Protect me while sober and drunk

This in response to Sgt. Eugene V. Mejia's comment in yesterday's paper. Sir, you speak of rape in relation to alcohol and yet you speak nothing of the fact that rape is not just a "drunken happening." It is caused by a person who violates a victim regardless of alcohol. Today, ignoring the effect of alcohol, men are still stronger than women, the exact definition of rape seems to be unclear to many, and few realize the intense amount of evidence that is necessary to convict a rapist. Sir, you are asking the students of the UA to realize that one puts themselves in increased danger of rape by drinking. So, if a student decides to stay sober but still wants to hang out with friends at a party, that person is less vulnerable to rape? On that note, since women are the most common gender of rape victims, does that mean more women should stay sober to protect themselves from rape? Give me a break, that is ridiculous. Both men and women enjoy drinking, and it is discriminatory to expect those more vulnerable to rape (women) to have to drink less than others. I mean no disrespect to men; statistically women are the more common victim and that is my only reasoning in using women in the above sentence. I expect the UAPD to protect me sober and drunk, not take away my liberty of drinking given to me by the U.S. government. I also expect UAPD to be knowledgeable about rape and to help educate the students of the UA. Education is the best way to prevent rape, especially since the TPD can't seem to convict many rapists because of the lack of evidence. Maybe the UAPD should participate in educating the campus so that conviction isn't an issue and neither would alcohol be.

Amorette St.Onge
psychology sophomore

Orgasm stories tasteless

Shame on you, Holly and Lisa, for Tuesday's article "The Big Ohhhh..." Let us forget for a moment that the article was tasteless, inaccurate and of no help to the female community. The illustration depicts a white man and a white woman, both faceless, engaging in conventional, heterosexual sex in the missionary position. Are we supposed to believe that this accurately portrays women in their hunt for the "illusive orgasm?" I imagine you were expecting that the article and picture would evoke responses from the conservative Christians on campus, well guess what: You've offended a liberal feminist as well. Your presumption was to assume that while "no two vaginas are the same," all women are, and they all while their worthless lives away while looking for a man to whom they can teach the ways of love and the location of their clitoris. Next time you write an article, do a little research first. What you produced in no way represents journalism in my opinion.

Lucy Blaney
Latin American studies graduate student

Residence Life violates due process

In America we take for granted the principle of being innocent until proven guilty. This principle is the basis of America's judicial system. It states that a person is not guilty until proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Residents in the dorms here at the UA aren't so fortunate. The Residence Life Student Handbook on Page 7 determines that "responsibility for a violation of a community standard is based on whether it is more probable than not that the violation occurred." Because of this policy I have received three citations and fines for violations I did not commit. These citations resulted in probation and a $25 fine. Residence Life also has a policy where if a resident is evicted, the resident still has to pay rent for the rest of the academic year. It is financially in their best interest to cite as many people as possible. It is unfair that students living in the dorms are stuck with unfair policies like these. Residence Life should determine guilt in the same way America does. One needs to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise too many people will continue to receive citations for violations they did not commit.

Jason Kuhn
optical engineering sophomore

Others' beliefs don't matter if they're wrong

Allow me to summarize Justin Barker's letter to see if I am understanding him properly: Not everyone is Christian, so murder is OK? I thought Socrates' arguments got rid of sophistry such as yours back in Athens 2,400 years ago. Relativism says that people have different ideas about things, therefore no one is right about anything. So if you think that the world is flat and I think it is round, our beliefs are equal? Obviously not. So how could anyone take such a stupid idea and expand it into a whole belief system? I have a simple answer for you, they are liberals! This one doesn't even know the difference between killing and murder. Let me tell you something: Other people's beliefs don't mean crap if they're wrong.

War never solved anything? Right, except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism and communism. It should be no surprise to you that something stupid enough to put on your bumper sticker could be quickly refuted by another bumper sticker. Reason for war, if someone is shooting at you, shoot them back and kill them. You are against the war, so you must think it's really great that Al Zarqawi is running around and sawing off people's heads. You can hear their screams coming out of their cut necks like the air coming out of a balloon. So we should be tolerant of their beliefs? Bullshit.

Joe Callaway
aerospace engineering senior