Opinion

JENNIFER CALFAS

EDITOR IN CHIEF

AARICA MARSH 

and DEREK WOLFE 

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LEV FACHER

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s editorial board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, November 20, 2015

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala, 
Aarica Marsh, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Jason Rowland, Melissa 

Scholke, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung, Stephanie Trierweiler,

 Mary Kate Winn, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Nobody cares about
 your fantasy team 

M

y fantasy football team is 10-0. It’s 
only tangentially related to this 
column, but I figured this was a 

good use of space to brag 
about it.

Yes, I just broke the 

first rule of fantasy foot-
ball: Nobody cares about 
your fantasy football team. 
Jeb Bush tried to brag 
about his somehow unde-
feated fantasy team dur-
ing a Republican debate, 
despite claiming to start 
Ryan Tannehill, and was 
promptly shut down by 
Chris Christie. Because it’s 
true: Nobody cares about your fantasy team. 

Nobody cares except for the government, 

that is. Eric Schneiderman, New York attor-
ney general, recently sent a cease-and-desist 
order to daily fantasy sports companies 
DraftKings and FanDuel, saying the busi-
nesses constituted illegal Internet gambling. 
Efforts by the companies to prevent the shut-
down ahead of a Nov. 25 court date failed, 
thus ending the contests in the state until 
litigation is resolved. The companies were 
allowed to exist because the Unlawful Inter-
net Gambling Enforcement Act, passed in 
2006, contained an exception noting that the 
restrictions outlined in the act did not apply 
to fantasy sports.

Yet these daily fantasy sports sites oper-

ate very differently than the standard week-
to-week format of fantasy leagues that were 
intended to be exempted under the law. In 
standard daily fantasy sports games, entrants 
are given some virtual salary cap, and must 
play the role of a virtual general manager to 
form a roster of players in which each player 
has a set price determined by the site. A con-
sistently very good player will have a high 
price. Thus, finding players who provide a 
good performance-to-price ratio is key to 
success. Real money is then “bet” — or entry 
fees are paid, depending on how you want to 
define it — on the real-life, in-game perfor-
mance of this built roster. 

Each company says it is a legal enterprise, 

based on the claim that the daily games are 
games of skill, not games of chance, since 
entrants can use existing knowledge of 
the sport and the players when building 
 

their roster.

These companies’ futures are staked on the 

designation of their game as a game of skill — 
so much so that employees of the companies 
staged a protest in Manhattan where they hid 
their employment status and chanted, “Game 
of skill! Game of skill!”

Like most betting games, there are certainly 

elements of skill, and daily fantasy sports at a 
basic level represent a classic problem in com-
putation theory called the knapsack problem. 
The idea is there is some fixed amount of space 
— in daily fantasy sports, a budget — and many 
objects that are assigned values — in this case, 
players. To build an ideal roster, objects must 
all be analyzed algorithmically to most effi-
ciently use the space to maximize the value 
of things in the space — in this case, the best 
player performance within the budget. 

The result is somewhat predictable: The 

numbers nerds who can build advanced algo-
rithms to both accurately predict players’ 
future performances and solve the knapsack 
problem to maximize the potential of their 
rosters are able to claim most of the win-
nings in the long run. According to a Sports 
Business Daily report, the top 1.3 percent of 
players paid on average $9,100 each in entry 
fees and profited $2,400 each, resulting in 
them taking a disproportionate 77 percent 

of all the payouts. Meanwhile, 80 percent of 
players represent a more average group that 
pays an average of $49 in entry fees with a 
net loss of $25. A smaller group representing 
5 percent of players is the “big fish,” who lose 
$1,100 on average. These numbers certainly 
suggest that it’s a game of skill, but only for 
the 1.3 percent of players who actually have 
the skills. 

Because along with the first rule of fantasy 

football, that nobody cares about your team, 
is the first rule of gambling: The house always 
wins. Data for one week, according to an 
ESPN analysis, showed that DraftKings made 
$2.6 million in profit off $25 million worth of 
entry fees that week, while FanDuel’s profit 
was $3.5 million off $20.6 million in entry 
fees. And that’s just one week. In 2014, Fan-
Duel brought in more than $1 billion in fees. 
That’s an incredible amount of money being 
moved with zero oversight or regulation like 
there is for other forms of gambling.

