100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

October 30, 2008 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 2008-10-30

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

4A - Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com

4

L74c Mtchiaan,43a*lly

Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu

ANDREW GROSSMAN
EDITOR IN CHIEF

GARY GRACA
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

GABE NELSON
MANAGING EDITOR

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position oftthe Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles
and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Deitch, Ihitch for regent
LaFond, qualified with a fatal flaw; Brown, unqualified
T hough many students may know little about the Board of
Regents, it is the body that oversees the University's most
important decisions, including the cost of attending this
university. With two open seats on the board this election, students
can only hope that two progressive, pro-affordability, pro-transpar-
ency candidates will fill these seats. But while the four main can-
didates running have made these issues their top priority, most of
them haven't left this page convinced of their capacity to deliver on,
these promises.

We are the only state in the nation where
you'll hear, 'Wet mop at Voting Booth 4"
- Bob Walsh, spokesman for the Nevada secretary of state, commenting on his state's
early voting at local grocery stores, as reported yesterday by The New York Times.
CHRIS KOSLOWSKI II T T A E-MAIL CHRIS AT CSKOSLOW@UMICH.EDU
Why are people so inspired Because "Change" is just a Wow, That washonest
to "Vote for Change" in the slotganinvented to capitalie
Presidential election but then on the negative image of HahaJust wait until everyone
support lifelong politicians George Bush. We really just finds out what Obama tinks
like Carl Levi? want to promote iberalism a "tax cut" is "
6*
U a c
6 r
Understanding the Israeli alliance

That doesn't mean there aren't strong
candidates. As substantiated by 16 years of
responsible service on the board, Demo-
cratic incumbent Laurence Deitch is still
the most qualified candidate on the ballot.
During his two terms,'Deitch has been on
the right side of most issues. In 1993, he
led a successful effort to include "sexual
orientation" in the University's non-dis-
crimination statement. He has also been
a vocal advocate of protecting diversity on
campus. When necessary, Deitch has been
a productive voice of dissent on the board,
opposing the construction of luxury boxes
in Michigan Stadium and encouraging
compromise.
Perhaps Deitch's greatest asset - and
greatest liability - is his experience. Six-
teen years is a long period of service, and
it isn't conducive to fresh thinking. While
Deitch clearly cares about student involve-
ment and transparency, he doesn't seem to
have any new ideas about how to improve
these weaknesses. However, that doesn't
negate the fact that for years he has been
one of the most committed and valuable
regents. The Daily endorses LAURENCE
DEITCH for University regent.
At the other end of the spectrum is
Susan Brown, a Republican from
Kalamazoo who is launching her
second (and, as she insists, final) bid for
regent. A fourth-generation Wolverine,
Brown has been an active member of the
University community as a fundraiser and
member of three boards. But while we
applaud her commitment to the Univer-
sity, her qualifications end there.
Aside fromstickingto her2006campaign
promise not to raise tuition - a vow this
page would support were it accompanied
by a convincing grasp of the University's
financial situation - Brown offers nothing
that her opponents can't do better.
Her fellow RepublicanJohnLaFond
is a strong candidate, largely due
to his deep understanding of how
the University functions and how commu-
nities across the state view it. This has led
him to an especially good understanding
of students' concerns and how to address
them. For instance, the former Ford Motor
Co. executive would like to hold regu-
lar forums that students, parents or any-
one else interested can attend to keep the
regents accountable.
Drawing on his experience as the direc-
tor of a program between Ford and the
University and the chair of an industry
advisory committee, LaFond believes that
the University should create business part-
nerships so private industry can invest in
students. In theory, it could be quite ben-

