Prudes, Bigots Act Suprised Academia Recognizes Sexual Diversity

As more and more people recognize and discuss gender, sexuality, and relationship diversities (GSRD), uptight prudes and power-hungry bigots scream in frustrated futility as they try to shove everyone into closets, turn off the lights, and stick their fingers in their ears. As they have done many times before, they are bemoaning the fact that university students are actually interested in learning about and discussing GSRD, and so they focus on one or two aspects of the discussion in order to rile up the pearl-clutchers.

Katherine Timpf of CampusReform.org blew the dog   whistle this time. At examiner.com, Alberto Vargas, apparently a compulsive user of scare quotes, wrote a piece headlined with "Yale hosts bestiality and incest sensitivity training."

The title of the workshop was, "Sex: Am I Normal?"

The "sexual diversity" they were referring to, however, had little to do with "alternative" lifestyles, such as homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, or transgenderism. Instead, it was about bestiality, masochism, paid sex, and incest.

The sensitivity training was hosted by a "sexologist" who, apparently, also owns a sex shop in West Chester, Pa. Her name is Dr. Jill McDevitt.

Regarding the workshop, "Dr. McDevitt" says:

"It tries to get people to be more sensitive....to sexual diversity. We're not all heterosexual, able-bodied folks who have standard missionary sex."

Does "Alberto Vargas" disagree with that?

Sex Week at College

The author of this piece calls for a more restrictive, narrow, confining approach to Sex Week at colleges.

Sex-toy raffles and giveaways? Workshops featuring graphic, violent pornography and simulated sex techniques? Teaching about polyamory but not about monogamy or abstinence?

Oh no! Polyamory? You mean like how some consenting adults get what they need in a way other than monogamy? We can’t let anyone know about that, no. Seriously, monogamy and abstinence should be talked about as well. I’m sure if someone wanted to speak about those things, they wouldn’t be prevented.

I don’t see what the objection is to any of the other things. “graphic, violent pornography” is not my thing, but if someone wants to put BDSM on video and someone wants to watch it, why should anyone else care? Or are we just talking about spanking? Are “violent” images only okay if nobody is having sex?

The events, billed as educational, used the universities' names and facilities. They were open to everyone, including the outside community.

Is this a complaint about generosity? If they were restricted, I think the writer might cite that as nefarious, too.

Sex-industry representatives were significantly involved in many of the programs and sponsorships, along with contributions from nonprofit groups such as the Kinsey Institute and Planned Parenthood.

And…?

Judging from the program descriptions, the emphasis of most Sex Week programming seems to be more on providing entertainment and promoting pleasure, rather than teaching students about sexual health and safety. While some sessions covered topics like women's health and sex trafficking, others featured such offerings as pornographic-film screenings; a lingerie show using college students as models; and a topless porn star demonstrating bondage, discipline, dominance, and submission to a student audience.

And the problem is…?

Similar programs are appearing on other campuses as well. In April, a "vayjayducation" workshop at Harvard featured a raffle for $1,000 worth of donated sex toys and the showing of a graphic film clip of a woman's genitals.

Oh, heavens no. There might be one or two people who have never seen such things. They shouldn’t be allowed to. It might, uh, might… well I’m sure the result would be disastrous.

Make no mistake about it—adult stores and sex-toy companies are actively seeking access to students through campus resources.

And this is different from other businesses… how?

Privacy is a grave matter of concern in other on-campus sex programming, too. Dozens of pictures of students, some posing with sex toys, are featured on the Facebook page of a frequent presenter at college sex workshops.

My guess is that the people in those pictures consented.

Even if the students gave permission at the time for their pictures to be taken or recorded, such stories and images can exist forever on the Internet, and years later can negatively affect students' chances of finding employment.

Sounds like we need employers to be more sex-positive and respectful of others.

The writer goes on to give a list of suggestions to try to make Sex Week less interesting.

Ideally, Sex Week should also include information on the right to love, sex, and marriage regardless of birth; about the realities of relationships that are interracial, intergenerational, same-sex, poly, or consanguineous.