Friday, June 29, 2007
— Vol. 30, No. 5
Student Life Centre, Room 1116University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1P: 519.888.4048 F: 519.884.7800imprint.uwaterloo.ca
Editor-in-chief, Adam McGuireeditor@imprint.uwaterloo.ca Advertising & Production Manager,Laurie Tigert-Dumasads@imprint.uwaterloo.caGeneral Manager, Catherine Bolgercbolger@imprint.uwaterloo.caSales Assistant, Andrea HessionCo-op Student, Amanda Henhoeffer
Board of Directors
board@imprint.uwaterloo.caPresident, Adam Gardinerpresident@imprint.uwaterloo.ca Vice-president, Jacqueline McKoy vp@imprint.uwaterloo.ca Treasurer, Lu Jiang treasurer@imprint.uwaterloo.caSecretary, Alaa Yassimsecretary@imprint.uwaterloo.caStaff liaison, Rob Blomliaison@imprint.uwaterloo.ca
Editorial Staff
Assistant Editor, Ashley Csanady Lead Proofreader, Kinga JakabCover Editor, vacantNews Editor, Emma TarswellNews Assistant, Adrienne Raw Opinion Editor, Mohammad JangdaFeatures Editor, Scott Houston Arts Editor, Andrew AbelaScience Editor, Brendan PintoSports Editor, vacantPhoto Editor, Michael L. DavenportGraphics Co-editor, Peter TrinhGraphics Co-editor, Christine Ogley Web Editor, Gunjan ChopraSystems Administrator, Dan AgarSys. Admin. Assistant, vacant
Production Staff
Steven R. McEvoy, Ashley Csanady, Paul Collier, Joy Anderson, Brita Hallberg, Angelo Florendo, Anya Lomako, Rob Blom, Adam Gardiner
Imprint
is the ofcial student newspaper of the University
of Waterloo. It is an editorially independent newspaperpublished by
Imprint
Publications, Waterloo, a corporation without share capital. Imprint is a member of the OntarioCommunity Newspaper Association (OCNA). Editorialsubmissions may be considered for publication in any editionof
Imprint
.
Imprint
may also reproduce the material commer-cially in any format or medium as part of the newspaperdatabase, Web site or any other product derived from thenewspaper. Those submitting editorial content, including articles, letters, photos and graphics, will grant
Imprint
rst
publication rights of their submitted material, and as such,agree not to submit the same work to any other publicationor group until such time as the material has been distributedin an issue of
Imprint
, or
Imprint
declares their intent notto publish the material. The full text of this agreement isavailable upon request.
Imprint
does not guarantee to publish articles,photographs, letters or advertising. Material may notbe published, at the discretion of
Imprint
, if that mate-rial is deemed to be libelous or in contravention with
Imprint
’s policies with reference to our code of ethicsand journalistic standards.
Imprint
is published every Friday during fall and winter terms, and every second Friday during the spring term.
Imprint
reserves the right to screen, edit and refuseadvertising. One copy per customer.
Imprint
ISSN 0706-7380. Imprint CDN Pub Mail Product Sales Agreementno. 40065122.
Next staff meeting:
Tuesday, July 3, 200712:30 p.m.
Next board meeting:
Friday, July 13, 200710:30 a.m.
Faking orgasms has always intrigued me because it’s something I’ve neverdone. It’s not that it’s never been needed, it’s just that I prefer an awkward,
“Um… no, that’s good” rather than an elaborate performance. Still, most
women will or have faked orgasms, and I’ve always wondered why.
Last week I solicited “faking it” tales and got some pretty interesting
responses. Besides a pretty unbelievable tale posted as a comment on the website, my responses were all female and all for pretty much the samereason: I just wanted the encounter to end. From one girl who faked foran entire relationship to another who wanted an awkward encounter witha good friend to end, the general sentiment was, “It wasn’t going to hap-
pen, and I didn’t know how to let him know.”
Why is it so ingrained that sex isn’t over until both parties have reachedclimax — even when it doesn’t seem like that’s going to happen?I found an interesting article on this very subject from a sociology journal,
Body & Society
, entitled “Faking like a Woman? Towards an inter-
pretive theorization of sexual pleasure,” by Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott.
The article suggests that while many feminists argue that the female
proclivity to “fake it” is a result of a misogynistic misunderstanding of
female sexuality, in reality “the current masculine meanings associated with the ‘sexual sentence’ and orgasm itself are not given by male sexualanatomy and physiology, but are the product of culturally ordered mean-ings embedded in particular social practices. The meanings of orgasm
derive from social, not biological contexts.”
The article explains that we are taught almost from birth that “a man’s virility is represented as control of both his own and his partner’s sexualresponse: ‘She’s transported to another world; he’s the pilot of the ship
that takes her there.’” The female is therefore taught that her role is to
reinforce his capabilities and perform accordingly. The moans, cries,facial expressions and bodily reactions we typically associate with femaleorgasm are, in fact, not organic bodily reactions, but a series of cues andperformative techniques ingrained in our psyche as we develop an image
of what sex “should” be.
