Illustration by Holly Randall

Three weeks ago, Northern Arizona University sex columnist Claire Fuller came out with a veritable how-to guide to performing oral sex. Since its publication, critics nationwide have condemned the column for crossing the lines of decency and good taste. It goes without saying that Fuller had the right to write the column, and that The Lumberjack, NAU's student paper, had the right to publish it. But the question remains: Should they have? We asked our columnists: "What should be out of bounds, instead of in print?"

Jennifer Kursman Columnist

Lighten up; it's all in the name of fun

It's tricky to determine exactly what qualifies as unacceptable, since there will always be supporters for opposing sides of the same argument. Several college newspapers around the nation publish sex-related columns every week; the existence of such columns is hardly a radical idea. The writers behind these columns straddle a fine line between making the column "appropriate" and engaging readers.

Ultimately, the limits of such columns should depend on the intended audience. It would seem a no-brainer that this audience consists primarily of college students, yet many who protested Fuller's column claimed that younger children were reading the college paper. (Really? I had no idea.)

College newspapers have more leeway than the major dailies. It's important to note that sex columns never grace the front pages of these papers; they're filed inside the culture section. Let me point out something that should be obvious: These columns are meant to be entertaining. No one is holding a gun to your head ÷ if the content offends you, you don't have to read it!

Along the same train of thought, I'd like to respond to those moaning that Janet Jackson's Super Bowl display is a sign of the coming apocalypse: Turn off the idiot box and read a book, already.

Jen Kursman is a biochemistry freshman. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Brett Berry Columnist

Did it leave a bad taste in your mouth?

Fuller's Valentine's Day sex column has sparked much shock and outrage in Lumberjack country. The Feb. 12 article was essentially a tongue-in ÷ um ÷ cheek guide to performing oral sex, and, understandably, plenty of people have taken issue with her open and explicit discussion of it.

I defend Fuller's right to write on whatever topic she chooses and think anyone who is offended should just choose to not read the column. But there is a point at which Fuller ÷ and any other journalist, for that matter ÷ should realize when she is no longer being productive.

Journalists should indeed try to incite discussion by making bold statements on any issue they choose, even if some people get offended. Sometimes people need a little provocation in order to start some real discussion on certain topics. However, there is a point at which a journalist stops being scandalous to be provocative and starts being scandalous just to be scandalous.

I welcome Fuller's open discussion of sex, especially in a medium like a college newspaper, but she should try to focus more on discussion of sexual issues and actions without the immature "69-style" and "Stifler" references. If she were to approach the topic in a more professional manner, fewer people would find the sex talk offensive, and the column could actually serve a purpose other than to shock its readers with vulgar humor.

Brett Berry is a regional development sophomore who thinks that mature discussion of sex is a good thing. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Sabrina Noble Columnist

Neither the time nor the place for this how-to

If we wanted, we could all write columns about oral sex or building bombs or counterfeiting $10 bills. It's our Constitutional right.

Right, but · when you've got carefully protected freedom, you should help protect it by using your discretion to decide how to best use it. Freedom of speech should not mean gallivanting fun and fancy-free around the opinions page. It does not mean lighting fires simply because you can. When freedom of speech was so carefully defined and defended, it was to allow us to say what needed to be said, even if it would be unpopular.

I doubt Thomas Jefferson had blow jobs in mind, even if he did personally enjoy them.

So what we always need to ask is this: Does this need to be said? Does my purpose belong in this particular forum, or would it be most effective elsewhere?

When Fuller wrote her oral sex column, she provided a service of sorts. But that's why people read sex guides, not why they pick up their college newspaper. Fuller exercised her right to free speech only to shock people. She was getting a laugh while wearing Constitutional protection (pun intended). And that's abusing free speech.

A right doesn't make it the right decision. That's why there are journalistic ethics; a public forum carries accountability. We can have our fun (I know I do), but we have to use our words wisely, especially when dealing with controversial issues.

Fuller threw her words away and must have used the ethics guide as scrap paper.

Sabrina Noble is a senior majoring in English and creative writing. She admits she's a little too appropriate around here. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Aaron Okin Columnist

Article crossed the line of legitimacy

You know something is amiss when a story about a college paper's article is carried in a prominent national newspaper. Yet, it was in just such a publication that I first heard about the questionable, pre-Valentine's Day article of Fuller. Everyone who picks up a newspaper on a public university campus realizes that the limitations on what is allowed are a bit different from those of mainstream publications. But to say that there are no limitations would place the entire student news framework at risk of losing credibility. If there are no standards in one section of the paper, why should they be imposed in other areas?

Clearly, the "Life" section Fuller's piece appeared in covers a broad range of topics, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a legitimate publication that includes graphically detailed how-to sex tips as one of them. There is nothing wrong with writing about sex, considering that it plays such a prominent role in the lives of college students, but it was wholly unnecessary for Fuller to share with Flagstaff, and subsequently the world, what she likes or envisioned as the perfect Valentine's Day. In the future, if she at all wants The Lumberjack to hold even a sliver of credibility, she should give up her dreams of being like the writers at Cosmopolitan and stick to writing clever similes comparing alcohol consumption to something other than oral sex.

Aaron Okin is a regional development and political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Jason Poreda Opinions Assistant

The real question is: What do you like?

Did you know the state motto of Georgia is "Wisdom, justice and moderation"? It alludes to the idea that we need limits on a free society. Colorado's is "Nil sine numine" ("Nothing without providence"), which implies that everything should be free.

Everyone has a different opinion on the issue of exactly how free "free speech" is, including each of the 50 states. The issue has, however, seemed to come up more in more modern times as more media outlets and methods of reaching people have popped up. Most recently, the column in NAU's student newspaper has set fire to the issue for everyone in Arizona's university system.

As most people agree, it would be great to live in a society where there are no limits and everyone is free to say what they please. However, ours is not one of them, and there should be guidelines. That said, the guidelines should not be a question of taste or preference, which the issue of blow jobs is.

The answer to this very complicated question can't be found in a few short words, but saying that somebody can't publish a column or book because somebody "doesn't like it" is not the standard that should be set for the freest country in the world.

Jason Poreda is a political science and communication senior who doesn't think reality TV should be banned just because he doesn't like it. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Susan Bonicillo Columnist

The hypocrisy of decency

The controversy surrounding the NAU blow job article is vastly unwarranted. The column's clinical and instructional style had all the erotic power of a car manual. Frankly, some choice sections from the Old Testament prove far more titillating.

Still, critics nationwide deplored the media for degrading the American moral fiber. But let's face facts. This isn't about decency. The real issue is America's prudish nature regarding sex and the hypocrisy that it creates.

If Americans cared so much about decency, then images of rampant violence and bloodshed would be removed from all media. However, we continue to turn a blind eye toward brutality and crusade against anything sexual.

Such puritanical thinking allows images of cruelty to be seen by young, impressionable minds with nary a protest launched. Yet, when someone publishes instructions for those in need of some oral guidance, suddenly everyone becomes a moral authority.

What does it say about our society when its brand of "decency" tolerates viewing the most inhumane acts by man but denounces those who try to bring a little joy to this dreary world through some boudoir advice?

Whether intentionally, The Lumberjack took a stand against the hypocrisy of decency by publishing that infamous and rather informative column.

And really, besides oral sex, what else is there to do up at NAU?

Susan Bonicillo is a journalism sophomore and thinks prudes lost their cool appeal in the Middle Ages. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu