2008 Woodie Awards
Message lost at sex fair
Danny Mathis
Issue date: 2/27/06 Section: Forum
- Page 1 of 1
I don't think I'm the only one who tried to stifle a deep, throaty laugh when news surfaced of a campus organization known as Feminists United and its attempt to sell chocolate treats set in the mold of a vagina.
I became confused and disoriented when, to my sincere and absolute shock, the sale of these sexual delights was actually allowed by the administration.
When I later heard the sale of these treats would fund an event known as the "sex fair," I figured the only possible conclusion: somewhere in the last few weeks, I stumbled into the Twilight Zone.
Much to my disappointment, Rod Serling never came to the rescue.
Last Wednesday's sex fair, which I was unable to attend, saw mixed opinions from students. The workshop dealing with tantric sex and booths where students would reach into a box and try to guess that contraceptive simply set the fair up for flak.
The goal of the event was to teach college students about sex-a noble deed. However, the message might have been lost somewhere between the chocolate vaginas and the aphrodisiac booth.
From my moderate perspective, it seems as though Feminists United recently stumbled upon the First Amendment and decided to treat it much like a child would a new toy.
This event did very little in the way of constructive educating (again, let me reiterate that such a goal in and of itself is noble) and simply widened the divide between conservatism and liberalism here on campus.
In a country starkly separated on so many levels, it's sad to see an event that had really great potential transformed into a fest of uncontrolled liberalism.
Students searching deep within themselves for who they really are and what they really believe in may have been completely turned off to the liberal movement because of the outlandish, over-the-top way this event was presented.
The plan probably was not to alienate and over-exaggerate their movement to the point of absurdity, but that may be just what happened.
No better way could this be illustrated than the attempts to hold a "consent tent" at the event.
The plan was to have two people consent to doing a deed for 90 seconds, and then spend that time in a tent by themselves.
The administration blocked this proposal and issued the curt reply that there were liability issues with such a tent.
Had I been the one issuing the release, it would have sounded a little more like this: We chose to disallow the consent tent due to the level of blatant idiocy that it must have taken to concoct such an unreasonable idea.
On a more serious note, I've heard that this organization plans to hold future fairs such as this, and I can honestly say I support that. The concept of a fair to increase student awareness about sex is genuinely a good idea.
However, I feel the way in which it was done this first time around was ineffective and flamboyant.
dmathis@unews.com
I became confused and disoriented when, to my sincere and absolute shock, the sale of these sexual delights was actually allowed by the administration.
When I later heard the sale of these treats would fund an event known as the "sex fair," I figured the only possible conclusion: somewhere in the last few weeks, I stumbled into the Twilight Zone.
Much to my disappointment, Rod Serling never came to the rescue.
Last Wednesday's sex fair, which I was unable to attend, saw mixed opinions from students. The workshop dealing with tantric sex and booths where students would reach into a box and try to guess that contraceptive simply set the fair up for flak.
The goal of the event was to teach college students about sex-a noble deed. However, the message might have been lost somewhere between the chocolate vaginas and the aphrodisiac booth.
From my moderate perspective, it seems as though Feminists United recently stumbled upon the First Amendment and decided to treat it much like a child would a new toy.
This event did very little in the way of constructive educating (again, let me reiterate that such a goal in and of itself is noble) and simply widened the divide between conservatism and liberalism here on campus.
In a country starkly separated on so many levels, it's sad to see an event that had really great potential transformed into a fest of uncontrolled liberalism.
Students searching deep within themselves for who they really are and what they really believe in may have been completely turned off to the liberal movement because of the outlandish, over-the-top way this event was presented.
The plan probably was not to alienate and over-exaggerate their movement to the point of absurdity, but that may be just what happened.
No better way could this be illustrated than the attempts to hold a "consent tent" at the event.
The plan was to have two people consent to doing a deed for 90 seconds, and then spend that time in a tent by themselves.
The administration blocked this proposal and issued the curt reply that there were liability issues with such a tent.
Had I been the one issuing the release, it would have sounded a little more like this: We chose to disallow the consent tent due to the level of blatant idiocy that it must have taken to concoct such an unreasonable idea.
On a more serious note, I've heard that this organization plans to hold future fairs such as this, and I can honestly say I support that. The concept of a fair to increase student awareness about sex is genuinely a good idea.
However, I feel the way in which it was done this first time around was ineffective and flamboyant.
dmathis@unews.com