In reality, these daily fantasy sports sites 

are extremely similar to poker — a com-
parison that company executives have made 
themselves. In poker, while casual players 
will play on mostly intuition, similar to the 
80 percent of daily fantasy sports players who 
lose an average of $25 weekly, skilled players 
are able to quickly determine the odds they 
have of winning a hand, and adjust playing 
strategy accordingly. There are set odds in 
poker for obtaining certain combinations of 
cards and winning the pot, but there is also 
the unknown of the cards other players at the 
table have. There’s some predictability based 
on certain factors, such as playing and bet-
ting patterns, but not 100-percent certainty 
— just like how the future performance of 
sports players is predictable but also has vol-
atile results. Poker is considered gambling, 
and online poker experienced a similar boom 
before being phased out by law. Daily fantasy 
sports could be next. 

Daily fantasy sports are already incred-

ibly alluring, and official partnerships with 
sports teams and an inundation of advertis-
ing only serve to fuel the machine. Sixteen 
NFL teams have exclusive partnerships with 
FanDuel, and 12 with DraftKings. The NBA 
has an exclusive deal with FanDuel and also 
equity share in the company. DraftKings has 
exclusive partnerships with the MLB and 
ESPN. As John Oliver joked during his rant 
against daily fantasy sports, HBO has a part-
nership with FanDuel, so he noted his jokes 
were in a sense sponsored by the same com-
pany he was targeting. 

Daily fantasy sports do not fit the inten-

tion of the law, which was to exempt the low-
key office and friend pools that I myself have 
played in since I was in middle school, a fact 
that the author of the UIGEA law is even on 
record as stating. Fantasy sports are incredi-
bly fun, but also can be quite addictive. Add in 
betting and gambling, activities known to be 
extremely addictive, and daily fantasy sports 
become dangerous and immediately acces-
sible via the Internet. Even more dangerous 
is its focus on millennials, a group of people 
often unable to afford the costs of gambling.

There are moral arguments against the 

legalization of such gambling, but for better 
or worse, society has accepted and allowed it. 
The solution isn’t necessarily to outlaw daily 
fantasy sports, but simply to treat them as the 
sports gambling that they actually are and 
provide consumer safety regulations that are 
necessary for the industry. Nobody will ever 
care about your fantasy team, but it’s time 
they cared about the money behind it.

— David Harris can be reached 

at daharr@umich.edu.

DAVID 
HARRIS

You do you

“I

’ve been wanting to make 
signs or something for 
our bedroom doors where 

we 
can 
each 

put 
whether 

we’re 
gone, 

asleep, 
busy, 

masturbating, 
mini 
golfing, 

whatever.” 

This 
was 

the 
text 
that 

I got from my 
housemate while 
I was at the gym. 
I 
laughed 
out 

loud. 
Mostly 

because it was 
funny, partially because it was 
uncomfortable. Wait, I thought. 
You can’t just throw masturbating in 
with mini golfing. I don’t need you to 
know when that’s going on.

It was something we had talked 

about, something we knew we 
both did, but even in our almost 
boundary-less relationship, it wasn’t 
something that was ever discussed 
in detail. But the more I thought 
about it, the less I cared. Why was I 
so afraid to put a sign up on my door?

According to a 2002 study at 

Pennsylvania 
State 
University, 

college-age 
women 
reported 

discussing sex-related topics with 
their best friend more than men 
did, and also reported feeling more 
comfortable doing so. There was 
only one exception: masturbation. 
The 
study 
reads, 
“Females 

reported 
more 
communication 

overall than did males on all 
topics, except for masturbation, 
which males reported discussing 
more frequently than did females. 
Women talked more about sexually 
transmitted 
diseases, 
sexual 

feelings, contraception and rape.”

While this was not actually 

surprising to me (I think I’ve 
discussed the topic of masturbation 
with a maximum of maybe six people 
in my life), it raises the question: 
Why are women more comfortable 
discussing such emotionally charged 
topics, such as STIs and rape, than 
they are discussing masturbation? 