eficial to students. Of course, there are
real ethical dangers in allowing private
industry to have such a strong presence in
a public university - which didn't seem to
concern LaFond.
But LaFond has a fatal flaw: his stances
on social issues. LaFond opposes embry-
onic stem cell research and goes as far
as to say that he would discourage this
research at the University if it becomes
legal next week. Further, he believes the
University shouldn't provide health ben-
efits to the same-sex partners of Univer-
sity employees. He partially justifies this
stance by explaining that the University
already spends too much on health care.
Apparently, equality is too expensive.
The regents' stances on issues like these
help set the tone on campus. This page
strongly believes that tone should be one
of acceptance. While his experience and
fresh ideas make him a strong candidate,
LaFond's desire to treat the University like
a business at the expense of the people who
make it great is concerning. We can't take
a chance on a regent whose values might
interfere with his ability to govern accord-
ing to the University's.
For Democrat Denise Ilitch, her
candidacy is about "the four As":
affordability, accessibility, alliances
and ability. While she wants to cap tuition,
she's realistic about what it will take to
do that - fundraising. She, like her oppo-
nents, also expressed her concern about
keeping graduates in the state. However,
she substantiated her commitment to this
goal, proposing that the University use its
extensive alumni network to help gradu-
ates get in-state jobs.
Ilitch also made it clear that she shares
the University's progressive values. Hav-
ing served on the boards of such groups
as the Detroit Branch NAACP, she would
be an asset in the University's attempts to
maintain diversity.
Disappointingly, Ilitch did not offer us
a presentation quite worthy of a woman
who has been the president of a billion-
dollar company and has served on almost
too many boards to list. While certainly
committed and qualified, she's unable
to offer many specifics on her plans and,
thus, seems a little unprepared.
We hope that Ilitch, if elected, will make
an effort to learn even more about the
demands of being a regent and detail her
own ideas. Perhaps she and Deitch could
even borrow a few new ones, like forums,
from LaFond. But because of her depth of
experience in many different areas, we
endorse DENISE ILITCH because she
can be the breath of fresh air we need on
the Board of Regents.

What is the role of Iran in the
Middle East? In a view-
point Tuesday, the Ameri-
can Movement for
Israelansweredthat
question, claiming
that Iran "jeopar-
dized what little
political stability
exists in the Middle
East" (Understand- .
ing the Iranian
threat, 10/28/2008). IBRAHIM
This is interesting,
given that last war KAKWAN
Iran directly fought
was in 1988 - the
last war Israel fought against one of
its neighbors was in 2006, against
Lebanon.
In a broader sense, however, the
instigative nature of the viewpoint
made me wonder, why should Ameri-
cans support Israel in the first place?
According to a July 2006 article
in The Washington Post, the Ameri-
can-Israeli alliance costs the United
States around $3 billion each year. But
what do we get in return? There are
no Israeli troops in Iraq, and none in
Afghanistan. Even the tiny nation of El
Salvador has sent more troops to Iraq
than Israel, and it doesn't get nearly as
much aid. Given the possible problems
associated with sending Israeli troops
sent to an Arab country this would
make sense - but why isn't Israel top-
ping the list of countries sending sup-
port staff or funding? Saudi Arabia
footed a large bill during the first Gulf
War, and even Japan sent staff to assist
in the second.
We don'tevenhave militarybases on
Israeli soil (apart form a single missile
facility with a small crew). For those,
we turn to the Saudis and Turks. Our
bases in these countries are a major.
point of contention among the local
populations, and their presence breeds
resentment. Osama bin Laden himself
has cited American basesin Saudi Ara-
bia as one of the key reasons behind
terrorist acts. Israel is our ally, so why

do we have to turn to other countries,
when it only creates future problems
for us?
More to the point, why even send
Israel money in the first place? It's not
exactly apoor country.
For one thing Israel has a powerful
lobby. That's right: Just like corn farm-
ers andbigoil companies, supporters of
Israel spend massive amounts ofmoney
trying to influence American politi-
cians. In fact, in 2006, the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee had an
annual budget of $47 million.
In 2005, two high-ranking AIPAC
employees were indicted for involve-
ment in espionage committed against
the United States. The two employees
had met with Lawrence Franklin, a
former Defense Department employee,
and received classified military infor-
mation from him. In turn, the two
AIPAC officers passed the information
on to an Israeli diplomat. Although
AIPAC and Israel both denied the alle-
gations, Franklin was found guilty on
multiple counts of espionage-related
conspiracy after admitting to leaking
the information, while the trial of the
two lobbyists has yetto be concluded.
Given that the United States and
Israel are already allies, why did Israel
attempt to spy on us? Sure, Israel is the
only democracyinthe Middle East, but
that doesn't excuse espionage.
Sadly, it doesn't end there. In 1999,
and perhaps even earlier, the United
States learned that Israel was attempt-
ing to sell military aircraft to China. In
2007, the Israeli arms industry record-
ed more than $4.3 billion in sales,
making it the world's fourth-largest
exporter. Weapons are, by definition,
not intended for peaceful purposes. In
the 1980s, Israeli weapons were being
shipped to apartheid South Africa,
and to death squads in Guatemala
and Nicaragua. Are such sales, some
of them contrary to U.S. interests, not
destabilizing?
Andthencomethenuclearweapons.
When we speak of Iran, we've been
taught to fear nuclear weapons. But for

