large assumption, abruptly replacing the first person “I” with the collective “we.” Under the belief that their own personal grievance is that of the entire campus or entity, the author attempts to validate this grievance with an appeal to numbers. In Hicks’s piece, this fallacy occurs most visibly in the fourth paragraph — “I’m willing to bet that most students are not interested in learning about those topics.”

The product of this error is an egregious miscalculation, whereby the author has wrongly assumed that their personal feelings are widespread. In Hicks’s piece, he is not only wrong to assume that we all have the same experiences at college, but also that we view these interactions about sex in the same way that he does. At this point, the author has made an unfounded assumption and has transmogrified a personal grievance into a widespread one. No legitimate evidence is provided to account for such a jump in logic. Only the mere shift in pronoun use assists such a transition.

These types of columns, with their overuse of “I” and “we,” are inherently self-interested and belong not on the opinion page, but in The Mirror. In The Mirror, each column has a pre-assigned title, under which exists a blank slate for the author to fill with a personal story — “The Gospel According to Matthew” being one of the most recognizable examples. With this structure, the unique persona and experiences of the writers are crucial to the success and entertainment value of their columns.

Unlike The Mirror, however, the daily opinion page is not and should not be beholden to the author’s name or personality. An opinion column should more or less be able to stand on its own, regardless of what name appears in the byline. For opinion writers, the space on this page is theirs, but also that of fellow opinion writers and editors. Personal author complaints should not guide the argument on this page.

Such emotion-based and author-driven arguments are undoubtedly bad for this section of the newspaper. They turn the opinion page of The Dartmouth into a blog-like medium to vent personal anxieties and grievances. As a result, good reasoning and argumentation take a backseat to personality, when it is exactly the opposite that should be occurring.

You admit that your objection is based on the content of their speech, so, yes, my response here is to defend the right of free speech on campus.

Shame on you. I don’t like your columns-I find you to be an ignorant, loathsome individual who revels in your moral purity like an even more self-righteous version of Sam the Eagle. There are plenty of students that can write op-ed pieces that I believe could be nicer, more logically coherent, and, as Andrew Bloomgarden pointed out above, less shrilly hypocritical. BUT-you’re a student. I believe that the D should provide a forum for all speech, and I am glad that they provide you a place for your scribblings.

Given that your columns are viewed as inane at best by many on this campus, however, I wonder just where you get off trying to get a student organization’s funds cut for running a workshop on, well, how to get off? As you point out, there are several organizations funding this-clearly it’s not some shadowy liberal cabal that thinks this is a worthy topic of a workshop. Clearly your arrogant assumption that if you don’t like this, the bulk of other students don’t either is wrong, given the number of co-sponsors and the interest I’ve heard from others on campus.

If you don’t like it, fine! Don’t go! And when I find your column overly appalling, I stop reading and recycle my paper (it’s makes great kindling during Hanover’s winters).

This opinion is not ignorant. It is perfect like the stars. These emails for me are like a trip for me too far. They keep my relationships from falling forward, faster, into my imagination, and instead contaminate them with such thoughts and worries.

To Leanne,

how is learning to have an orgasm and the use of anal beads not risque?

I agree with the previous comments in that it’s very naive to assume that the majority of students aren’t interested in learning about orgasms. I think you’ll find that the truth is quite the opposite. We are at an age where sexual experimentation is the norm, and with this come feelings of inadequacy or just plain curiosity. And of course, I agree that complaining about the Blitzes is very juvenile when they can just be ignored, and your opinion that this type of discussion “pollutes campus life” is very melodramatic.

However, I think that the other comments are overlooking a major point in your article-one that I think you should have put more stress on: the fact that this workshop was partially funded by the College. But contrary to your opinion, I think this is a matter of fiscal conservatism. How can the College issue several budget cuts affecting our life on campus and then turn around and fund recreational workshops that really have nothing to do with our college education? Sex advice should be left to the advice columnists. Either that, or the money for the workshops should be coming from the attendees' pockets-not our valuable tuition money.

When I was a student at Dartmouth, the mission of Sexperts was not only to focus on the prevention side of sexual health, but also to promote a positive and open view of healthy sex and sexuality. So unless that has changed, the groups workshops are perfectly in line with their mission. If someone is uncomfortable with their blitzes, there is always the option of asking to be removed from the mailing list. With the e-mail servers changing, maybe that should be something that students ask for – easier tools for “membership” and mailing list management, including automatic ways to opt-in, opt-out, and/or easier ways to indicate which aspect of an organization they are interested in? Seems it would be useful for both recipients and organizations.

On the topic of fiscal conservatism, I’d say that I would much rather have the college fund an event where I can learn to orgasm (HELL YEAH) than other things, like the never-ending Programming Board events.

“But the “work” being done here certainly isn’t the work you would do in the library.” Well Jasper, I guess you will never be completing the Dartmouth 7.

Mr. Hicks has made a habit of using The Dartmouth’s editorial page to attack organizations he scarcely understands. He did the same a year and a half ago to the Dartmouth Political Union. (“Political Hangover,” April 24, 2009; “Room for Debate,” [response] April 29, 2009.)

Once again, Mr. Hicks, you have proven yourself to be of narrow mind. Your arguments are consistently pedantic ramblings that do more to “pollute” the Dartmouth experience than talk of anal beads or clitorises.

So no, Mr. Hicks, it is in fact you who should not “go there.”

[Sequitur: The Dartmouth should probably reign in its opinion pages. This type of article belongs on a blog, not on the Op/Ed page of the campus’s newspaper-of-note.]

http://thedartmouth.com/2009/04/24/opinion/hicks

http://thedartmouth.com/2009/04/29/opinion/acree

@ Anon:

i don’t find it risque. i have no other way of explaining that besides saying that talking about use of anal beads would be just like talking about the weather, for me.

i understand that some people may view anything other than missionary penis-in-vagina sex as risque, and people are entitled to that opinion, but i think perpetrating “alternative sex practices are risque! weird! outlandish! even ‘naughty’!” may shame those who are interested in such things, when there is no good reason they should be ashamed.