SexPowerGod: An Event Dedicated to the Good Citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah

Friday, 3 November, marked the annual SexPowerGod ritual presented by the Queer Alliance. There was heightened security. A melee of barely-clothed young men and women. Energetic frat guys with signs demanding attention. Queer Alliance members trying to shield the lascivious activities from the outside world. And EMS teams on call to treat dangerously intoxicated students. The only things missing were a pole dedicated to Baal, an after-party with the Canaanites, and a late night visit to Sodom and Gomorrah.

The presence of SexPowerGod on campus is baffling. It sickens me. Rather, it disgusts me. Admittedly, these are strong condemnations. But the continued existence of SexPowerGod is an abomination, whose justification is an affront to logical reasoning, let alone spiritual well-being. I will gladly delineate four of the many reasons for why I revile SexPowerGod.

First, SexPowerGod violates University policy by encouraging and facilitating public sexuality. According to Brown Interim Vice President of Campus Life and Student Services, Russell Carey ’91 MA ’06, the University opposes “public sex acts.” Without a hint of sarcasm, I am surprised that a university so staunchly committed to moral relativism has such a policy. So, let us all applaud Brown for this display of moral courage. Perhaps the Administration will valiantly oppose murder next.

As the University opposes public sex acts, it is logically inconsistent for it to support SexPowerGod. After all, it is an event where young men commonly arrive only in boxers and young women routinely wear nothing except bras and panties (or vice versa). Yet, the University turns a blind eye to this salacious behavior, which has the intent of ending in “random play.” Even worse, the University legitimizes public sex by authorizing SexPowerGod to be held in Alumnae Hall. Should I really be surprised, though? Seeing as many of the current possessors of power at Brown are Baby Boomers—ergo, products of the 1960s and its “sexual liberation”—I should not.

Second, SexPowerGod promotes sexual deviancy. It is a forum that encourages a morally self-indulgent “hookup culture,” where both heterosexuals and homosexuals engage in meaningless, random sexual acts. Although homosexual behavior carries with it a heightened degree of immorality, both manifestations of the “hookup culture” (hetero- and homosexual) are appalling. And at a time when America is being attacked by Islamic fascists (a term that, I am proud to say, Professor Harvey Mansfield recently used in his Janus Forum lecture), our nation and its people need moral clarity now more than ever. However, the University fails to provide moral leadership. In fact, Interim Vice President Carey believes that the University cannot declare SexPowerGod as deviant because that would require it to define what is normal.

This refusal to define normal is an interesting point on which to ruminate. Indeed, declaring that a line cannot be drawn between normal and deviant is the kind of morally relativistic thinking that leads a person to perpetually ruminate and never take a firm moral stand. This is precisely why moral relativism is such a slippery slope. If everything is permitted, nothing can be condemned. And if nothing can be condemned, there can be no moral clarity.