Joey Brown, against sex-related funds:

Are students already so saturated with knowledge of Renaissance humanism or the evolution of constitutional democracy, say, that colleges can happily reroute resources to matters readily available on porn websites? writer Heather MacDonald asked in a recent City Journal opinion piece.

Unfortunately, questions of this nature are too infrequently asked on college campuses.

Consequently, funds that would otherwise be spent on actual university functions like academics, sports or dining are instead spent on butt plugs, vibrators, artificial vaginas, edible underwear which, though I suppose is used for dining, is decidedly not a buffet choice at Cook Commons and anal beads.

Generally, these are items youd expect to find advertised on infomercials at 3:00 a.m.

These aforementioned items, by the way, were offered at North Carolina State Universitys Dirty Bingo event, one similar to UVMs Sex Bingo.

And, if those funds arent spent on recreational suppositories and high-fructose undergarments, they might be used to pay for what the academics call a sexual dialogue.

Recall, back in September, the I Heart Female Orgasm presentation, for which posters were stapled up with a whopping distance of about three inches between each other.

If you didnt attend, Marshall Miller, the author of the presentation, gives an excellent synopsis of the event on the UVM event website.

The basic premise of the presentation is that because high school disseminates information about sex in too cursory a fashion for Miller, additional tips are needed, specifically those that portray sex in a more positive, fun light.

To hell with trivial matters like pregnancy (lame) and STDs (boring!). Miller would much rather have gym teachers encourage their students to ascertain whether or not the sports equipment serves any sexual purposes.

Even at the university level, is it not insulting that, after four years of high school, the University feels that it must offer its clients tips on how to masturbate appropriately?

Moreover, do these programs even remotely conform to the main objectives of the university? Heres a radical idea: people go to college to learn.

Orgasm aficionados, as Miller and his acolyte Rachel Dart call themselves, condescend when they take your money that, by the way, you need in order to stay here and tell you that your hand motions arent conducive to achieving the orgasm they find most desirable.

Moreover, the alleged objective of these programs promoting sexual health and womens empowerment is flawed right from the start.

First of all, what part of sexual health involves jamming beads in your butt? How does using an artificial vagina make you healthier? Its nothing that even your doctor would prescribe, no matter how avant-garde he claimed to be. Purchasing sex toys is simply not an appropriate use of student fees.

Secondly, how does having promiscuous sex empower women?

Noted columnist and comedian, Steven Crowder, explains why it doesnt:

Has the whole floozie shtick really empowered any women out there? I would imagine that immediate sexual gratification being assumed in modern relationships would do more damage to your gatekeeper status than good. Id also have to imagine that sex with someone whom you share trust, loyalty and open communication would be far more liberating than the thrill of any one-night stand.

The fact that the university feels it must spend student fees on these sex programs is, at best, a gross misuse of funds and, at worst, a grave injustice.

Josh Gachette, proponent for sex-related funds:

A reservoir of resources regarding sex and personal wellness is essential to the health of students everywhere.

Each of the 10,192 undergraduates enrolled at our institution brings with them their own set of personal and cultural experiences that inform their knowledge about sex.

Nationally, as many as 25 percent of all college students have previously had or currently have a sexually transmitted disease.

People ages 15 to 24 account for one in every two new STD cases.

This statistical backdrop makes misinformation a major liability to students wellbeing and legitimizes the need for a university-run sexual health office.

But the worn out debate over sex-ed often comes to the forefront.

The most obvious opposition to the offices efforts is a discomfort with sex being discussed in a non-private setting.

However, the advantages of having an open dialogue should not be lost simply to appease the occasional snicker or uncomfortable squirm.

We ought not take for granted that all students have had comprehensive sex education, so it becomes the responsibility of Health and Wellness to ensure all students are safe in their respective private matters.

We must consider sexual educational initiatives as a public health tool not through the prudish lens of shameful carnal desire.

Members of the group Young Americans for Liberty have expressed outrage over North Carolina State Universitys decision to spend $304.69 on a few edible undergarments, the Fifty Shades of Grey book and game, six vibrators, four surprise packs, three dildos, a toy cleaner, lube, a sex game, a sex position book, an anal plug and a booty booster.

These items were given as prizes at a Dirty Bingo event. YAL North Carolinas co-chair Emma Benson said that it is repulsive that a public university spends mandatory student fees to account for the cost of the prizes.

Fiscal conservatism is commonly used in efforts to stall schools sex-ed initiatives. However, when figures are taken into account, the argument quickly loses its legs.

Each individual students contribution is statistically negligible.

In the case of the University of Vermont, the general fund, the source of Health and Wellbeings money, is just shy of $300 million. Seventy percent of that is from student tuition.

Of that possible funding, the office is allocated $7,152,394 for all of its services. Arithmetic reveals that each student is accountable for $382 of Health and Wellbeings operating costs approximately .007 percent of its budget.

As long as no student is forced to participate in a sexually-charged school-run event, there is no debate to be had. The school is funded in part through collectivism. Students tuition dollars are pooled and account for some of its operating costs.

The argument of I dont want to pay for a program that I disagree with reveals ignorance toward how collectivization works.

We all have to pay for something we dont like at some point or another.

There are clubs affiliated with political and social ideologies that I disagree with. The funding that goes to them comes from the general fund.

So, in keeping with the holiday, find yourself that special someone, swing by your local drug store for some mass-produced chocolates and a wilted rose, and hope that come sundown, the sparks fly.

Just be thankful that Living Well can help you pick up the pieces if the night gets a little too sweet.