Because 
most 
research 
on 

the topic states that only about 
25 
percent 
of 
women 
report 

reaching orgasm through vaginal 
intercourse, figuring out how to 
climax by other methods (read: the 
clitoris — ever heard of it? It’s the 
thing they don’t teach you about in 
sex ed) is imperative to a woman’s 
sexual satisfaction. Also, according 
to the Women’s Health Network, 
female masturbation has a lengthy 
list of health benefits, including 
helping prevent cervical infections, 
relieving 
UTIs, 
improving 

cardiovascular 
health, 
lowering 

the risk of type 2 diabetes, fighting 
insomnia, 
relieving 
depressive 

emotions and relieving stress. And 
of course, it helps women figure 
out what works for them, and how 
they can teach their partner(s) 
accordingly. Turns out, it’s actually 
a 
really 
awesome 
thing 
that 

improves both our physical and 
mental health. So why is it such an 
uncomfortable topic?

At 
the 
beginning 
of 
this 

semester, I went to the Safe Sex 
Store (R.I.P.) with my friend to give 
her emotional support in picking 
out her first vibrator. Because 
it’s something we’re taught to be 
ashamed of, it required three of us 
in total, adding up our respective 
fractions 
of 
shamelessness, 
to 

strut into that store, pick out a 
vibrator, not pretend it was a “gift” 
for a friend and exit onto South 

University feeling satisfied and, to 
be honest, a little badass. We were 
secretly telling the world that we 
could take shit into our own hands. 
You see, in our society, women 
are often exalted as objects that 
give men sexual pleasure (listen 
to literally any rap song), rather 
than being sexual agents. In other 
words, our job is to service others, 
rather than actively seek out our 
own pleasure. While these are 
probably not the explicit thoughts 
floating around in a woman’s head 
as she shies away from the topic 
of masturbation, it is something 
that is so deeply ingrained in our 
society, that it makes the notion of 
a woman “taking shit into her own 
hands” extremely uncomfortable — 
even more so than rape.

So to all of you out there who 

have a clitoris, I’m not asking you 
to call up your friends every time 
you masturbate (unless you guys 
are cool with that, you do you). I’m 
not demanding that everyone shout 
out their front door, “Don’t come 
in, I’m masturbating!” But it’s an 
important thing to talk about. I 
learned while writing this article 
that, according to a 2004 University 
of Michigan study, using saliva 
while masturbating could increase 
your risk of a yeast infection. Who 
knew? Definitely not me.

So go tell your friends! Don’t be 

afraid! Talking about this stuff is a 
way to learn, to improve our sexual 
health and to be the agents, not the 
objects, of our sexual pleasure.

In the meantime, I’ll be listening 

to Nicki and Beyoncé’s “Feeling 
Myself” while I make a big, sparkly 
pink sign for my door.

— Rachael Lacey can be reached 

at rachaelk@umich.edu.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and viewpoints. 

Letters should be around 300 words while viewpoints should be 550-850 words. 

Send the article, writer’s full name and University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

RACHAEL
LACEY

Is self-defense just a Band-Aid?
T

his past Saturday at 10:00 
a.m. sharp, I found myself 
in Room 3275 of the Cen-

tral 
Campus 

Recreational 
Building 
wear-

ing cropped leg-
gings and a loose 
fitting 
T-shirt. 

The other 50 or 
so young under-
graduate women 
surrounding me 
were 
dressed 

so 
similarly, 
it 

seemed as if we 
were all wear-
ing the uniform of a hungover 
 

sorority girl.

We had gathered to participate 

in a self-defense class hosted by 
our chapter president, who, with 
her black belt in karate, is entirely 
capable of beating someone to a 
pulp. She was accompanied by her 
instructor, who could also undoubt-
edly smash in someone’s face given 
the chance.

Our sorority’s philanthropy focus-

es on raising awareness and support-
ing victims of domestic violence, and 
our (mandatory) attendance to this 
class was framed in terms of increas-
ing empowerment and self-agency in 
the face of assault. In addition to an 
overview on how to defend oneself 
against an attacker through targeted 
kicks to the groin and shins, all the 
money raised from the participation 
fee went to the Women’s Center of 
Southeastern Michigan, an organiza-
tion that supports women transition-
ing away from abusive relationships.