We are socially taught — from before we even know what sex
is
—
that
the “natural” progression of sex is foreplay, followed by intercourse, cul
-minating in orgasm. If a woman fails to orgasm, both she — and moreimportantly — her partner, have failed.Here’s the thing, sex doesn’t begin and end in orgasm. By faking ityou’re not only teaching your partner that he’s doing something right when he isn’t, you’re reinforcing the age-old fallacy that sex is only aboutattaining orgasm. As Jackson and Scott write, “Human sexual embodi-ment can neither be thought of as an abstract potentiality outside thesocial spaces where it is lived, nor as a mere assemblage of organs,
orices and orgasms.”
Maybe the sexual sentence needs to catch up with our postmodernage and be deconstructed. The realms of sexuality have potential to goabove and beyond our current understanding, but, by faking it, womenare perpetuating the current system. So stop ladies; don’t fake it and tellyour partner the truth. At best, it could change your entire concept of sex; at worst, he’ll get offended — but at least you won’t have to fake itever again.
acsanady@imprint.uwaterloo.ca
Cum as you are
How do you get a bunch of non-Christians tolisten to 50 minutes of talk about God and theChristian way? I know,
tell
them you’ll talk aboutgenocide for an hour and
then
talk about it for10 minutes. They’ll spend the other 50 minuteslistening to your preaching, wondering whenyou’re going to get on topic. I mean, no, they’llsit in awed reverance, utterly convinced andconverted by your magical gospel. Why stop there? Why don’t we have debatesfeaturing each religion that is practiced in Canada? We’ll have Sikh day and Jewish day, Buddhistday and Orthodox day, and when all our talks
are nished, people won’t know what to believe
anymore! After all, all you need to do to convertpeople is to have a talk explaining why yourreligion is right.Last Friday, June 22, Campus for Christ(C4C), formerly Campus Crusade for Christ,hosted a talk which was advertised variously as
“Is Genocide Wrong?” and “Is Genocide Wrong:Moral absolutes and where do they come from?” When I rst saw these banners, I chuckled to
myself, thinking, “Who on Earth is gonna argue
that it’s okay?” Later, while chatting with friends,
someone suggested that perhaps the morality of genocide is quite debatable in countries whereit’s already taken place — that maybe the victimslearn to blame themselves and believe they de-served what they went through. Not convinced,but without any genocide victims to back meup, I thought that the debate at least promisedsome good intellectual discussion — and perhapsan in-depth look at cultures where genocidehas happened. However, at the last minute, Icouldn’t help but express some skepticism thatC4C would hold true to their supposed topic. AChristian friend of mine lightly chided me for my pre-emptive judgement, insisting that I shouldn’tassume they would veer off topic.C4C might as well have advertised their talk was about chocolate bars. The talk itself was about an hour long. Tenminutes of that was about genocide, and only in
the loosest, most supercial sense; genocide as
an example of a moral dilemma, as far as moraldilemmas relate to God. All the chalk drawings across campus that
screamed for my attention to this “debate” about“genocide” purposely misled me.
Or
was
it on purpose? That was what I askedC4C.In an email response, a very polite representa-tive of this Feds club explained to me the basis of their organization and how they run. I’m thankfulfor the politeness, but I still don’t agree with thecontent. According to Brad Stewart, a C4C leader,the main purpose of the club is to spread the word of Jesus to every university student. They purport this is necessary because some peoplehaven’t heard of ol’ JC before. Apparently a lotof people missed out on the WWJD fashiontrend. As far as advertising goes, obnoxious andin-your-face is no problem, as long as studentsare aware of C4C and their latest events.
I regret not asking specically about mis
-representation of the debate in question, sincethat’s what I wanted to know. I guess politenessreigns on both fronts. I was afraid to sound rudeby asking, “Why did you say your talk was all
about genocide?” Stewart cites Canada’s “deepChristian heritage” as a main reason for spreading
the word of Jesus. How deep, you say? Well Iguess you could say after we took Canada overfrom the Aboriginals, and well, just before weopened our doors to immigrants from countriesall over the world, there must have been at leasta 50 year period of deep Christianity in theresomewhere.I sound facetious, I know. I’m not trying tobe. It’s just really hard to keep a cool head whentalking about religion and especially evangelism.I take it personally, yes. Why not? As with any evangelical faith, C4C throws my views, experi-ence and beliefs out the window. They have solittle respect for my beliefs that they think it’sokay to get me to listen to theirs by any meansnecessary.I have some critical questions here: Who arethese talks meant for? Do these events actually aim to encourage debate?
See DEBATE , page 8
Religion: genocide of free thinkers
COMMUNITY EDITORIAL
Not convinced, but without any genocide victims to back me up, I thought that thedebate at least promised some good intellectual discussion...Why is it so ingrained that sex isn’t over until both parties have reached climax — even when it doesn’t seem like that’s going to happen?
Opinion
Imprint, Friday, June 29, 2007opinion@imprint.uwaterloo.ca
Leave a Comment