Horizons: More Than Meets The Eye

By Jessica Rougeau

Senior Staff Writer

If someone told me that I’d continue writing for a newspaper after high school, I would have easily bet them a million dollars that they’d be wrong. Thank god I didn’t, or else I’d be homeless, using Horizons newspaper as a blanket.

Journalism was never my thing. However, writing is. So I constantly found myself working for school newspapers to try to get over the animosity.

My first semester writing for Horizons was definitely a learning experience. While I was still harboring the cynicism of previous papers, the overall atmosphere immediately felt different than that of others.

Professor Steve Mark had a great deal to do with acclimating not only me, but each and every one of us. If you've never written for a paper before, the process can be quite daunting and overwhelming if you do not manage your time and keep your eyes open. Steve stressed this, but also provided some words of wisdom. He said that it's a beneficial opportunity to grow as a writer and observe the sights and sounds around you.

I instantly felt comfortable and anxious to start my first story. I clearly remember brainstorming what kinds of things I wanted to write, and thought back to what I had always wished to write on other papers but was never allowed to: oh yeah, music reviews! And it was then that "Rock Your Face Off" reviews were born. I highlight this as an important moment for me because I was never considered in writing them for other newspapers. I appreciated the chance to do it for Horizons.

Besides sharpening my creativity, the class placed me in a position to work closely with every single one of my classmates, more so than any other class I've ever taken. You are constantly put into groups to critique another classmate’s writing or work. One on one, you swap your story with someone else. You have full support and access to new ideas through each drafting stage of your story. Everyone works together. It's almost like a family because many of us return the next semester to do it all over again. I've gotten to know some people on staff on a personal level, and I can't say the same for any other courses I've had.

I returned to the Horizons staff for my second semester knowing what I was in for this time, but open to learning more. I made it a point to try to write different types of articles to make myself more well-rounded. This began to affect my other school work in a positive way.

One of my professors, Joanne Rochman, taught my English class for my first and second semesters; an avid reader of Horizons, she was always the first person to read my articles the day the paper came out.

"I would definitely say that working on the paper has changed the way Jessica writes because she now knows how to organize her thoughts and interviews more readily. The ideas flow from mind to paper in a stream of consciousness. She knows what to ask and how to ask it, so putting the words on to paper is the easy part”, Rochman said. “She knows how to hook a reader, and can easily move from a lead in journalism to a hook in a composition or literature class."

Without this class, I would have no other way of feeling legitimately involved at Housatonic because of my busy schedule outside of school. Horizons gives me a voice to share my writing and ideas with anyone who chooses to open up one of our papers and read them. I’m more aware of things going on at the school, upcoming events and issues that I’d more than likely be oblivious to if I was not working this closely with the reporters who find out this information.  This will be the last article I write for the paper, so I’ll be sure to type this last sentence as slowly as possible…

Want to learn more about writing for Horizons?  Go to the advisor's home page at http://homepage.mac.com/stevemark

Making Love Can Be Rough

Artwork courtesy of allposters.com

By Jessica Spadaccino

Staff Writer

A new sexual position…

The guys got to talk; now it‘s my turn.

 

Ahh, sex. After reading Cody’s and Brandon’s articles on the subject in the "Arguing with the Boss" section of Horizons, I have come to many conclusions about the wonderful and all-powerful experience called sex. The guys got to talk about it, so now it’s time to strip down to the naked details from a woman’s perspective.

In the two articles, Cody argued for "making love," and Brandon defended rough sex. So who is right?

Cody is telling the truth when he says most people do enjoy sex; it has been a hit since Adam courted Eve. But what makes it so great? Is it the way we have sex, or is it more?

According to foxnews.com, a survey was conducted by a doctor in London to see how many women achieved an orgasm during sexual intercourse.  Out of 4,000 women, 32 percent said that they were unable to orgasm more than a quarter of the times they had sex. 16 percent of those women said that they never achieved an orgasm. Some argue it is because of genetics; I say it is performance.

The orgasm is a beautiful thing. It not only physically makes you feel amazing, but emotionally also. According to goaskalice.colombia.edu, endorphins are released into the body when a person orgasms. Endorphins are natural substances created by the body to relieve pain, and when they are released the person’s stress levels decrease and feelings of happiness increase. So if anyone has ever told you “you need to get laid,” you probably do.

There have been arguments that the orgasm isn’t necessary every time intercourse occurs, but I strongly disagree. Without the orgasm, sex feels unfinished. Yes, sex does feel good even without a climax. But come on, girls! Aren’t you tired of faking it? The main goal of sex is to make your partner feel amazing, and an orgasm is the only outcome that will leave you completely satisfied. Now the only question remaining is how to reach a climax.

Making love is something that only virgins dream about. The gentle hugs, the soft kisses, the “euphoric haze” as Cody called it- it’s all crap. Soft-core sex is nice, but I don’t want to have sex with Pooh Bear. I want to feel something other than my partner sobbing on my shoulder. Whispering sweet nothings is a great mood enhancer, but is not going to get your partner to a climax. You have to get physical.

But not too physical. Rough sex can be great, until you are sweating, out of breath, your partner is flopping on you like a dying fish, and you still haven‘t climaxed. In sex, as Brandon pointed out in his argument, it is okay and sometimes much needed to be rough. Going wild during intercourse allows both partners to release stress that has been building for a while, but only if it ends with the big “O”. Rough sex without a climax can only lead to greater frustration, and it won’t be pretty.

