The Runner

Comments (5)

All The Runner Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • W

    Wendell RickettsNov 13, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    Apparently Gracia or The Runner’s editors removed the ignorant and offensive comments of an earlier version of this article; to wit: “You don’t know who you are meeting up with on the other side of that stall, you don’t know if they have a clean bill of health, if they are HIV negative or if they have protection.”

    Aside from the fact that Gracia doesn’t understand that singular nouns take singular pronouns, the very silly, very 1980s idea that anonymous sex is by definition unsafe was evidently too embarrassing to leave in the text. As for the line about how “you don’t know if [the other person has] protection”: No, you don’t. Which is why you bring your own.

    But the sentiment remains, both in the vague and unhelpful statements of Erika Delamar (who also can’t manage to get her pronouns … um … straight) – “As Delamar points out, you can never really be sure…. ‘How do you know they’re clean unless you’re asking or unless they’re bringing test results?’ she said.” – and in the Gracia’s closing lines about “having sex responsibly.”
    If that’s the best Gracia and Delamar can do to broach the subject of safe-sex education and human sexuality, I worry for the health of Bakersfield students.

    It’s revealing that Gracia used a very tiny news items as the opportunity to write an hysterical and sex-negative piece that’s 1/3 about the glory hole and 2/3 about STDs. Why?

    How does Gracia know that whatever sex has taken place at that glory hole was unsafe or irresponsible? Will Gracia now be advocating for the policing of dorm rooms and the restrooms of bars and discos, where straight people are notorious for having casual sex?

    And what is “responsible sex,” by the way? Gracia never says clearly. Of course not. Because the whole point of using a word like “responsible” is to badger and shame people; in the context of health education, it means precisely nothing and has no utility whatsoever.

    What’s more, the article’s emphasis on “security” (and tacit criticism of the fact that “there is no type of security to be seen” in the vicinity of the 4th floor bathroom) is frightening in its implications. While people may object to the idea that sex is going on in a public bathroom, they are hardly placed in danger by it. There’s no need for security”—unless Gracia intended to raise the specter of predatory homos stalking innocent men in the bathroom.

    With this disgraceful, misleading article, Gracia missed a great opportunity to talk about sexuality—and an even greater occasion to get over a troubling squeamishness about sex.

    Reply
  • V

    Vincent MalfitanoNov 9, 2014 at 7:47 am

    Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you penning this write-up plus the rest of the website is really good.

    Reply
  • W

    Whitney WeddellNov 8, 2014 at 1:36 am

    I am troubled by the publication of this article, and the ensuing publicity on local tv. I hope this does not lead to anti-gay hate crimes on campus. Was it just a slow news week? Or, are we going to have an article on dorm sex in the next issue? Maybe locker room antics after that? The sensationalism of this article and the picture accompanying it is shameless. Hope you sold some papers.

    Reply
    • S

      Steven BarkerNov 10, 2014 at 4:55 am

      Hello Whitney! My name is Steven Barker, and I’m The Runner’s News Editor this quarter.

      First of all, I want to thank you for sharing with us your thoughts on this article. I’m very happy to have the opportunity to interact with our readers.

      I’m curious about your comments regarding the ‘sensationalism of this article.’ As described by the university chief of police, sexual acts involving the glory hole are illegal. This illegal activity involved the vandalism of CSUB’s property, and this illegal activity was taking place on our campus. That in itself constitutes good news value for the story.

      To continue on, there are no anti-gay quotes from anyone involved in the story. Our writer even includes an encouragement to seek testing for sexual health, as evidenced by the sentence: “The cost of protection and testing should not deter students from seeking assistance.” She provides information regarding some services by our Student Health Center shortly after.

      That being said, could you talk more about what is sensational about this to you?

      Reply
      • L

        LizNov 12, 2014 at 2:53 am

        I concur with Whitney. The news coverage of this alleged “glory hole” was included Ch. 23, citing your article, with 3 students making specific homophobic references. Please note from this article, “According to Martin Williamson, the university’s chief of police, there are municipal codes and statutes that define acts, such as receiving oral sex in the men’s restroom, as criminal.” The Chief is referring to sexual activity in the library, period. He is NOT referring to “this glory hole,” nor has any other confirmation been made this is a glory hole. A Craig’sList ad say it is, so it must be true? The National Inquirer says the Loch Ness monster is real, and that Elvis was spotted shopping at WalMart last week with Marilyn Monroe, so is that also true? Damage to this partition is 1 1/2 inches by your own description, rough, rusted, jagged, and dangerous to put ANY appendage in there. Let’s call it for what it probably is, most likely damage from where a trash container was broken off with age or wear and tear.

        Reply
Activate Search
Glory to the Hole