I find myself in sharp disagreement with Najwa Doughman (“Stand by Gaza,” Jan. 21). To begin with, Doughman decides to quote an opinion of Avi Shlaim, claiming that Israel’s military campaign against Hamas is an intentionally “cruel case of deliberate de-development.” Really? If this quote is supposed to refer to the deliberate de-development of a terrorist organization that has not ceased firing rockets at Israel (nearly 6,500 since 2005), then the author may be on to something. Obviously, this is not what the author means. We read in this column of all of the certainly unfortunate and tragic circumstances that the innocent bystanders of Gaza are facing, the tragedies that, while painful to watch, are inevitable in any war. What has neglected to be mentioned is why exactly these circumstances were presenting themselves in the first place. I guess it could be that the Israelis are blood-thirsty Muslim-haters who are dedicated to demolishing Gaza. Israel may have surrounded Gaza just for their own satisfaction, and Hamas may not have deserved it at all. But not based on my understanding of the situation. My understanding of the situation leads me to believe that Israel has made a countless number of concessions over the past decades, including the release of murderers of foreign (non-Israeli) descent, like one charged with killing a father and beating in the head of his toddler daughter until she reached her miserable and slow death. But maybe Israel should have a ceasefire and do it the United Nations’ way, again, the way the world approached Darfur the United Nations’ way (we need not devote much worry to Darfur anymore, though, because most of the innocent civilians there are already dead and slaughtered). And the only acknowledgment the author manages to tell us is that she is “the first to admit that Hamas has many faults.” Well that’s nice.

Charles Krauthammer’s Op/Ed article from the Washington Post (“Moral Clarity in Gaza,” Jan. 2) led me to an Associated Press article from December 27 that reported that the Israeli government issued cell phone messages to thousands of Gazan civilians, warning them to “leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons.” Doughman is accusing an Israeli campaign of brutal immorality, and here we see the Israeli government telling the civilians (which includes the enemy, incidentally) exactly what the military is going to do. I hope that Doughman finds the decency to excuse my dismay at her absurd statement that the fact that Israel has a right to defend itself is “irrelevant.” I beg the author’s pardon. I do not think that the millions of Israeli civilians would agree with that statement, civilians who can sleep tonight with a little less worry of their houses blowing up because a group of reckless Palestinian thugs find the audacity to use the homes of civilians to launch missiles aimlessly at Israeli cities, not caring where they land, and in addition not caring what happens to the families in whose houses those weapons are being hidden. I ask that the author please pardon my shock at the saturating bias that practically soaks through the paper upon which her column was printed. If it’s any satisfaction, I will be the first to admit that Israel has faults.

Jeremy Lyall Lambert
CLAS III

COLLEGE PARK, Md. — A Cavalier 3-point play followed by two straight 3-point jumpers meant 9 points in 27 seconds for Virginia during the waning minutes of last night’s game against Maryland. These efforts would prove to be too little, too late for the embattled Cavaliers to come back from a 15-point half-time deficit, however, as they fell 84-78 for their third consecutive conference loss.

“It’s obviously not going to be a situation that’s [conducive] to winning when you dig a hole as we did,” Virginia coach Dave Leitao said.
While Virginia (7-8, 1-3 ACC) played a strong second half, out-scoring Maryland by 9 points after the break, failure to execute during the last 10 minutes of the first half proved enough to overwhelm any efforts of a recovery.

“When you get down, especially on the road, and work your way back, you expend so much energy that you don’t have the physical or mental capability to finish the deal off,” Leitao said.

The Cavaliers became steeped in foul trouble during the beginning of the game. Putting the Terrapins into the bonus after just nine minutes of play, freshman center Assane Sene and sophomore forward Mike Scott were both forced to sit with two fouls each, leaving junior center Jerome Meyinsse to become the lone presence in the frontcourt for significant first-half minutes.

Both teams, it seemed, struggled to find a groove at the start of the game. A 3-point shot from Maryland junior guard Eric Hayes with 3:44 left in the half, however, gave a spark to the Maryland offensive effort. The Cavaliers could do nothing to stop the hemorrhaging as they proceeded to allow the Terrapins to go on a 10-2 run and open up a 15-point lead at the break.

“We weren’t aggressive … and if we weren’t aggressive they took advantage of it,” junior forward Jamil Tucker said.

The 9-to-1 steal deficit Virginia suffered in the first half was a mark of this lack of aggressiveness. Maryland took advantage of this, capitalizing on Virginia’s 13 turnovers while scoring 16 unanswered transition points in the first period.

The Cavaliers were upset with the “easy buckets that we gave them,” junior guard Solomon Tat said. “It was kind of frustrating so we just decided as a team that individually we’d go out there and man-up and get some stops.”

