As college students we all seem to experience hookups that end abruptly and unceremoniously. We all get the bragging rights and experience points, but the one-night stand stands alone, with nothing more resulting from it.

But what about the continual secret hookup? And what if this secret continual hookup becomes emotional. And what if it involves a separate relationship?! Dizzying — I know. That’s why I am here to demystify the very treacherous terms of what I have deemed “secret sex.”

Secret sex — you know, the sex you have behind your friend’s back, the sex that you dare not post a single status about — not even declaring “it’s complicated.” Now the actual sex is not so tricky in the land of secret sex, you just have it. You may enjoy the lack of responsibility and emotions with secret sex — it is all very friends-with-benefits, save the bragging and familiarity.

These relationships can be identified with text messages from midnight to 5 a.m. and constant lies strewn together to your friends and roommates. There is no commitment and there is no boundary ever put in place.

If this carefree and somewhat simple sex seems appealing and gives you quite a little thrill — well then do it. All you really have to worry about in this simple form of secret sex is yourself and your emotions; other than that, pick an attractive partner you can handle for a couple of hours and have the time of your life.

Most of these purely sexual relationships are built out of convenience and ease, as no relationship is really wanted on either end. Most routes don’t end up like Kristen Wigg and Jon Hamm’s did in Bridesmaids, but if they do, the ease of the entire relationship makes the termination even easier — just don’t text back.

Now where things get tricky and completely muddied is when secret sex is a secret to be kept from someone — I’m talking about cheating. Secret sex becomes emotional and ultimately destructive. What drives these complicated secret sex relationships are pretty primal — passion and the rush of it.

If you’re sneaking behind backs and sleeping with someone who isn’t your significant other, this probably applies to you. Think about it — most television shows, movies and books that deal with any type of cheating are wildly popular. You introduce a hot and heavy forbidden love romance into a storyline and it adds a whole different level of intrigue, and affirms the desire of many to pursue it.

Cheating is bad and we know that — morally it shouldn’t even exist, but it does and any clandestine relationship is never going to end well. To be in a secret relationship doesn’t ever benefit either party; every person involved is going to be hurt emotionally one way or another.

If you find yourself with the question or the possibility, or if you are already participating in a side relationship, you need to separate the ideal and romance of being the “other” man/woman and the reality of the fact that these relationships are usually destructive.

I find that people who cheat are not satisfied with what they have. It is an old adage as well as a truthful one. So it’s not likely that they’ll be satisfied with another partner. Sexual attraction fizzles, and once anybody participating does get bored it can turn into a bigger mess than you are already in.

How about avoiding them? You can do that — I know it is extremely difficult to resist being a lover, a mistress, a side squeeze — but if the repercussions of a secret relationship are something you never want to go through, there are ways to deter it from happening.

Have limits with people in relationships. The fun of flirting with a married TA or that barista at Starbucks you know is in a relationship — we’ve all been there and we can stay there. Just know that it will never be. And don’t accept advances, unless you want to end up like Myrtle Wilson at the end of The Great Gatsby.

Sexual inquiries for MARISSA HERRERA can be sent to mdherrera@ucdavis.edu.

A letter to Chancellor Katehi:

We, as student organizations under the UC Davis Division of Student Affairs and representative of the diverse student body, condemn the event “Islamists Rising in the Middle East: Where Next for America?” where Daniel Pipes, Elan Journo and Larry Greenfield are invited to speak. The event will take place at UC Davis on April 11 at 7 p.m. and is hosted by the UC Davis Ayn Rand Society. Pipes, Journo and Greenfield have past histories of speech that demonstrate racism and Islamophobia that clearly transgress the principles that the University of California and UC Davis are meant to embody. Some of these statements include:

— “Muslims today increasingly carry the banner of anti-semitism and constitute a physical threat to Jews.” (Pipes 1997)
— Pipes justifying Japanese internment and calling for government authorities today to take “common sense steps” towards Muslims in America “by registering their whereabouts, profiling them, monitoring their mosques, or infiltrating their organizations,” in an article titled “Japanese Internment: Why It Was a Good Idea — And the Lessons It Offers Today.” (HNN 2005)
— Journo claiming that “the objective superiority of Western culture is apparent” to dismiss the presence of multiculturalism in curricula, which he describes as a “concerted effort to portray the most backward, impoverished and murderous cultures as advanced, prosperous and life-enhancing.” (Journo 2004)
— “Obama has been in denial about … the brutality of Sharia governance, the Islamic culture of oppression of women through honor killings and female genital mutilation, and the continuing Muslim assaults on Christians throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa.” (Greenfield 2013)
The principles of the University that are being undermined with such speech:
— These statements/speakers threaten the maintenance of “a climate of justice marked by respect for each other” that the University strives for. (Principles of Community)
— These statements/speakers sever the University’s ability to “foster mutual understanding” among the diverse groups within the student body as they allow racist ideologies to be spread and legitimized through UC Davis. (Principles of Community)
— These statements/speakers do not make UC Davis a campus that is welcoming to any race, religion, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation, and have direct implications on the safety of students on campus.

We acknowledge that UC Davis regards free speech as a principle of community. However, we will not support speech that is racist and has no purpose but to further ignorance throughout communities. We do not support speech that will alienate communities and legitimize stereotyping. We do not support speech that builds the very prejudice and discrimination that the University should be working against in order to foster a campus that is rich in understanding and intellectual growth.

Thus, as the University acknowledges “historical and deep-rooted understandings and biases” in our current society, we expect, by extension, it will acknowledge that the ideologies being furthered by the speakers serve to perpetuate the irrational fear and “othering” of Islam and Muslims (Islamophobia) which have material implications on the safety and sense of belonging of our peers.

We expect the University will follow its own protocols and sanctions, which include the confrontation and rejection of such hate speech that is “based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs.” (Principles of Community)

The University’s neutral stance against such speech has allowed it to tear at the fabric of our community and is detrimental to the very principles that UC Davis strives to accomplish. We expect the University to take a stance against such hate speech.

The undersigned include 24 signatures from student organizations, faculty and staff. If you would like a list of these signatures, please contact Mariam Aejaz at maejaz@ucdavis.edu, Eddie Truong at edtruong@ucdavis.edu or Kriti Garg at kgarg@ucdavis.edu.

For the last five weeks, I have been serving as a clinic escort for the Women’s Health Specialists in Sacramento. My job is to protect clients entering the clinic from harassment. This experience has truly exposed how far away we are from truly accessible abortion care.

I’m often told that women’s rights or women’s health care has already been achieved, that feminism is a thing of the past, that our current world is free of sexism or gender injustice.

Those claims — claims that argue that our work is done — often run through my head while I stand in front of 25 anti-choice protesters telling me that I am a murderer or “anti-women.”

According to their website, The 40 Days for Life “is a focused pro-life campaign with a vision to access God’s power through prayer, fasting and peaceful vigil to end abortion.”

However, during this “pro-life,” anti-choice campaign, my experience has not been peaceful. Yelling at cars, following within a foot of me whispering about my supposed “sin” is not peaceful. Telling me that I “hate” women is not passive prayer. Although we have an ideological difference, I do believe that these people have a right to protest me, in the same way I have a right to protest them.

But this is not just standing up for their belief or their god. These protesters spread scientifically false medical information, telling clients as they drive by that abortions cause breast cancer or “birth control kills.” This has been proven false — the American Cancer Association has repeatedly stated abortions do not cause breast cancer.

The Women’s Health Specialists, in addition to providing abortions, have an adoptions program. Women’s Health Specialists provide free birth control, pregnancy screenings and pap smears regardless of gender, sexual orientation, documentation or insurance coverage. These services give women choices — choices to control and predict their pregnancies and reproductive health.

Working as an escort has revealed that achieving reproductive justice is not so near. It has shown me that in a country of “progress” we still have huge barriers to overcome for women to be able to have autonomy and control over their health and their futures.

Rachael Valler
Fourth-year women and gender studies major

Didn’t Gov. Jerry Brown just spend six months on the campaign trail at our college campuses telling students over and over again how Proposition 30 was going to save our schools from some terrible cuts?

Well Prop. 30 passed, and the state government is expected to collect as much as $60 billion in new taxes as a result.

A deal is a deal right? We, the students, helped pass the tax increase but out of the $6 billion that Prop. 30 will bring in this year, the UC schools are only getting $125 million. When you add up all the money going to the UCs, Cal State Universities, community colleges and K-12 schools, public education is getting barely half of all the new tax money.

So why isn’t all that new money going to education as promised and more importantly, where is it going?

Well, Gov. Brown and the Democrats who run the state legislature seem to have forgotten their promise and are spending the money on other pet projects. According to the Governor’s 2013-14 budget:
— $502 million in additional spending per year on state employee raises
— $1.2 billion additional spending per year for Medi-Cal, CalWorks and In-Home Services
— $3.1 billion in additional spending for the Governor’s High Speed Rail Program

California schools have been hit hard in recent years. Budget cuts, tuition jumps and teacher pink slips have become the norm. Prop. 30 was supposed to fix all that.

It is time that we students begin asking the Governor what happened to that promise? When will education truly be a priority? And when can we expect the rest of that money?

Rosie Dale
Fourth-year political science and psychology double major