Letters to the Editor 2/21

To the Editor:

I read your article on Ravenstahl’s mayoral announcement, and I am glad to see The Pitt News covering this issue closely. However, without proper context, I don’t think it’s obvious to students just how it affects them.

This article does not mention that Ravenstahl tried to pass a tax on student tuition. I understand a point need not be hammered continually, but The Pitt News has yet to make any reference this cycle to the fact that Ravenstahl is the one who proposed a tax on student tuition that was fought by Pitt administrators and student leaders.

I was also disappointed by another notable omission: Pittsburgh’s status as a distressed municipality. You see, as much as Ravenstahl can try and take credit for shrinking the debt and keeping taxes low, every budget that he submits has to be approved by a state board issued due to Pittsburgh’s distressful financial situation. This governing board deserves much of the credit for this fiscal responsibility. And who is responsible for bringing in this state oversight? It’s actually City Councilman Bill Peduto, one of Ravenstahl’s main challengers this cycle. As a representative of much of North Oakland, he also fought hard to prevent the passage of the tuition tax in 2009.

The author notes that few students were present at Ravenstahl’s event; I imagine that’s because the more informed students are waiting till Thursday night, to show their support for a candidate that has continually stood up for students: Councilman Bill Peduto.

Thanks,

Philip Thompson

Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences

To the Editor:

Though the article about S&M from last week’s Sex Edition makes an honest attempt at neutrality, both the pro-S&M and anti-S&M positions that were presented illustrate how differently we talk and think about some interests as compared to others.

For example, the S&M-supportive sex therapist is quoted as saying it’s “important to distinguish between” those who perform S&M in bedroom play and those who publicly represent their interest, such as by displaying handcuffs or a whip. But out of all the diversity within S&M, what makes this distinction so important? After all, we don’t make a big distinction between those who merely have intercourse in their bedroom and those who “live the lifestyle” of discussing sex with their peers, kissing passionately in public, talking about which celebrities are hot and singing along to songs about sex on the radio.

Then there’s the political science professor who worries that someone who practices S&M “might carry her experiences with her to her next relationship, where her partner might not be OK with it.” One wonders why the professor doesn’t worry about those who have intercourse carrying their intercourse experiences to the next relationship, when their next partner might not even be OK with intercourse — they might want only S&M, or even no sexual activity at all. It is only because some activities are assumed to be the default desires that the professor’s worry doesn’t prohibit all sexual activity ever. Remember — all desires require communication, not just some of them.

Sincerely,

Kevin O’Leary

Pittsburgh resident