Virginia managed to slow the pace of the game at the start of the second half, quickly cutting the lead to 10 just three minutes in. Scott and Sene returned to the court and allowed the Cavaliers to exploit an advantage in the frontcourt.

“The point of emphasis on offense was to play below 15 feet,” Leitao said. “Either through getting the ball in the paint off the dribble … off a post touch … or on the offensive glass there are certain ways you can make a defense pay.”

Scott continued to assert himself inside for the rest of the game, drawing fouls and finishing the game with 16 points and 10 rebounds.
Simultaneously, Leitao made thorough use of his bench during the game. In addition to extracting 42 points from his bench, he was able to augment efforts on the other side of the ball by using Tat as a defensive specialist.

“Defense is one of my strengths, and the coach is aware of that,” Tat said. “At some point in the game when we needed a stop he trusted me to go in and play some [defense]. It’s not just for me to go out there but also trying to help some of teammates so they will pick up the pace on the defensive side.”

Virginia continued to slowly chip away at the Terrapin lead throughout the second half, clamping down on the transition points that had boosted Maryland’s lead in the first half. But with seemingly countless disadvantages stacked against them, including pristine free-throw shooting by the Terrapins down the stretch, the Cavaliers came up just 6 points shy of a come-from-behind road win in the ever-challenging ACC.

“It’s stressful,” Tucker said. “Being down 15 at the half is always a problem. We are already down and we are on the road — so that’s just mind-boggling.”

The first half of the Virginia men’s basketball team’s 84-78 loss against Maryland last night was absolutely abominable from the perspective of a Wahoo — a 45-30 halftime score is too deep a hole to climb out of on the road, and it’s why the Cavs lost the game. But let’s attack that atrocity in a minute.

Because in the second half, two things happened that almost got the Cavs an unlikely “W.” First, and most importantly, Virginia, on a decidedly rare occasion, played D — at least for a while. After allowing the Terps, the worst-shooting team in the ACC at 41.7 percent coming into last night’s game, a 58.6 percent shooting in the first half — among other shameful defensive statistics, which, again, we’ll tackle later — the Cavs held the Terps to 3-of-11 to start the second as they cut the deficit to 3. Much of the renewed effort was courtesy of seldom-used junior guard Solomon Tat, who coach Dave Leitao had used in years past as a defensive specialist. With Virginia’s defense gasping for air, Leitao went to Tat at the 18:25 mark of the second half to D-up Maryland senior stud Greivis Vasquez, and Vasquez was held to a lone free throw through the 12:29 mark when Tat was subbed out.

“What Vasquez [does] best is get into the middle and try to help his teammates,” Tat said. “My own job is to just shut him down, and that’s what I did.”

Factor two of the comeback: Mike Scott. Though Leitao insisted that feeding Scott in the post was not a point of emphasis at halftime — rather, he said, it was getting the ball below 15 feet in general, as has been a coaching point all season — the Cavs appeared as patient as they have ever been in allowing Scott to get position on the block and getting him the rock. And so, after a first half with no field goal attempts, Scott sank 3-of-8 in the second half and knocked in 10-of-10 free throws.

I don’t want to pump my ego; I have been wrong before (at least once), and I am far from the only reporter to suggest that Scott should have played a more prominent offensive role in games past. But at halftime, I turned to a fellow reporter and told him that if the Cavs can’t get the ball to Scott against one of the worst frontcourts in the conference, they won’t against anyone.

And so, the Cavs marched back. Had Virginia had some energy left for the stretch run, in which Maryland scored on 13 of its final 15 possessions, they just might have pulled it out.

“If we were down 5 or 6 points at halftime and did what we did, the mindset of the game, not just the execution, those last five, six or seven minutes probably would have been a little different,” Leitao said.

Now, as advertised, back to the culprit: the first half. Simply put, the quest for the Cavaliers to play defense with any degree of consistency continues.

Following Virginia’s loss to Bradley last season in the CBI semifinals, which capped a season full of lamentable defensive efforts, Leitao told reporters that this year’s team, if nothing else, would play defense. Lock-down defense leads to fruitful offense, he repeated. The 2006-07 team was too focused on out-shooting its opponents, players insisted.

But, as last night’s opening half indicated, the woes are far from over. In the first half, Leitao tried everything. He started man-to-man, but the Cavs’ feet looked like they were in bags of sand — whether keeping players in front or rotating in help. When that failed, Leitao offered a 3-2 zone, which is a new wrinkle this season — not a bad thought against a Terrapin team without much of a post threat. Here again, holes emerged, and then it started raining threes at Maryland’s end of the floor — 4-of-7 at the half, to be exact.

Perhaps most embarrassing, however, was Virginia’s transition defense in the opening period; the Cavs were out-scored 16-0 on the fast break at halftime. In the transition game, failing to stop the ball and failing to protect the hole are the two cardinal sins; Virginia committed both.

“I think it’s just communication issues,” junior guard Calvin Baker said. “You can’t just stay with your man — you’ve gotta find the open man.”

Moreover, as Leitao reads Virginia’s defensive statistics compared to the rest of the conference — both last night and all season —  the furrow in his brow must nearly reach his eyelids. Scoring defense — last. Field goal percentage defense — last. Three-point field goal percentage defense — 11th. Turnovers forced — 11th. Even rebounding margin, which has generally been a strength under Leitao, and which should continue to be a forte with the addition of 7-foot freshman Assane Sene — the Cavs sit at just eighth.

Cavalier fans can all be sympathetic to some offensive mishaps. Even Leitao admitted that his team would be prone to some dry spells. When a freshman, Sylven Landesberg, is your go-to scorer and your returning high scorer from the year before, senior Mamadi Diane, is in the worst shooting slump of his life, some sloppy possessions are to be expected.

And sure, the same can be said for a young team at the defensive end — but to a significantly lesser degree. Does on-the-ball defense become a greater challenge and help defense become much more precise? Absolutely. In addition, it doesn’t help when you are turning the ball over, as Virginia did 13 times in the first half last night. But, as any basketball mind will tell you, defense is about effort as much as anything else. When you’re getting beat in transition and your feet are glued to the floor, inexperience is not to blame.

“I think we weren’t playing with a sense of urgency in the first half,” Baker said. “In the second half, we felt like we had to defend just to come back.”

I still have faith that, in time, Leitao and the fellas will buckle down on the defensive end. But when the mantra at the end of one season moving into the next is, “We will play D,” and the Cavs continue to say, “Ole!” as opposing offenses charge through Virginia’s red-cape defense, something has certainly gone awry.
 

Tonight, for the first time since Dec. 4, the Virginia women’s basketball team will play coming off a loss.

After falling 103-74 to then-undefeated No. 2 North Carolina Friday, the Cavaliers (14-3, 1-1 ACC) will be forced to respond to their first lopsided defeat this season. No. 16 Virginia has an opportunity to return to its winning ways in Blacksburg tonight, when it takes on a Hokies squad that has struggled thus far.

Virginia Tech (8-9, 0-4 ACC) has been unable to edge a conference or ranked opponent this season. The Hokies are playing without last year’s ACC-leading scorer, senior guard Brittany Cook, who continues to be plagued by injuries and has yet to appear in a game this season. Tech junior forward Utahya Drye, averaging 13.8 points, and junior guard Lindsay Biggs, averaging 13.5 points, are together scoring just 9 points more a game than Cook averaged last year.

Despite a disappointing early season record, however, the Hokies have shined from time to time, including during a Jan. 16 matchup against No. 4 Duke. Though the Hokies fell 57-52 in the end, they were within a possession of the Blue Devils with a minute remaining in the game.

“That is the best I’ve ever seen Virginia Tech play,” Duke coach Joanne McCallie said after the game. “They did some outstanding things.”

No matter what level of play the Hokies bring, the Cavaliers must remain focused on what they can do to improve their own performance, which is how Virginia has responded to adversity up to this point.

Though the loss to the Tar Heels was their biggest of the season, the Cavaliers have found themselves in a hole before, and it has been in such moments of trial that the team has responded best this season. In the first half of its ACC opener against Wake Forest, the squad fell as far as 16 points behind, but the Cavaliers managed to bounce back with a 24-0 run to top the Demon Deacons. Similarly, Virginia overcame a late deficit to beat then-No. 5 Tennessee 83-82 in Knoxville.

Furthermore, the Cavaliers have yet to drop two games in a row. In games following their previous two losses, Virginia has managed to rebound with two of its most resounding victories of the season, topping opponents by winning margins of 34 and 24 points, respectively.

Perhaps the Cavaliers’ resiliency can be traced to a pragmatic approach espoused by Virginia coach Debbie Ryan.

“The first [rule] of holes is stop digging and get rid of the shovel,” Ryan said.

With Ryan’s direction, Virginia will look to improve in the areas in which it struggled Friday during its loss to North Carolina.

First, the Cavaliers will have to shoot better from the floor if they wish to succeed in their upcoming tough conference tests; Virginia made only 37.5 percent of its field goals at Chapel Hill. At the same time, the Cavaliers struggled to control the ball effectively, giving up 22 turnovers while only dishing out a total of 10 assists.

One player who contributed to Virginia’s poor assist-to-turnover ratio was senior forward Lyndra Littles, who turned the ball over five times and failed to tally a single assist in the game. Littles, however, made up for her poor ball handling performance by hitting eight of 17 shots and totaling 21 points, good for second highest on the team.

Littles’ explanation for the Cavaliers’ toughness in the face of a challenge this season is a bit less philosophical and a bit more direct than that of her coach.

“We just played hard,” Littles said of previous Cavalier wins following a loss.

Regardless of how simple or complex the mindset the Cavaliers choose to take is, they will look to tonight’s matchup against rival Virginia Tech as a chance to reverse their recent misfortune.

Freshman Lindsey Hardenbergh chastised herself after she stroked a forehand into the net. Down 5-3 in the third set of the final match of the U.Va. Winter Invitational Monday evening, Hardenbergh appeared beaten, both physically and on the scoreboard.

“I was just making too many errors,” Hardenbergh said.

Already with a USTA Futures event victory under her belt, however, Hardenbergh gathered herself like a pro. With all of her teammates already having finished their matches, the crowd, the coaches and the athletes gathered to watch Hardenbergh break the serve of her opponent, senior Sophie Grabinski of North Carolina. It was the first of four consecutive games she won en route to an emotional 6-4, 5-7, 7-5 victory to wrap up Virginia’s spring season debut at the Boyd Tinsley Tennis Courts.

The preseason No. 41-ranked Cavaliers competed in what was, in essence, simulated match play against No. 14 Arkansas Saturday, No. 50 Utah Sunday and No. 18 North Carolina Monday in the invite. Had the individual matches counted toward a team score­ — as they will during the rest of the season — the Cavaliers would have posted a 6-1 victory against Arkansas Saturday and a 5-1 defeat against Utah Sunday. Hardenbergh’s triumph, meanwhile, would have secured a 4-3 victory against the visiting Tar Heels in the Monday finale.

“That’s why you play tournaments like this, so that at least one player — but hopefully our team — has that three-all moment,” coach Mark Guilbeau said of Hardenbergh’s clinching victory Monday. “It’ll really be an advantage for us when it comes to that in the future.”
Though Guilbeau noted that he was happy with the entire team’s technical skills and fitness in this measuring-stick tournament to begin the season, he noted that he, assistant coach Troy Porco and his players must synchronize their occasionally mixed signals before all the chips fall into place.

“I’ll tell you personally, I think I’m challenged right now as a coach to feel good that maybe there’s a complete level of respect from the team in terms of listening,” Guilbeau said. “We’re only trying to help them. When they work with us and share thoughts and listen with a real respectful mind and heart, they do incredible things.”

Another concern for Guilbeau is the health of senior Maggie Yahner, who is still recovering from microfracture surgery on her knee that she had during the off-season, Guilbeau said. Yahner took a couple of spills during her matches this past weekend, one of which forced her to retire Sunday with the score 3-2 in her opponent’s favor. She returned to play Monday but appeared tentative on her aching knee, falling 6-3, 6-4 to North Carolina freshman Haley Hemm.

Yahner has “got [to] be a little careful, and I think as coaches, we’re being very careful to make sure that she doesn’t overdo it,” Guilbeau said. “I’m not [going to] say she’s at full speed, that’s for sure — definitely moving really well in the doubles, but we’ve gotta get her moving at that same level in the singles.”
Guilbeau also added that freshman Claire Bartlett did not compete this weekend because of an injury and that the team hopes to add an eighth player to the roster if she can become eligible, though Guilbeau did not disclose the name.

With his six active players, Guilbeau experimented with several new looks, as occurs nearly every year during the annual U.Va. Winter Invitational. In singles, junior Jennifer Stevens, who played primarily at the No. 2 singles slot last season after playing No. 1 her freshman year, played at the No. 1 position during the weekend. Meanwhile, last year’s top-slotted player, senior Amanda Rales, played at the No. 3 position Saturday and Sunday and No. 4 Monday.

With the top spot in singles, Stevens also earned the right to take on the No. 2-ranked singles player, senior Aurelija Miseviciute of Arkansas, during Saturday’s matches. Though Stevens fell to the Lithuanian 6-4, 6-1, Guilbeau said that Miseviciute “snuck” by Stevens in the first set with “probably just 2 or 3 points difference,” he said.

Freshman Emily Fraser, the nation’s preseason No. 82-ranked singles player, won in straight sets at the No. 4 position Saturday and Sunday and was then bumped up to No. 2 Monday. She responded with a convincing 6-2, 6-3 victory against No. 103-ranked North Carolina senior Austin Smith, becoming the only Cavalier to end the weekend with an unblemished 3-0 singles record.

“To go from four [seed], and then step right away and play two, and handle that just so well, I think that’s a real positive for her,” Guilbeau said. “That gives this team an incredible option.”

Hardenbergh played at No. 2 for the first two days before being bumped to No. 3 after Fraser was moved to No. 2. Sophomore Neela Vaez, in her first year with Virginia after transferring from Purdue, played at No. 5, while the ailing Yahner played at No. 6 throughout the tournament. All but Yahner were victorious Sunday; Fraser was the only Cavalier to find victory against Arkansas Saturday.

Guilbeau would not disclose what lineup he would use for tonight’s matchup with Old Dominion but was pleased with the singles results over the weekend, particularly with the revamped lineup against North Carolina.

“I feel good about the way we played [Monday],” Guilbeau said. “I like that lineup.”

In doubles, two newcomers, Hardenbergh and Vaez, were the most successful, as the duo squeaked out Virginia’s lone doubles victory against Arkansas 9-8, while contributing to the doubles sweep of Utah with an 8-5 win at the No. 3 doubles slot. The No. 32-ranked pair of Fraser and Stevens competed in the No. 1 doubles position; the duo’s one win against Utah was sandwiched by two losses to the No. 8-ranked tandem from Arkansas and the No. 15 duo from North Carolina.

Guilbeau mixed up doubles pairs at the No. 2 and No. 3 positions Sunday, putting Hardenbergh with Vaez and Yahner with Rales; both pairs emerged with victories.

“It’s pretty cool to have six kids and to have so many different options,” Guilbeau said. “I think that speaks really well of them, of what they know how to do individually on the doubles court.”

After a light day of practice yesterday, Virginia faces an Old Dominion squad today that is coming off two 7-0 sweeps Saturday against Liberty and Norfolk State. The Lady Monarchs feature one ranked singles player in No. 88 senior Charleen Haarhoff and one ranked doubles team in the No. 40 duo of Haarhoff and sophomore Nadine Fahoum.

The Virginia men’s tennis team started its season on the right foot last night, topping No. 64 William & Mary 7-0 at the McCormick-Nagelsen Tennis Center in Williamsburg. The victory extended the Cavaliers’ regular-season winning streak to 35 straight matches and also marked the third consecutive year the squad opened its spring season with a shutout of the Tribe.

The Cavaliers stymied any William & Mary upset hopes early, sweeping the doubles point. At the No. 1 doubles spot, junior Houston Barrick and sophomore Sanam Singh easily cruised past the Tribe pair of junior Keziel Juneau and sophomore Sebestien Vidal 8-2, while the Cavalier duo of senior Dominic Inglot and sophomore Michael Shabaz managed to squeak out a 9-8 win in the No. 2 position. Junior Lee Singer paired with freshman newcomer Drew Courtney to earn a win at the No. 3 spot for Virginia.

On the singles side, the Cavaliers were just as impressive, winning all six of their matches while failing to drop a single set in five of those six contests. Inglot led Virginia with a hard-fought 6-3, 3-6, 6-2 win against Juneau in the No. 1 spot, while Shabaz, ranked No. 11 in the ITA singles’ polls, easily dispatched senior Marwan Ramadan 6-3, 6-1 to earn a victory at the No. 2 position. Singh (No. 3), Barrick (No. 4), Singer (No. 5) and Courtney (No. 6) also added individual victories in the Cavaliers’ win.

Virginia opens its home season this weekend with matches against No. 15 Illinois Friday and No. 30 Notre Dame Sunday at the Boar’s Head Sports Club.

—compiled by Cayce Troxel

A recent Trojan brand condoms ad campaign, “Evolve,” involves pigs “evolving” into men by using Trojan condoms. While these advertisements may be clever, they are also ironic in the sense that condoms evolved from pigs to men, too; that is, from pig guts to man-made materials.

For centuries, men and women throughout the world have been using various forms of condoms to lessen the risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease during sexual intercourse. Beginning with the ancient Egyptians, who used a form of the condom to protect themselves from disease and infection, condom use spread to Europe and is even depicted in French cave paintings, according to a “History of Sex” available at the Durex Web site. The first published use of condoms involved a linen sheath used to protect against infection during the syphilis epidemic in Europe. In addition to the linen sheath, tortoiseshell and leather, oiled paper, fish bladders and animal guts have also been used as condoms throughout history, the history states.

The condom was officially given its name in the 1600s, but the true origin of its name has remained in question. While some people believe that the word “condom” derived from “condus,” the Latin word for “receptacle,” others believe that it was named after Dr. Condom, Charles II of England’s physician who made sheaths of animal guts, the history notes.

Regardless of its etymological origin, the introduction of the rubber vulcanization process in the mid-19th century made it easier and less expensive to turn rubber into a strong elastic material — providing an ideal material for a new form of condom. The rubber condom was favored until 1930 when manufacturers discovered liquid latex. According to the online history, the latex condom has been the least expensive, most effective and most popular form in the history of condoms since that discovery.