I had always wanted to learn self-

defense. The notion that, if I were 
to be attacked, I would know a few 
basic moves (besides screaming and 
running) to resist an attacker made 
me feel more confident in my body 
and my agency in the world. After a 
few goes at my roommate Paige, who 
held up a padded shield to her right, I 
was proficient in an upward hit with 
the palm of my hand meant to break 
an attacker’s nose. By the end of the 
class, I was a little too confident and 
accidentally smacked another wom-
an’s arm on my quick withdrawal 

and resumption of a dominant stance 
— still sorry about that, Maria.

But as powerful as I felt, I had a 

hard time totally committing to the 
notion of self-defense as a realis-
tic, effective method of preventing 
violence against women. I was all 
on board with some of the first tac-
tics we talked about, like awareness 
of your surroundings, avoidance 
of potentially unsafe situations 
and overall assertive self-conduct. 
However, all of these suggestions 
weren’t physical moves, and instead 
seemed mostly like common sense.

What I couldn’t get past was the 

underlying doubt that if I were to 
be attacked, would I really think in 
the moment to assume a dominant 
position and kick my attacker in the 
groin? If he goes for my face, would 
I remember to grab his weak wrist 
and, in the quintessential wax-on/
wax-off motion (yes, Karate Kid 
was technically accurate), twist his 
hands away from me? If he grabs 
my ponytail, would I grab the hair 
closest to my scalp so the pain is 
more tolerable and try to hit back?

I’m sure that some women who 

have been trained in self-defense 
have successfully employed these 
tactics in the context of an actual 
attack, and I applaud them. Even 
though it’s difficult to measure, 
studies have shown that women 
who participate in self-defense 
classes are more confident in their 
ability to resist assault, less likely to 
experience sexual assault and more 
angry than scared during an assault 
than women without training.

Though these results make sense, 

I wonder what role self-selection 
had in the outcomes; one could 
argue that the type of woman who 
would seek out self-defense train-
ing would already be more likely 
to avoid situations where she’s at a 
higher risk for assault (making her 
less likely to experience assault) 
and more likely to respond assert-
ively and aggressively to an attack 
from the get-go (making her more 
confident in her ability to defend).

Further, attacks against women 

don’t always look like late-night 
muggings by a stranger, and this 

reality can dwarf the effectiveness 
of self-defense. Namely, the nature 
of sexual assault — a disturbing-
ly common crime against female 
undergraduates — means that self-
defense tactics may not be particu-
larly helpful. Because four out of five 
rapes are committed by someone 
known to the victim, and 62 percent 
of victims report drinking alcohol 
just prior to the incident, sexual 
assault looks very little like other 
violent crimes against women. As a 
result, even a woman fully compe-
tent in self-defense might not be in a 
position in which she could success-
fully defend herself against rape. 

And on top of all this, the simple 

fact that self-defense classes exist, 
and are oftentimes exclusively 
for women, is upsetting. When a 
woman enrolls in a self-defense 
class, she’s predicting that at some 
time in the potentially near future, 
she’ll inevitably and unexpectedly 
be subject to violence.

With that thought, I suddenly 

realized that my outfit choice wasn’t 
the only thing I had in common with 
the young, undergraduate women 
surrounding me in the CCRB. As a 
demographic, we also share a similar 
vulnerability to assault and violence 
against us. Was this hour of self-
defense training really addressing 
the root of this issue or merely serv-
ing as a Band-Aid to a wider, more 
pervasive societal ill?

But the knee-jerk argument that 

self-defense distracts from the larg-
er issue of violence against women, 
though valid, is unfortunately not 
particularly helpful in terms of pro-
tecting women against assault here 
and now. In theory, self-defense 
gives women greater agency in 
their abilities to defend themselves, 
and empowers women with greater 
agency and control. These are all 
good things, and keeping them in 
mind was the only way I could rec-
oncile the disturbing notion that 
one day, rather than a soft, padded 
shield, I might be kicking some-
one’s actual groin to defend myself.

— Anne Katz can be reached 

at amkatz@umich.edu.

ANNE 
KATZ

E-mail RachEl at Rdawson@umich.
RACHEL DAWSON

