Poor oral sex. Sentenced to a life of being the “back-up” method of stimulation for days when you don’t feel like getting too hot and heavy. Adding insult to injury is the fact that it is often viewed as an act that neither men nor women enjoy performing. She gives it for his birthday, he gives it when he’s trying to get something else. But, with a little love and understanding, I think oral sex can be brought back to the place it deserves.

Now, there are some people who really don’t find oral sex pleasurable. If this opinion has been formed on the basis of one or two lackluster experiences, I do urge you to give it a few more tries. But if you feel you’ve tried plenty of times and it still sucks (ha), then that’s completely fine, too.

If you’re someone who does enjoy oral sex, your partner may still be less than enthusiastic about performing it on you. This is not an insurmountable problem, but the solution relies on that old friend communication. Find out what’s making your partner hesitant. They may be worried about not being “good” at giving oral and don’t want to disappoint you. If this is so, assure them that you’ll provide them with feedback. The “oh, that’s good but a little to the left” type of feedback is helpful, the “OMGyousuckatthis” kind is not. If you’re the performing partner, relax. There is a learning curve when it comes to oral sex and your lover is more than happy to learn with you.

There are a few other ways to make oral sex more comfortable for both you and your partner. The first is to do some grooming of your nether regions. You don’t need to go for a total wax (unless that’s your thing), but some trimming of the pubic hair will make it easier for your partner to feel what they’re doing. It will also increase pleasant sensations on your end. In this same vein, paying attention to what you eat before the act is helpful. Pungent foods like onions will come through in taste and smell while something like pineapple will create sweet secretions. If you want a neutral atmosphere, the best approach is to drink lots of water. These considerations can make the area of interest more accommodating to the performing party, and some people also find it makes them less self-conscious about receiving oral attention.

Because oral sex – at least in mainstream culture – is often seen as a not-quite-sex act, there is a misconception about the role of protection. Consider the never-ending “spit or swallow” debate. The answer, from a safe-sex standpoint, is that the fluid in question should be going into a condom. Granted, the risk of transmitting STIs (sexually transmitted infections) is lower with oral sex than with other types, but the risk is still present for both infections transmitted via fluids and those that come from skin-to-skin contact, such as herpes. All of this means that you should put some type of barrier between the mouth and the area being stimulated.

The two most common types of barriers are condoms and dental dams. For those of you unfamiliar with them, dental dams are basically squares of latex that are placed across the vagina. Both they and condoms vary in thickness, so you can choose a style according to the level of sensitivity you’re after. Some barriers are also flavored for the enjoyment of the giving partner. You can find a selection of flavored condoms (plus other safe-sex materials) by checking out the LoveLab here on campus. Lastly, if you’re in need of a dental dam but do not have one on hand, do not despair. You can improvise by cutting a condom lengthwise so that it takes on the necessary shape.

Once you’ve gathered your resources and had a talk with your partner, you should be equipped to give oral sex the attention it deserves. My advice? Set aside some of your sexy-times just for oral experiments. Take turns giving and receiving, play around with positions. Find out what speeds and pressures really get you and your partner going. Just make sure to give your tongue and lips a rest afterwards.

SAM WALL found out that there are vegan condoms while writing this article. Find out more by writing sewall@ucdavis.edu.

If there is one thing Californians can’t resist, it’s being chic. And during the 2008 election cycle, high-speed rail was the political equivalent of a pair of six-inch Louboutin stilettos. That year, politicians from Barack Obama to Arnold Schwarzenegger relentlessly pitched trains as the sure-bet investment of the future. Enticed by rosy predictions of low costs and a revolutionized transportation system, Californians ponied up $9 billion to begin a rail project that would cement California’s status as a progressive (and hip) “big thinker” in transportation.

Since then, high-speed rail has become considerably less hip. The price tag has quadrupled, profit projections have dwindled, and red tape and legal battles have enmeshed the project in a cocoon of futility. The project has even garnered the unofficial nickname “The Boondoggle.” And as if the whole situation was not lackluster enough, the initial section of track will be laid between Fresno and Bakersfield — a train to nowhere.

Strangely (I’m being facetious here), most California politicians don’t seem to be grasping the problem. Unlike the voters (who, according to recent polls would reject the project 59 percent to 31 percent if a revote were held), Governor Brown and his mostly Democratic allies are standing firmly behind The Boondoggle. Of course, with his union allies hoping to get a slice of the pie when it comes to lucrative building contracts, Brown’s position is politically shrewd. In his “State of the State” address, the Governor trumpeted the project as visionary, and pledged to support it despite the state’s always-looming financial Armageddon.

But if the politicians won’t make the hard choices, mathematics will. Californians voted to approve $9 billion in seed money for the project in 2008. At that time, estimates placed the cost of high-speed rail at approximately $25 billion, with completion scheduled for 2020. Since then, cost estimates have ballooned to over $100 billion, and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has intimated that $117 billion could be required, depending on the route. The completion date has been pushed back to 2033.  And while the original estimate included Sacramento and San Diego in the line, the new estimate is only for a San Francisco to Anaheim route.

Current funding for the project consists of $9 billion approved by taxpayers and approximately $3.5 billion in federal money, leaving a shortfall of $85 to 100 billion dollars. That’s a lot of money regardless of the circumstances, but the number looms especially large when you are broke, as is the State of California. According to Governor Brown, the state faces a $9.2 billion deficit in the upcoming year. Worse still, the State Budget Solutions’ (SBS) annual state deficit analysis found that California’s total debt is a stunning $612 billion.