those of you who don't know, Israel has
had them for decades. To begin with,
Iran has stated itwants nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes. Whether or not
this is the case is debatable, but let's
assume that Iran is seeking to acquire
nuclear weapons. Is it really such an
unreasonable goal? Iran is virtually
surrounded by U.S. troops - to the
east in Afghanistan, and to the west
in Iraq. What country wouldn't want
such a deterrent?
Besides, lets use common sense.
Iran's leaders are not stupid - given
that Israel and the United States both
havenuclearweapons, itwouldbe fool-
ish to even consider usingthem.
Sure, Iranian President Mahnoud
Ahmadinejad likes to make outra-
geous statements. At the end of the
day, however, he is a politician and has
Is our support for
Israel worth its
high cost?
to appeal to his base. When he makes
an offensive statement, the world
reacted predictably: with a resounding
condemnation. Such a response has a
way of isolating Iranians, and could
very well play into his hands.
The bottom line is, many of the orga-
nizations that dislike the United States
take issue with our exceptional treat-
ment of Israel. This exceptional treat-
ment couldn't be clearer than on the
issue of nuclear weapons in the Middle
East. By spying on us and selling weap-
ons in ways that undermine our inter-
ests, it is clear that Israel doesn't hold
the United States in the same esteem
- so is this costly relationship really
worth it?
Ibrahim Kakwan can be reached
at ijameel@umich.edu.

The complex male body

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Elise Baun, Harun Buljina, Ben Caleca, Satyajeet Deshmukh,
Brian Flaherty, Matthew Green, Emmarie Huetteman, Emma Jeszke, Shannon Kellman,
Edward McPhee, Emily Michels, Kate Peabody, Matthew Shutler, Robert Soave, Eileen Stahl,
Jennifer Sussex, Imran Syed, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Margaret Young
SE{ TER T EE T O SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU.

ale sexual pleasure is a
complex, multidimensional
affair. For far too long we
have relied on nar-
ratives that posi-
tion male sexuality
firmly in the perfor-
mance capabilities
of the one-organ
show known as the
penis. This notion
can lead those who
engage in sexual ROSE
relations with men
to believe the farce AFRIYIE
that men require
little to no work to
be aroused and even Speaking with
less to climax. Tongues
Butthere is much
more to the male
orgasm and its relationship to plea-
sure. And yes, it is true that the penis
is central to this analysis, but if you
were to map the erogenous zones of
the male body, you would find more
than one site of sensitivity.
Men also face performance pres-
sures when seeking sexual pleasure.
Understanding these pressures is key
to seeking true fulfillment from one's
sexual interactions. As promised, let's
delve this week into these themes that
begin to deconstruct the often taken
for granted topic of male sexual plea-
sure.
Let's first talk about orgasm. Last
time, we hailed the finding that 75
percent of men "always" or "almost
always" achieve orgasm (and lamented
the comparatively low female orgasm
rate). Yet there is more to the story
when it comes to gauging whether a.
male partner is satisfied.
There are two main components to
the male orgasm. There is ejaculation
- the actual expelling of fluid from the
penis. And then there are the pleasure
peaks experienced during penile stim-
ulation. The catch isthat thetwo aren't
necessarily correlated all the time.
The late Dr. Bernie Zilbergeld, author
and sex therapist, in the newly revised
edition of "The New Male Sexuality"
wrote, "Some men don't have a lot of
feeling when they ejaculate and some
men have lots of peak feelings with