A balanced blend of rough love-making is what’s needed for the perfect sexual experience. If you and your partner are having rough sex every night, and you are among the 16 percent of women who have never had an orgasm, tone it down. If you have to ask your partner “Is it in yet?” maybe you two should speed things up.

Testosterone levels in men are obviously high, and that is the reason they crave sex more than women (in most cases). The chances of finding a man who can guess exactly what you want during intercourse is slim to none, so let them know ladies! There is no reason why those percentages should be so high! Men don’t have a reputation for being the best listeners, but when it comes to sex you will have their full attention. If you tell your partner exactly how you want it done (or don’t), they will listen. They’ll take sex any way it comes, and you will be getting it the way you like.

Sex is a very important and necessary part of life - so why not enjoy it? With more sex, the world would be a better place; endorphins would be set free from the prisons of the prude, and people could have natural and legal highs. Rough, gentle, upside-down, backwards: as long as you and your partner are both safe and willing, it doesn’t matter how you do it. Sex is one of the only ways to relieve stress free and legally, so go crazy! Scratch, bite, kiss, lick, touch, have fun! You only live once, so you better live life to its climax.

The World Without Us Shows People Their Own Shadows

New book about a possible new world.

By Brandon T. Bisceglia

Op/Ed and Online Editor

A real world without us in the Bialowieza Puszcza.
Photograph Courtesy of wilki.most.org

What will the human legacy be? To answer that question, perhaps it is best to ask another: what would happen if every person was removed from the planet tomorrow?

That is the scenario that journalist Alan Weisman ponders in his new book, The World Without Us (St. Martin's Press, 2007). Weisman enlists a bevy of experts, from paleontologists to nuclear technicians, to help readers imagine how the Earth would function if all the humans were suddenly whisked away. He travels to such places as the Bialowieza Puszcza of Poland (the last remaining “primeval forest” in Europe), and the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, to see first-hand some examples of what nature does in the absence of human intervention. The connections he infers from the figures, theories, and observations he collects can often be astounding.

Houses collapse in a matter of years. The Manhattan skyline is toppled in a few hundred. Most “timeless” art is quickly subsumed. In all but a few cases exposure to air, water, and intruding flora undermines human creations pretty quickly. Throughout its pages, The World Without Us again and again reveals the tenuous grip that humanity has on its institutions.

What emerges from this deconstruction is an even more intriguing picture of what we actually leave behind. Bronze art survives relatively unscathed for perhaps millions of years. Our most treasured historical sites probably crumble within a few thousand, but the faces carved into Mount Rushmore survive as long as the mountain does. Most enduring (and disturbing) is the persistence of polyethylene polymers – plastics. Plastic molecules appear never to break down into simpler matter, which means that man’s imprint may be here on a microscopic level in the form of destructive indigestibles for an indefinitely long period of time.

The World Without Us is a bit sketchy in its presentation of timelines for the decomposition of the human imprint. The shifts from scene to scene can become confusing for the chronological learner. About halfway through the book a semi-clear pattern emerges, as simple deconstruction analysis gives way to a wider speculation about the planet’s future.

This inside-to-outside approach forces the reader to make connections both horizontally and vertically. The effort almost pays off. The book takes the reader to many places, but then sets back down again without really making a solid point.

At moments, there are flashes of purpose. Weisman’s book also explores other ways that mankind’s influence may continue to ripple in concentric waves of devastation. Some catastrophic possibilities are lain out like wildcards throughout the book: refineries and nuclear power stations that could become toxic disaster areas within weeks, for instance. There’s no telling what cumulative impact these calamities would have on the Earth. The increasingly-present issue of global warming also raises major questions. The effects continue to build after we exeunt, but predicting the outcome is literally as difficult as predicting the weather a year from now.

One nearly expects the author to proselytize after several chapters about the terraforming of Europe and the masses of plastic accumulating in the Northern Pacific Gyre. But that never quite happens. Despite all the apocalyptic speculation, there is a prominent focus on the pervasiveness and perseverance of life threaded throughout the text. By considering myriad examples from past to present, Weisman shows how plants and animals adapt to our meddling, even as we drive some to extinction and turn the general environment into a volatile cauldron. An inspiring illustration lies in his description of the post-Chernobyl landscape. Many plants and animals have already evolved to propagate and flourish despite levels of radiation so high that no person could traverse without full radiation gear. The persistence of life is well summed by one scientist quoted in the book: “If the planet can recover from the Permian, it can recover from the human.”

Even barring manmade cataclysms, an ultimately ironic caveat presents itself to the reader. The next ice age, whenever it comes, will quickly annihilate most human achievements as glaciers press over nearly every major settlement currently on the planet.

Although it doesn’t quite muster the force to stir the reader beyond rhetorical detachment, the most general implication of The World Without Us is that, given enough time, there may be nothing recognizable as human on the Earth. In that sense, the message of this book may initially seem somewhat morose. However, what it demonstrates is a more essential shift of paradigms. The struggle for posterity, timelessness, and immortality is at the end of the day based on a fallacious belief in a permanence that simply does not exist.

Weisman seems to say that man’s final legacy, no matter what, will be to become part of the nature from which he has sprung. Our greatest achievements can never be those that attempt to impose on nature. Instead, they might just be those that seek to preserve its endless array, and to make sure that we do not disrupt the balance that holds us, too, on the precipice.

Perhaps that in itself is enough of a call to action. After all, we will each find ourselves in real trouble on some tomorrow.