Imagine you are the last person on earth. There aren’t any proper animals—just a fully functioning ecosystem of trees, bacteria, and maybe some slime mould. The thought runs through your head, “why don’t I chop down the last kauri, just for fun”. If all we care about is not hurting people’s or animals’ feelings, it’s hard to say what would be wrong with bringing out the axe. But many people think it would certainly be wrong. So why should this last person protect the kauri? We might follow Ecuador’s new constitution and say nature “has the right to exist and persist”. But rights might only belong to rational actors, and tree’s ain’t actors, so they probably ain’t got rights either. Others argue that life itself, no matter how simple, has value. The problem they face is trying to explain why there is any value to living things that are just gross, like tuberculosis bacteria. An approach I like suggests that how we treat nature reflects our character. If we should want to be humble, frugal and mindful people, we shouldn’t destroy nature for no reason. But if you were consistently humble and frugal for all your life, couldn’t you reward yourself by destroying the kauri seeing as it won’t harm anyone?

Usually we have a good sense of whether we (as well as others) consider ourselves an extrovert or an introvert. Some individuals (known as ambiverts) have qualities of both extroversion and introversion.It’s also important to keep in mind that no one is purely an extrovert or purely an introvert, as Carl Jung once said. However, I believe it’s extremely useful for us to explore our own preferences, personality, and temperament. It’s usually thought that extroversion is ideal in our society, as extroverts are naturally good at interacting with others, whether that be with strangers or friends, are assertive, are highly social, and are risk-takers. We tend to associate extroverts with positive qualities and introverts with, well, qualities like quiet, bookish, and shy, as if they were undesirable traits.

Susan Cain, the author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, begs to differ. Cain is a lawyer and lecturer in the US and argues that introverts are largely undervalued in western culture and continue to be bypassed for leadership opportunities.

Cain believes we need introverts and “thinkers” for innovation, and notices that we need introverts in our culture and society. Ideally, we need more acceptance and appreciation of introvert-extrovert differences.

In counselling, it seems that students often associate introversion to being ‘socially awkward’ and believe that introvert characteristics are viewed as ‘bad’—something to change rather than something to accept. Students with these concerns often report having a difficult experience in high school, being bullied or teased.Instead of seeing ourselves negatively as ‘quiet’ or ‘shy’, we can see these qualities in a more positive way, such as: mellow, calm, laid-back, soft-spoken. And reality is that many introverts like to socialize and be around people as well! It just looks different. Normally, introverts prefer smaller scale social gatherings; for instance with a small group of friends, or one-on-one coffee meet-ups. No matter where you are on the extrovert/introvert scale, it’s good practice to ask yourself: what works for you?

Don’t force yourself to do something that’s unnatural to you. It’s important to be true to yourself, and pay attention to your strengths and creativity.

It’s okay not to like small talk!

Try to gain some awareness around your own temperament and allow yourself the environment that’s best for you to thrive and enjoy life.

If you are going to a party or larger social gathering, focus on striking up a conversation with one person at a time. And plan for some quiet time before or after the event.

If you would like to explore more about what your interface is with others and the world you could make an appointment to talk with a counsellor, contact the Counselling Service:

• Phone: 04 463 5310 
• Email: counselling-service@vuw.ac.nz 
• Visit: Reception desk, Mauri Ora, Level 1 SUB, Kelburn campus. 

Sometimes it mystifies Roxy that many otherwise entirely sensible people will show no inclination to go to the doctor when something is clearly wrong with their genitalia. Pussies and dicks are not invincible, and just like any part of the body, can get diseased or suffer from unpleasant medical defects. Many of these are treatable, often in perfectly painless and cheap ways, but left alone, can cause major problems with sexual function and fertility.

Now, some readers won’t believe this letter, and while Roxy has seen a lot, she hasn’t seen this. However, reliable sources (a quick Google search) tells me that this issue is not unique. In fact, on reflection, Roxy knows of women with similar issues, and it has always been part of the argument about whether female ejaculation is real (Roxy can’t do it herself, but isn’t going to call someone who says they can a liar). So what should your man do about it?

Well, the first thing he should do is see his doctor about visiting a urologist. There are a couple of reasons why. First, this whole “pissing on/in my girlfriend” (not that’s there’s anything wrong with that!) business is clearly not your thing, so his failure to seek treatment is jeopardising your relationship. Second, this issue could wreak havoc with his fertility. Urine is not a friendly environment for little spermatozoa to do their swimmy thing, and if he cannot decouple urinating from ejaculating, he may find children off the table.

Now Roxy is not a urologist, but it seems reasonable to guess that the problem has to do with the little muscles that control whether boyfriend’s dick is in pissing mode or cumming mode. For whatever reasons, your boyfriend’s muscles aren’t 100 per cent operational. A specialist should have therapies to help address this.

In the meantime, Roxy can really only think of one solution: make boyfriend go to the bathroom before you have sex, and for now at least, consider having him not shoot into your vajayjay, unless you think you can handle the urine douche.

Now the final thing to consider is how you broach the subject with your boyfriend. Your letter implies that you have raised it with him, but I assume nothing came of it. Now is the time to be more forceful. This clearly matters to you (since you were brave enough to write in), and it should matter to him (since it concerns his health). You have an obligation to both your partner and to yourself to make a good effort of convincing him that he needs to do something about this. Remember that he’s probably embarrassed and nervous about his condition, hence why he hasn’t gone to the doctor. Don’t treat him like there’s something “wrong” with him, and don’t talk about how gross or uncomfortable it makes you feel. Instead approach it from a health and well-being perspective, offer to support him, and then apply gentle pressure until he makes the right move.

If he continues to rebuff you, well, I guess then you have to ask whether the pissing is a potential deal-breaker for your relationship. A man who refuses to seek help for an issue that makes his partner unhappy and risks his own health is not a very mature man.

Oh and, boyfriend, if you’re reading this: go to the doctor. Now. Like, right now, pick up the phone and make a booking at student health. They’ll have heard worse, believe me. At least there isn’t pus and such.

<3 Roxy

If you have issues or concerns that you wish to discuss privately and confidentially with a professional, rather than a magazine columnist, Student Counselling Service can provide a safe place to explore such aspects of your life. The service is free and confidential. Phone 04 463 5310. Email counselling-service@vuw.ac.nz. Visit Mauri Ora, Level 1, Student Union Building. 

The realisation that my parents were fallible was for me the hardest thing about “coming of age”. Actually, it might have come a close second to the emergence of an apparently hereditary she-stache. Word to my mother: if Dad shouted you electrolysis, consider my own a follow-up cost. There is a real loss of innocence in discovering that your mother and father are no Carol and Mike Brady. Your parents did dumb shit and were hung up on dumb people and thought that the Government had money to burn and thus shouldn’t sell assets, just like you do. The only difference is that they threw up in the gutter outside an Exponents gig instead of outside Sandwiches.

And yet, if they’re so fallible—if my mother owns a fanny pack that has a hook for the dog’s lead attached to it, and my dad has an inexplicable penchant for checked Billabong shorts—how do they always manage to know what I should do in any given situation? If they make up two more of the poor unfortunate souls (gratuitous Sea Witch reference) that constitute most adults, then why are they always right?

Ignoring the obvious response, which is “Shut up, you tool, your problems are insignificant and your hair is greasy”, I think that the answer is to be found in my weird adolescence. My parents were never the enemy. They said things like “So no-one understands you? Go and have a listen to that disco panic band you like so much.” And they didn’t even get mad when I responded, mid-sob, with “You-are-so-uncool-their-name-is-Panic-exclamation-point-at-the-Disco.” My subsequent gratitude for their parental understanding has led me to defer to authority figures more than most. Cue the inevitable attraction to Steven Joyce. (You think that was a joke, don’t you? How sweet.)

A more practical theory for my parent-centric adolescence might be that our house backed onto a gully. Any sneaking out would have required tramping boots. Consequently, I spent no Saturday nights getting to know a Coll boy over four–not five–Archer’s mixers. Talk about writing tragedies not sins.

My mother, whose lack of formal employment I used to consider a flaw, was pulled over for speeding a few years ago and asked for her occupation. I cackled—like the dick that I am—from the passenger seat. Fuckssake, PC Plod. She doesn’t ‘not work’, she ‘has a myriad of skills that have never translated into a career’ (Ultimate party line. Can you tell that my father used to be a speechwriter?). To ungraciously reconcile that anecdote with a broader point, the acknowledgment that your parents are flawed requires subsequent acceptance that their shortcomings might just be things that you can’t contextualize at this stage of your life. Unsurprisingly, this recognition is not limited to one’s parents. Look, everyone is broken. Go back to bed.

But are we doing it right?

New Zealand rugby fans have always seemed to express their adulation or frustration with short, mumbled and more-often-than-not homophobic catch phrases that usually draw attention to how much of a wanker the referee is rather than song or dance.

Rugby is more of a sit-down-and-shut-the-fuck-up sort of atmosphere than the types of crowds we might find at soccer games at the Cake Tin or Twenty20s at the Basin.

Short, to the point. None of these ridiculously long songs which compare Wellington’s weather and the soccer team or conclude that not one single person in the crowd can ‘get enough of Durante’ (God I miss the Phoenix).

But this season, just to shake things up a little, the Hurricanes have bought out their own supporters group – ‘The Flying Squadron’. Much like the Yellow Fever and the Beige Brigade, they go to the games together, sit together, get drunk together and make as much noise as possible together.

Raised by a Scouse man on a diet of Premier League soccer I’m conditioned to think this is a brilliant step forward for the sport. After all, as far as I’m concerned, the closer rugby is to football the better. Further, the closer its fans become to the fine specimen of obese bald man which populate terraces in the UK, the better.

But then, at the Canes last weekend, and I witnessed the Flying Squadron first hand. Ouch.

A quick look at ‘the Squadron’s YouTube video tells you all you need to know. Four minutes of awkward song and dance – featuring the lyrical genius: “Ah, ah, (la x23)” – during which time members of the group do push-ups, cover Alanis Morissette (badly), and misspell the word ‘too’.

The result is an out-of-place and laughable mess of a bunch of blokes who are trying desperately to turn rugby into something it so very clearly isn’t.

Don’t get me wrong, good on them for trying to generate a new sort of atmosphere at the Canes. It would be something to keep us occupied as we realise there isn’t a World Cup for another three and a half years.

And I really do hope that the Flying Squadron can maintain our egg-ball fanaticism. But you could tell from the increasingly large band of empty yellow seats surrounding them that the general consensus remains: “sit down and shut the fuck up”.

We’ll have to wait until 2015 for the next big rugby buzz.

NZ First – Curwen Rolinson

Point number one is that we need to ensure the industry remains Kiwi owned. We also need to make the punishments for environmental violations more severe and actually enforce them. We need to engage Federated Farmers, and we must stop being complacent about the role of our dairy industry in ongoing waterway degradation.

ACT On Campus – Michael Warren

Proper enforcement of current regulation is all that is needed to make the dairy industry more sustainable. Politicians, lobbyists and environmentalists must understand that every new regulation is an extra cost on business, which inevitably affects New Zealand’s economic performance. The only way to increase our wages is if we increase our productivity, and that will not happen if the regulatory burden on business keeps growing.

Vic labour – Reed Flemming

Much needs to be done to make dairying, an important export sector, sustainable in New Zealand. This includes using water carefully for irrigation, treating effluent to protect rivers, having strict fertilising standards to safeguard groundwater and a comprehensive Emissions Trading Scheme including agriculture. To grow our economy and be a sustainable country we have to look at alternative exports, specifically in the high-tech sector to make a smarter, richer, greener New Zealand.

Greens@Vic – Harriet Farquar

Dairy farming is vital to New Zealand. It is imperative therefore, so as to future-proof our economy, bthat we protect our ‘clean green’ brand. Under the Government’s current plan, which further delays the introduction of agriculture into the ETS, the taxpayers are subsidising the pollution. We need a fair ETS, which puts in place the right economic incentives to encourage the industry to adopt sustainable practices, and maximise the long-term resilience of our economy.

Vicnats – Haley Mortimer

Agriculture is an ingrained part of New Zealand society; the ‘backbone’ to the economy, earning more than 40% of total export income. Environmental sustainability within the industry will come from the control of nutrient run-off; utilising pre existing legal bodies for water quality standards. Achieved through sector education and acknowledgment of the value of the natural capital and the wealth sustaining ability it holds.

As you’re probably aware by now, US President Barack Obama has announced his support for gay marriage – a first for an American President.

Obama made his views known in an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, after his Vice President, Joe Biden, had said that he is completely comfortable with gay people marrying earlier in the week.

At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

Social media lit up after the interview, but in practical terms, not a huge amount is likely to change. Obama was indicating his personal view. His preference is for an incremental process towards legalising same-sex marriages, leaving the final decision to individual states.

Openly gay media personality Dan News told Salient he’d like to see the President go further:

“I’d like to think he will take steps to make it law and not just leave it to individual states. Although, it’s a risky time for him to bring it up with the election approaching.”

Obama has, however, already taken some steps towards marriage equality. His Justice Department has stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of marriage, “a legal union between one man and one woman.” This has been occurring for over a year and by waiving a defence, Obama is attempting to extend the federal government’s economic marriage benefits—such as joint income tax returns and pensions—to same-sex married couples in states that allow same-sex couples to get married. Republicans, however, have signed up a former Solicitor General to defend the Act.

Leaving same-sex marriage to each individual state to decide upon could result in a lengthy process for nation-wide recognition. North Carolina voters affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman only the day before Obama’s interview.

Obama does have his hands somewhat tied. The United States is just that, a federation of states, meaning that its federal government does not have the power to legislate in every area. Going by current case law, only states may pass same-sex marriage legislation.

The statement can, and is, having other effects though, as pointed out by AaronandAndy.com’s Andy Boreham:

“Support for same sex marriage equality from the leader of the free world has a powerful, if symbolic, effect on queer rights throughout the world, which can only have a positive impact, in the long run, on queer and questioning youth. World leaders are feeling the pressure Obama has created regarding equal rights and this pressure should trickle down into change at a domestic level within states around the globe.”

The trickle down was experienced in New Zealand, with both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition passing comment on the legalisation of same-sex marriages.

Key stated that he said he is comfortable with the status quo, saying there is “no clamour” in New Zealand for gay marriage. He’s also previously gone on record stating that “it’s not a priority at the moment”, with the economy the greater focus.

Dan News believes John Key, along with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, needs to look into legalising same-sex marriages. At this stage, it’s likely gay marriage won’t be passed this term – the government’s legislative programme is currently full-up meaning any legislation would need to come via a Member’s Bill.

The National Party’s youth wing, the Young Nats, is in favour of same-sex marriages.

The Prime Minister’s personal view on gay marriage remains a closely guarded secret. At last year’s Big Gay Out, he refused to answer any questions on the subject, telling a live radio audience that they’d need to “wait for his book” to find out his position.

David Shearer supports same-sex marriages, although qualified his support by saying he’d need to see the proposal first.

Colin Craig could not be reached for comment.

HAMISH IS GENERALLY WRONG. TELL HIM WHY ON TWITTER: @MISHVIEWS 

People are agitating for action. One need only look to the myriad environmental groups doing admirable things across campus as evidence of this. But it’s clear from our environmental record that it’s not working.

When anybody makes a murmuring, they are told one of two things. Dogma one: New Zealand is but a lonely cluster of islands populated by a lonely cluster of people situated in a vast ocean at the periphery of all human activity. We’re insignificant to be of concern; we shouldn’t be leaders with regard to global problems. Dogma two: agriculture is the ‘backbone’ of our economy; any infringement upon this will jeopardise our national wealth and our national pride. Both of these answers miss the point. Let’s keep it simple.

On dogma one: Yes, we are small. But our greenhouse gas emissions are amongst the highest in the world per capita. We are not clean and we are not green. If we are causing harm to others, we mustn’t wait for someone else to move first.

On dogma two: It’s not about wealth versus subsistence, and it never has been. X per cent of New Zealand’s green house gas emissions are due to agriculture. The change that is necessary need not come at the price of prosperity. We’re too innovative to accept that.

So what maintains these barriers?

Old people. The baby-boomer generation’s insatiable thirst for wealth and excess polluted this fair world, and it’s their obstinacy that obstructs implementation of a comprehensive emissions trading scheme, sustainable transport plans, and political innovations like the recently-scrapped concept of a High Commissioner for Future Generations. They’d rather have the wealth and freedoms now, than a healthy world in the future. Because they won’t be here in the future.

Our politicians are mostly of that generation, and as the youth vote languishes in a delicious liquor-induced coma, it is that same generation that’s left to elect governments reticent to do anything about the world we have to deal with tomorrow. You’ve been robbed. You’re being robbed. Your children are being robbed. The robbers are our parents.

We lie to ourselves, and exhaust our energies by pretending change is just a re-usable shopping bag and a few eco-bulbs. Political change is what is necessary to give substance to these priorities. Let’s return to those action groups. Gen Zero, 350–there’s heaps of them, and they agitate for substantial change. Though the fact remains that most of us stay inert. We all ‘care’, but do little. This includes us two. Neither of us–despite our boisterous rhetoric–are members of any such group. Embarrassing. So it’s time to change that.

We have to because we have few options. We have infinite ambitions and infinite desires but live on a finite hunk of dirt-clad molten rock in the middle of space. We owe all that we have to that rocky ball, and, regardless of our remarkable ingenuity and finesse, our continued existence depends still upon that tiny rock. It’s time to tell those in power that we’re not happy.

In a time when the typical student eco-activist looks more like a hipster than the hippie of decades past, it can seem more of a challenge to pick him or her out from the masses. Yet, today’s activists can be still distinguished by the following traits:

For starters, you’ll more than likely have heard them. Coupled with the fact that environmentalists are generally well practised at bellowing protest songs, this year there has been an increase in the number of environmental groups on campus, the number of people joining them, and the number of events being held. These activists can be spotted juggling placards and posters, mini-whiteboards and a video camera in one hand, and a smartphone to help remind their friends to get to the next meeting or rally when they’re on the go.

Finally, your everyday greenie will doubtless be showing slight airs of overtiredness. They’d have every reason to—environmental friends I’ve spoken to talk of returning from weekend conferences in Dunedin by bus rather than a thirty minute plane ride, and waking up in the middle of the night with brilliant ideas for campaign launches involving underpants, bikes, and public transport.

Don’t get me wrong, environmental movements are an awesome, invigorating, and downright important thing to be a part of. But after fifty-odd years of environmental activism, “sticking it to the man” can still be an overwhelming task.

Luckily, here at VUWSA we’re also pretty keen on ol’ Mother Earth. This year we’ve lent a hand to environmental clubs by promoting events, helping to organise a flash mob, endorsing the acquisition of a High Commissioner for Future Generations, and writing submissions to the city council promoting student concessions on buses.

For students who want to reduce carbon emissions in their own lives, we’ve created a rad carpooling database for the trip back home for the holidays. Email environmental.officer@vuwsa.org.nz to register your interest, and look out for the Facebook page to find people with whom to share the cost of petrol, reduce emissions, and fall privy to a two-hour long game of I Spy. Win Win Win, I say!

Do you know how I know that you’re not interesting? Do you know how I decoded the fact that you’re not worth spending time on from your behaviour?

It’s how you talk about yourself. You keep calling yourself ‘crazy’. Or ‘mental’. Or ‘bonkers’. Or any of those labels that the terminally boring always paste on themselves.

You should know that by now that how you present yourself to the world and how the world actually sees you very rarely line up. You must be aware that the very fact that you have to forcibly manufacture eccentricity about yourself demonstrates that you are anything but interesting.

I, once, was meeting someone in their office—even if you know me, this is not someone you know*—and they were doing some photocopying. He was doing some photocopying in that he was standing near the photocopier as it spat out paper. The copier required no assistance. On his desk—charitably, three paces away—his phone rang. He threw his arms up in the air, sighed unnaturally loudly, said “Oh, it is mental around here!”, and then needlessly shuffled some papers before muddling over to the phone and finally answering it having worked himself into a sufficient state as to appear busy.

He then, having made a meal of the call, slumped down in his chair and told me how it was always “as crazy as that here!” He was bragging about how busy he was(n’t). He was manufacturing his life to seem as packed with activity as possible, because he thought that would impress me.

You have a lot in common with him. I know you feel insecure about your own personality, you don’t really know who you are (guess what? no one does). But how you work to medicate that swings too far in the other direction. You try playing the part of an interesting person and because, like everyone, you’re not very good at understanding what other people want or need, you become a gibbering annoyance. Wearing your fedora or pajamas or bunny ears or whatever the fuck you wear to seem whimsical, you jabber random things about the crazy things you like (that you don’t really like, you just say you do because they’re the kind of things a crazy mentaloid from planet wacky person like you would like), you parrot the jokes of the daring yet woefully unfunny webcomics and comedians whose careers are held entirely up by people like you pretending that they’re deranged enough to like jokes about babies being raped by kebab skewers.

I know that you have spent your whole life being told to be yourself and that you have no idea what that even means but you want to be interesting and the way to do that is to stop acting quirky or crazy and actually just start living. It is not as scary as you think to live outside of quotation marks.

Also, I know that right now you are thinking ‘That’s good, Uther’s getting rid of the phonies for me. Now I can be a true eccentric like I really am without being swamped by wannabes and fakers.’ Guess what? It applies to you too, buddy.

Oh, and also, I want to make really clear here that I am in no way addressing those with actual mental illness in this column, I am talking to those who adopt the labels of mental illness to seem interesting.

*He’s the guy who’ll bring up how he “discovered Fur Patrol”** in, without exaggeration, every conversation you have with him. 

**I heavily suspect he did not actually “discover Fur Patrol” but, no, I won’t, hold that against him.