In addition to the development of latex condoms, condoms have continued to change in regards to size, shape, color and even flavor in response to ongoing technological advances and the consumption habits of various societies. Most condom brands now offer standard, large and extra large sizes in various styles — such as lubricated, thin or ribbed — and an assortment of colors and flavors to appeal to anyone and everyone.

“There are definitely more brands and types available now than when I started working in Student Health 20 years ago,” said Christine Peterson, gynecology director and physician at Student Health.

Second-year Engineering student Allison Kilanski agreed that condom makers have increased the range of condoms available.
“Condom manufacturers have changed condoms from simple sex protection,” she said. “Now they attract users by offering things such as ‘her pleasure,’ ‘his pleasure,’ flavors and colors.”

Condoms have grown in their ability to prevent pregnancy and disease since their days as linen sheaths and animal guts, and will, as Peterson put it, “undoubtedly” continue to do so. Not many University students interviewed, however, admitted to actually using some of the more unusual types of condoms on the market today.

“I’ve never used one,” an anonymous University student said of colored and flavored condoms. “I think they just draw attention to the brand.” Second-year College student Alex Waggoner, meanwhile, called them “novelty items.”

Novelty items or not, condoms of all kinds have evolved in more than just looks; the condom’s general reputation in our society has changed as well.

“Availability has made them less taboo,” Waggoner said. “Also, the fact that you don’t have to be a certain age to buy them is important.”
If age is not an important factor, what factors do influence who purchases condoms? A 2004 study conducted by the sociology department at Auburn University-Montgomery considering an individual’s actions when purchasing condoms found that 103 of 142 females were first-time buyers, compared to 13 of 74 males. Twenty-nine females indicated that they were not embarrassed to make the purchase; many said the reason for not being embarrassed was prior purchase. Others remarked that it was simply “a responsible thing to do.” The study also found that males were more likely to make the purchase alone than females were.

University students, some of whom preferred not to be identified by name due to the personal nature of the topic, offered different answers to the same question regarding who should provide condoms, often taking into consideration the circumstances of the relationship.

“The boys,” an anonymous female University student said in response to the question. “Because girls are in charge of birth control; however, I do think it’s different for people who are hooking up and for those in a serious relationship. If you’re just hooking up, it’s definitely the boy’s responsibility. If you’re in a relationship, then it’s both people’s responsibility.”

An anonymous male student agreed. “I think it’s the guy’s responsibility to buy the condom,” he said. “He’s the one that’s using it, so he should have it.”

Second-year Engineering student Craig Paxton, though, noted that both sexual partners should be responsible for having condoms.
Although opinions on who should buy condoms differed among students interviewed, many seemed to agree that condoms should be used when engaging in sexual intercourse. Along with the physical evolution of the condom and its changing reputation, educational promotions also have been developed to tell people about condoms and promote their use. Students can learn about and get free condoms through various online organizations, as well as from Student Health on Grounds, which offers students standard Trojan condoms through its “three for free” educational promotion, administrative assistant Jay Nottingham said.

Something most college students aren’t thinking about when they’re out partying with their friends is the potential long-term effect alcohol can have on a baby. And unfortunately, as is the case with so many things involving reproduction, the onus for responsibility regarding alcohol and babies rests with women because everything that goes into a woman’s body also affects her baby.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is characterized by permanent birth defects that result from maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. It consists of a group of symptoms that include severe birth defects, vision and hearing deficiencies, mental retardation and behavioral problems, such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. FAS also results in a characteristic facial appearance including a smooth philtrum (the groove between the nose and upper lip), a thin vermillion (upper lip) and small palpebral fissures (the space between upper and lower eye lids). The severity of the facial abnormalities correlates with the degree of neurological impairment, which, roughly translated, means that the more abnormal the child’s facial features are, the more likely that child also suffers from severe mental and neurologic deficiencies. There is no definitive data to show that increased alcohol intake by a mother leads to more severe symptoms in her child, but more severe symptoms seem to be related to the amount of alcohol the child received in the uterus. In other words, a mother who drinks two to three drinks a week might have a child who is severely affected with the problems of FAS, while a mother who drinks 20 drinks a week might have a child who is less affected, simply because the former child absorbed more of the alcohol than the latter.

There are also physical deformities of the brain that are regarded as manifestations of prenatal alcohol exposure. These include microcephaly, agenesis of the corpus callosum and cerebellar hypoplasia. Microcephaly is small head size as determined bay comparing the child’s head circumference to standard growth charts to assess how many standard deviations below normal the child’s head size is; more than two standard deviations below normal is considered microcephaly.

Agenesis, which refers to an organ’s or physical body’s failure to develop, similarly can cause severe problems and can affect communication and coordination skills. The corpus callosum is the tract of axons from neurons that connects the two hemispheres of the brain. Without a corpus callosum, children develop low muscle tone and experience motor problems, including delays in meeting motor milestones. They also might experience speech and language difficulties as well as difficulty processing facial cues — leading to social disabilities and difficulties chewing and swallowing. Agenesis of the corpus callosum can cause seizures and low pain perception, which may lead to children suffering injuries without being aware that they are in pain. Cerebellar hypoplasia means that the cerebellum — the part of the brain that coordinates motor control, sensory perception and coordination — does not fully develop and reach its normal size. Children with underdeveloped cerebellums suffer from similar problems as those without corpus callosums.

But FAS is not the only condition that can result from prenatal alcohol exposure. There are many other conditions, collectively known as Alcohol-Related Birth Defects, that can occur with FAS or independently from it. ARBD include heart problems like temporary murmurs, septal defects or even severe heart conditions that often require surgery. There are also skeletal and joint anomalies that can be minor or severe, kidney problems ranging from lack of kidneys to small or malformed kidneys and spina bifida. Eye problems can include strabismus or improper alignment and optic nerve hypoplasia — an incompletely developed nerve to the eye — that can lead to sensitivity to light and decreased visual acuity. Unfortunately, despite the afflictions of FAS and ARBD on children, little data has been collected about the exact physiological effects because conducting a live human study about this topic is considered unethical. Thus, the only data available is incidental: mothers who happen to drink while pregnant and the condition of their babies.

While there is no cure for FAS, it can be completely prevented by not drinking during pregnancy. Even this, though, can be problematic. It might seem simple enough to tell pregnant women not to drink, but it is not nearly as simple to tell “not-pregnant” women not to drink. The problem becomes apparent when one considers that most women do not even know they are pregnant until they are at least four to eight weeks into the pregnancy, which means they might still be drinking during that time period. Those first few weeks are often the most critical for fetal development, and so the alcohol intake has the greatest impact during that time period. Thus, the most conservative recommendation many health professionals make is that women of reproductive age — including college students, of course — should not drink because they might become pregnant and not know they are pregnant until damage has already been done to the baby.

This recommendation extends to women who are on birth control — because no method is 100-percent effective — but does not include women who are abstinent from sexual activity. As mentioned earlier, this is another case of women having to take the majority of responsibility for reproductive health, but being able to give birth to new life is a pretty cool thing.

Katie is a University Medical student. She can be reached at k.mcbeth@cavalierdaily.com.

Yesterday we witnessed the historic inauguration of Barack Obama. His election, and the new administration he brings with him, represents the changing political ideals of American voters. Voters felt strongly about issues such as economic stability and international policy, and they asked for change. Alongside these issues are important others — our attitudes toward the most effective ways to educate young people about sex and how much freedom people should have in deciding whether or not to have children, ranging from ease of access to birth control to the more highly charged issue of whether abortion is permissible.

At face value, sex and family planning seem like issues that could be left to families. But it is clear that we feel differently about how the issues should be handled because we accept that the government has a say in how we may create and structure our families, and we attempt to abide by the rule of law. No matter which position you take on the sex-ed issue or the abortion issue, many of us do not discourage our politicians from passing legislation on how we may conduct our sexual lives. And our politicians, whether conservative or liberal, seem willing to take up the issue.

Especially as far as abortion is concerned, the problem is that the discussion itself is so polarized that we haven’t yet been able to work out any sort of acceptable compromise. We tend to frame the issue in terms of pro-life versus pro-choice, where the fundamental assumptions on either side of the argument are so different that the debaters end up just talking past each other. The two camps disagree about the point at which life begins. They argue about whose life matters more — that of the mother, or that of the fetus? Finally, they argue over whether the state is qualified to make that judgment. Passions run high, and it’s not a pretty picture. There seems to be a lack of common ground upon which to base a solution.

In these debates it seems that we lose sight of what should be our first priority: those people we are trying to help. By quarreling endlessly, each new administration passes a flurry of laws that accord with its own ideals. The government has wide leverage and vast resources, yet it sometimes misses the opportunity to help people. Who can argue that women would be helped by a government focused on more long-term solutions, such as eliminating the need for abortions by working to remove the stigma surrounding pregnancy and adoption? The government could work to improve foster care services, as well as to open young people’s access to accurate and comprehensive sexual health information.