While the CHSRA claims that the trains would be profitable once completed, there is good reason to be skeptical. As reported in the LA Times, only two high-speed rail lines in the world — Tokyo to Osaka and Paris to Lyon — are currently profitable. And both traverse areas of higher density than the Central Valley.

With one of the worst business climates in the nation, and the ongoing exodus of skilled workers, state revenues are unlikely to increase substantially in the near future. The effects of California’s destitution are easily visible, as schools, pension funds, and the UC system are gutted to fill the gaps. But even though the state can’t afford the essential functions of government, supporters of high-speed rail apparently think that we should spend billions we don’t have to build a train to nowhere. California should consider the advice of SNL’s Chris Parnell: “Don’t buy stuff you cannot afford!”

Unfortunately, the entire high-speed rail debacle says something about the way California does politics — and it’s not flattering. All too often, voters and politicians in this bluest of blue states vote for bills and propositions based on their sexiness, not their practicality. High-speed rail sounded sleek, progressive and cutting edge, so like an impulse shopper at the mall, Californians were all too willing to put it on the card without checking the price tag. Ken Button, a transportation specialist at George Mason University, put it succinctly: “Californians have a tradition of committing funds first and thinking about who will pay later.”

High-speed rail may be progressive chic, but underneath, it’s just another big-government spending project destined for insolvency. Struggling to fulfill its basic obligations, the state really can’t afford to spend money it doesn’t have.  Perhaps it’s time to make fiscal responsibility fashionable again.

SAM HOEL can be reached at samhoel@gmail.com.

Thanks to the Occupy Wall Street movement, we have all heard about the wealth inequality in the United States among the top 1 percent and the 99 percent. This powerful statistic has caught on in the media and taken the country by storm. Statistics are a valuable tool for conveying information in a particular manner. But be careful, because the most important word in that last sentence was “tool.”

The vast majority of statistics are created with a purpose in mind. Statistics are used by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Contrary to the popular joke, no, 73.47 percent of all statistics aren’t made up, but they can be misleading if you don’t know how to pay attention.

For example, along with about 400 other students at Davis, I am one of the roughly 3 percent from out of state. (Yeah, we have to pay significantly higher tuition and wait for 10 minutes while the bouncers at de Vere’s play their version of 20 Questions, but when being harangued at the Quad to sign some petition we can say we aren’t registered California voters and get left alone, so I call it a wash).

Being from Seattle, I’m frequently asked about all the rain. Seattle has the reputation of a sad, depressing place that’s never sunny. But is it? Seattle receives over 150 days of rain a year. In November, usually the rainiest month for most cities, Seattle receives more rain than any other major U.S city. So I guess all the stereotypes are true, right?

Well, what if I told you that by annual rainfall, Seattle doesn’t even crack the top 10? With about 38 inches annually, we barely break the top 50, coming in at 44th. The actual rainiest city in America varies between Mobile (Alabama), New Orleans and a few cities in Florida, usually receiving around 65 inches of rain a year distributed over 60 days. From June to September, Seattle doesn’t even beat the average U.S. city in amount of rain.

By seeing different sets of statistics, even though they’re both true, one can be led to completely separate conclusions. Let’s return to the 99 percent. You’ve probably heard that the richest 1 percent of Americans owns about 40 percent of the wealth in America. This is pretty alarming. On the flip side, the bottom 80 percent of Americans own only about 7 percent of the wealth. This national income inequality is certainly a major concern, but is there an even bigger problem to focus on?

Well, if you don’t extend your gaze to the rest of the world, you’ll never know. But now let’s remember that America is only one of just under 200 sovereign countries in the world. If we decide those other 6.5+ billion people are worth mentioning, things start to look a bit better for even the poor of America. Take a second and try to guess what percentage of people in the United States doesn’t fall in the top 50 percent globally. We do have some pretty poor people here, right? So what do you think? Five? Ten? Twenty? No idea? Perhaps this will help. In 2008, it was estimated that the cutoff to be in the top 50 percent in global income was $2,138. So how many Americans pull in less than that? About 2 percent.

In fact, the poorest 10 percent in America would be among the richest 30 percent globally. In 2010, the poverty line for someone living in the United States was just under $11,000. Globally this would put someone in the top 15 percent. If you make triple the poverty level, $33,000, you would be in the global 1 percent. In today’s world, over 1 billion people live on less than $1 a day. If you want to experience real poverty, you’re going to need to leave America.

So what exactly am I getting at here? Well, if you haven’t noticed, we live in an age of information. There are many benefits to this, but some downsides as well. With so much information out there, it’s possible for almost anyone to cherry-pick evidence to back up whatever point they want. Political elites are especially guilty of this. So it’s important to keep an open mind.

Try to recognize what you aren’t being told and don’t just focus on what you are. And know that as Americans, even the worst-off among us have it pretty good. So next time you listen to an argument about what the 1 percent of Americans should be doing for the other 99 percent, stop and remember that, as Americans, we are almost all a part of the global 1 percent.

If you want DANNY BRAWER to convince you to move to Seattle so you can join him in cheering on the Sonics, let him know at dabrawer@ucdavis.edu.