Dr. Jodi,
So here it goes … I am a 19-year-old Loyola student who is baffled by the lack of class and logical relevance of your “sex and relationship” advice column. Though I strongly disagree with those who took the article seriously enough to involve God or Satan, I did find the column’s triviality and tastelessness offensive and somewhat laughable.
It is fairly plain to see the wise sage answering this intriguing question also wrote the question, since both are about equal in significance. First, if you are a 20-year-old virgin who feels the need to invoke the advice of an anonymous advice columnist with unknown credentials, chances are you aren’t ready to be having sex. In fact, you probably aren’t ready to be in any serious relationship.
The answer to this question is almost as disconcerting as the question itself. I felt as if I was suddenly a pubescent sixth grader again being told by my mother “these feelings you’re having are completely normal.” Though the question never mentions concerns with Christianity, the columnist aptly points out that having sexual urges does not make one “a bad Christian.” Again, any 20-year-old concerned that sexual urges are irregular, abnormal or a danger to their soul probably lacks the ability to successfully socialize in the quad, let alone carry on a healthy sexual relationship.
Another priceless gem of advice found in this informative piece is the idea that “sex of any kind should always be mutual.”
Yes, I’d have to say I agree, even without consulting a “sex expert.”
The entire “technical” discussion of virginity also left me desperately grasping for relevance. I think it’s safe to say to most people the word “virginity” has implications beyond the breaking of the hymen. Most women would find it difficult to equate losing their virginity to a day of horseback riding. This entire discussion was devoid of meaning in reference to answering the question at hand.
When this aimless discussion finally reaches a topic of potential significance, the columnist fails to address the subject completely. The word “protection” in the article pertains only to pregnancy prevention.
There are more concerns and precautions to take when having a sexual relationship besides protecting against pregnancy. Most college-bound high school graduates have a grasp on this, but in keeping with the fairly obvious, high-school health class mentality that this advice column has taken on, it should have been pointed out birth control does not protect against the transmission of STDs.
Not surprisingly, the conclusion of the article offered no more insight than the preceding parts. After making a brief and disrespectful comment about Jesuits and their philosophy, Jodi points out that college students having sex is “realistic.” Obviously this is true, but many people chose not to become sexually involved with several partners or “friends.”
The article insinuates you need to be having sex in order for college to be “one of the most pleasant experiences of your lifetime.” The article attempts to show both chosen paths as equal but different when, in fact, it makes an obvious jab at one while holding the other to be more “realistic” and favorable.
This “advice” which is so desperately trying to be edgy and informative is actually shallow and fairly pointless. This is true, especially if you are addressing college students. Next time, infuse a little class and tact into your “advice.” The stupidity and pointlessness are far more offensive than the supposed “controversial” subject matter.
I would hope that most people won’t take seriously someone who uses the phrases “Don’t be a fool, wrap your tool” and “Keep it classy” in the same column. Before you conclude with tasteless declarations such as “Go forth and fornicate,” you might consider giving sounder, more meaningful advice.
Laura Duncan is a biology sophomore from Baton Rogue.