An even more serious aspect of this debate stems from the fact that our decisions concerning sexual conduct and education can extend beyond our borders. For example, many have praised former President George W. Bush for being so attentive and proactive toward the worldwide spread of AIDS. This is admirable. On the other side of the same coin, however, the policy has meant that clinics in Africa, for instance, lost their funding when they did not teach the exact abstinence-only curriculum the Bush administration promoted. If these clinics lose their funding, then they cannot provide condoms — one of the simplest and most cost-effective ways to prevent the spread of HIV — to their patients.

The point of this is not to criticize the Bush administration’s attitude toward sex education, nor to prescribe the policies I think are right. The point is to highlight problems that such disagreements can create for those who have few means by which to participate in our political process. Because our nation struggles to find a consistently neutral definition of harm — as evidenced by the debate concerning abortion — we should focus on moving away from legislation that focuses on short-term bandages. Rather, we should formulate a definition of help and harm that we can all agree upon and then ask that our politicians create long-term strategies that address underlying problems.

The question of how best to address our sexual health is exceedingly difficult to answer. What is more, it will only become an even greater challenge in a world increasingly connected by commerce and travel, because diseases and their consequences do not respect international borders. This is yet another reason why our (inter-)national discourse on sexual politics needs to be realigned, so that we may form a basis upon which to create lasting change.

Andrenne is a fourth-year College student. She can be reached at a.alsum@cavalierdaily.com.

For many, the arrival of the new year means not only celebrating the end of one year but also looking forward to a fresh start in the next. Many people vow to make personal improvements, such as saving more money, becoming organized, trying new activities or keeping in touch with old friends.

But when it comes to New Year’s resolutions, one particular topic seems to dominate year after year: the goal of losing weight, getting in shape and developing more healthy, nutritious eating habits.

Eating a healthy, well-balanced diet can be especially challenging for college students, though. Many students do not have kitchens in their dormitories, apartments or houses. Those who do have access to stoves, grills and ovens, meanwhile, often find it difficult to shop for, plan, prepare and consume well-rounded, health-conscious meals regularly.

“It’s hard to try and cook for one,” fourth-year College student Abena Apraku said.  

As part of her New Year’s resolution, Apraku said she enrolled in a physical education class and vowed to be more mindful of making healthy dietary choices. She said she feels that the healthy food options offered by the University’s dining halls and facilities such as Pavilion XI are often unappetizing.

Second-year College student Mohamed Amin echoed Apraku’s frustration. “I don’t have a car, I can’t grocery shop, so I rely on [University Dining Services],” he said. Amin added that students’ lifestyles contribute to poor nutritional decisions; often it is easier for students to grab something fast or to eat on the run.

Lisa Womack, Education School exercise physiology faculty member, said she thinks money is also a factor.

“Part of it is cost,” she said. “Students are trying to be conscious of how much money they spend. Going to the grocery store and buying fruits and veggies seems expensive.”

Fast food, she added, is much cheaper and requires less preparation time, making it even more convenient for the busy lifestyle of a college student. This temptation, Womack said, can be overcome by planning ahead and “just focusing on making healthy choices.”  

Womack suggested keeping boxes of whole grain cereal on hand for a quick, easy snack that is also relatively healthy.

“Avoiding that 2 a.m. Little John’s run is huge,” Womack said. “People certainly don’t need another 800 calories right before going to bed.”

She again emphasized planning, suggesting that if students know they will be overeating a little on the weekend, they should make up for it by being more conscious of what they eat during the rest of the week.   

“Another challenge is that so many social events center around food and alcohol, so students get a lot of extra calories on the weekend,” Womack said. Dining out in restaurants also can be dangerous because restaurant meals can usually be equated with “more fat and huge portions,” she added. To avoid over-consumption in social situations, Womack said she suggests “hav[ing] rules for yourself when you go in there. Once you start drinking and being social, you’ll pick up anything even if you’re not really hungry.”

Beyond the essentials of portion control and self-restraint, the health-minded eater should carefully monitor liquid calories.

“People don’t seem to recognize the calories they drink as much as the ones they eat,” Womack explained, citing carbonated, alcoholic and coffee drinks as being especially high in calories.

Being conscious of both calories consumed and calories burned is essential to maintaining a healthy weight, Womack said.

“The problem is people aren’t regularly exercising to the level that they need the kind of caloric intake they are getting,” she said. “I don’t think everyone realizes that it’s easy to consume 600 calories, but not so easy to burn it off.”

One essential change is decreasing fat intake, which can be achieved at first by cutting back on non-nutritious junk food, Womack noted.
“People need to understand [that] if they decrease fat, they will decrease calories, because fat has nine calories per gram, while proteins and carbohydrates have only four,” Womack said, also noting, “it’s not that you can’t ever eat the things you want, but [when] it comes to deciding what to eat, just ask yourself if it’s worth it to have it.”