and without ejaculations." Appear-
ances can be deceiving, and partners
who seek to satisfy men must heighten
their sense of awareness when reading
pleasure in their partners.
Thatbringsmetothenexttopic: sen-
sitivity sites. Zilbergeld noted that the
head of the penis is the most sensitive
area of the phallus. The scrotum is the
runner-up. The scrotum, hidden and
seldom mentioned in sexual discourse,
is highly receptive to many kinds of
stimulation. "Many men also like
their scrotums stimulated - touched,
rubbed, held, licked or squeezed
(though not too firmly) - during sex."
Then there is the prostate,' also
known as the male G-spot. One way
to access the prostate is through anal
stimulation. But it isn't the only way to
stimulate the prostate. Another alter-
native involves massaging the perine-
um. Located between the scrotum and
anus, puttingpressure onthe perineum
during intercourse or manual stimula-
tion can yield favorable results, like
reaching an orgasm.
It also should be noted that a great
deal of weight is misleadingly put on
the pleasure potential of the erect penis
as a sexual organ. The truth is the penis
is always a sexual organ, erect or not.
Flaccidity should not be a deterrent
when engaging with the penis because
stimulation also produces pleasure.
Men must negotiate their quest for
pleasure in the context of society's
portrayal of them as hyper-virile,
emotionless, bedpost-notch-counting
Neanderthals. In the absence of feder-
ally mandated comprehensive sex edu-
cation and an overall societal sentiment
that men are born all-knowing about
sex, men can fall prey to the images
presented in pornography that mis-
represent normative male sexuality.
In this imagined world where sexual
intercourse is often the main attrac-
tion, penis size and stamina are overly
exaggerated. Often the artful video
editing implies long-standing, instan-
taneous erections and re-erections as
standard fare.
Combine this with the relentless
spam e-mails and late-night commer-
cials that increasingly target younger
men to buy enhancement drugs. The

expectations game can be too much
to bear as these messages give both
mhen and women skewed impressions
about what to expect when engaging
in intercourse.
Yet, the irony is if both men and
women - particularly heterosexuals
- committed themselves to diversify-
ing their approach to sexually engag-
ing with the pleasure potential of the
opposite sex outside of just sexual
intercourse, we would be better able to
meet each other's sexual needs. If we
are able to overcome these engrained
sexual stereotypes it would allow
for room to also critique the harmful
nature of enforced gender roles that
often converge on sexual interactions.
Now for three general tips:
" Male sexual arousal can also be
conditional. While men may often be
depicted as ravenous sexual beings
who would engage with a hot ham
sandwich, their sexual arousal is locat-

I
I

Male pleasure
is about more
than the penis.

Embryonicstemcellresearch
proponents mince words
TO THEDAILY:
In the ongoing debate over Proposal 2, its
advocates, especially University President
Mary Sue Coleman, seem to be leaning heav-
ily on fronting their arguments with "the truth
about stem cell research." The problems begin
right there. These proponents all too oftenfor-
get the critical word, "embryonic."
To quote a recent television ad from "Vote
YES on Prop 2" ad, "Doctors, scientists and
nurses all agree that stem cell research is the

future of medicine." Sure, they agree stem cell
research is, but the line is conveniently miss-
ing the buzzword of this debate. The truth is,
more and more scientists see adult stem cell
research as the future of medicine. As long as
a year ago, research had shown us that scien-
tists could do with adult stem cells everything
they thought they could only do with embry-
onic ones.
Coleman is fond of reminding us that she is a
scientist, but a quick look at every major scien-
tific debate will show you that not all scientists
get it right all the time.
Michael Howley
Engineering freshman

ed in their senses, erotic stimulus and
overall mental and psychological state.
So be forthcoming with your partner
about how your definition of manhood
frames your sexual interactions.
* Your masturbation can be anoth-
er's pleasure lesson. Your partner can
learn a lot about how to please you if
you show them how. Take some time
to show them what you like in this
demonstrative way.
* Lastly, reciprocity is the key. The
best way to receive the pleasure you
seek is to give it away. Just remember
to be as reciprocal about your sexual
practice as you are about contracep-
tion, and communication and true
pleasure will surely follow.
Rose Afriyie is the Daily's sex and
relationships columnist. She can be
reached at sariyie@umich.edu.

i

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be less than 300
words and must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. Letters are
edited for style, length, clarity and accuracy. All submissions become property of the
Daily. We do not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu.

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan