Posted on 11/15/2005 4:35:22 AM PST by Aquinasfan
Don't bother to read through this moron's article. Skimming it is painful enough. Just skip to my summary at the end...
I had good reason to look for the Sex Power God posters this past week: A friend of mine had posed for them. Upon finding the posters, I was pleased to discover my friend and 15 other lusty-looking Brunonians in various forms, positions and states of dress.
On Wednesday, however, I discovered something not so pleasing: On Pembroke campus, the SPG posters were now accompanied by a sheet with the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "objectification" typed on it. The definition that the signs use reads as follows:
"2. spec. The demotion or degrading of a person or class of people (esp. women) to the status of a mere object (see OBJECTIFY v. 2); reification; (also) behaviour or an attitude characterized by this."
Seeing as how SPG is generally considered a festival of naked people, perhaps it would also be helpful to include the OED's definition of "sexual objectification" :
"sexual objectification: the regarding of a person or class of people (esp. women) only as a sex object."
Finally, just to make sure that we all have our facts straight, we should include the broader OED definition of "objectification" that the signs do not use:
"1. The action or an act of objectifying something; a material thing which embodies or expresses an abstract idea, principle, etc."
Now, it's quite clear that the SPG posters do fall under this definition, which is likely why the sign-makers (they left themselves anonymous, and so must be referred to under this ignominious designation) chose not to include it. Our bodies, of course, are material things and, as anyone who has ever taken a modern culture and media class can easily tell you, parts of the body are often used as signifiers for other things. In this case, specific images of naked or half-naked people standing near one another in seductive poses signify the broader concept of sex and in particular the uninhibited attitudes that Sex Power God will hopefully bring about. No controversy here.
But what about the definition that the OED vigilantes used?
The first thing that you have to assume if you accept this definition is that the people on the poster are being somehow degraded. I don't think that they believe they are; if anything, their appearances on the poster express a kind of empowerment not seen in most other aspects of daily life. The people on the posters, through their positions, signify an agency with regard to their sexuality that American society wishes to oppress rather than liberate. The SPG gang aren't degrading themselves; they're showcasing their sexual freedom. In a liberal college environment, this deliberate choice (and after all, it was a choice, seeing as how they chose to pose for the posters to begin with) should be applauded rather than condemned.
Now, as for the charge that women specifically are being made into objects: If you look carefully at the posters, you'll notice that there are plenty of men having sex on there, too. The women on the posters are either in an equal power relationship with the men or are even more powerful than them. Think, for a minute, about how the vast majority of art views women as sexual objects through the scope of a male gaze; now think about how empowering it is for women to be able to reverse the trend by taking that gaze out of men's hands and putting it into their own. Think about how powerful it is for a woman to be seen as she wishes to be seen and not as others wish to see her.
As for the charge that the people on the posters are being seen only as sex objects, view the arguments above: Through an expression of their sexual identity, the people assert their independence and make themselves subjects, not objects.
As for the charge that we as a community are somehow degraded by seeing these posters - nonsense. There is nothing wrong with the liberal expression of ideas, especially when they encourage you to form your own.
So what we are left with is a faulty definition posted by people who didn't even have the guts to attach their name to it. In place of "objectification," I would now like to list the OED's definition for another term:
"Free expression: the uninhibited expression of one's thoughts, feelings, creative capacities, etc."
Will I go to Sex Power God? No, but that's my choice, and I love having a choice, which is what the posters are all about to begin with. The sign-makers can express themselves just as freely as the poster-makers can, and more power to them.
But the posters aren't about objectification - they're about free expression. And it's unfortunate to think of them as being about anything else.
Aaron Cutler '08 freely expresses his desire for you to see "The Greeks," playing both this weekend and next weekend at Stuart Theatre.
Like students at most colleges, Brown students are forced to pay $100/year for school sponsored "social activities." One such activity was the "Sex, Power, God" let's-all-get-naked thing. What was it? Well, I can't wade throught he PC gobbledy-gook, but in reality it was nothing less than an orgy held on school property, and sanctioned by the alleged school.
Bill O'Reilly's producer bought a ticket on-line for $80 ($70 over the face value) and showed up with his video camera. He entered a Brown Prostitution building and entered a room filled with people in various states of undress, and in a variety of positions. No one was wearing more than underwear. Many were simulating sex acts, and many were engaging in sex (which was not shown). Most were intoxicated. And, according to Bill, more people were hospitalized at this orgy than at any other Brown institute of Prostitition orgy.
And it only costs parents $40k/year.
Sounds like good clean wholesome fun. Let's just hope they did not discriminate against gays.
I saw that segment on O'Reilly. Some homosexual club sponsored this event and homosexuals and heterosexuals attended and many had sex in the bathroom (hetero and same sex variety).
And I thought going to college was about getting an education. Silly me.
Brown coeds are OK but most of them could stand to lose a few pounds. (Ooh, ahh, Ooooh! Whadid I say? Ooooh, ahhh, ouch!)
Some day the Left is going to admit what it's tacetly assumed for years, that objectification is generally okay and is in fact often politically expedient (as it was for St. Joe Stalin). They use it much more deftly than the Right. They all shelved their copies of Martin Buber long ago (as did the Right).
Homosexuals and Brown seem to be a common and yet appropriate combination.
The commies have long known that the "celebration" of vice leads to the breakdown of the family and the destruction of "bourgeois" society. Apparently the feminists didn't get the memo, and they have been at odds with the commies on some points, although they too celebrate sexual license. Lately, however, there seems to be a coming together of both sides, as this school-sponsored orgy seems to indicate.
The fact that this outrage won't generate a headline outside of hard-core conservative circles tells me that we've passed a significant milestone as a society.
The inmates are running the asylum.
Most college students are older than 18, so ILP doesn't apply.
After seeing that video on BOR last night, I think we are on the same track as Sodom and Gomorrah and will be wiped out. A nation will not last that encourages its young to be animals by paying $40,000/yr. to learn that it,s okay to have no character. And this doesn't even address the blasphemous title of the orgy.
Ancient history lesson: Til the late '60s, American colleges generally played a "parental" role in the lives of young people away from home for the first time. They set curfews, prohibited alcohol and enforced standards for decorum on campus. Few of their students were under 18.
I was just thinking of that. Why does the Lord's name have to be dragged through the mud? I mean, when was the last time the word "God" appeared in a poster on the Brown Institute of Prostitution's campus? The orgy should have been titled, "Sex, Power and Satan."
Universities are becoming increasingly irrelevant to life in the 21st century. The really intelligent people who I know (predominantly Asian) are increasingly sending their kids to quality trade schools. These hard working and productive people have proven reluctant to underwrite their children's participation in four years of parties interspersed with socialist indoctrination.
Brown is certainly a junior ivy in any event: now it's more like a Southern California Porn College. Why anyone would pay a healthy year's salary to attend this garbage school is beyond my understanding.
Yeah, that whole 18-yo thing has been evolving over time. But today, I know of no colleges that take on ILP, although Pepperdine has (or used to have) a requirement that Freshmen live on campus or at the parent's home. Pepperdine also has no alcohol and other very restrictive rules.
(ps: I worked for a University for nearly 15 years up until a few years ago).
I imagine they consider that half the fun.
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.