Only in the Ivy League would you need a workshop.

Needless to say, you fail to explain how the dinner table is a “place of study”. Beyond that, a picture of genitalia is not educational when put on an advertisement. It is put on an advertisement for the purpose of titilating or shocking the observer so they take note of what is on the rest of the page. It is an effective advertising technique, but it is pornography nonetheless.

My medical textbooks are full of photos of vulva. My textbooks are not porn. What is it about these particular vulva that made them offensive? Where people touching them in a sexual way? Were they contextualized in a pornographic context?

It seems that your own assumptions about femsex colored your victimization. I know for a fact that some of the most important classes in the femsex workshop are about body image, female anatomy, and sexual health. Viewed in this context, the photos of vulva are educational, not porn.

Get over yourself.

First, the reason the table slips were sexual harassment is because there is a Brown University rule in the student handbook that makes it sexual harassment. I even quoted the bit: “sexually suggestive…pictures…that may embarrass or offend individuals” constitutes sexual harassment. I think the rule’s stupid, but I think that the table slips were even more ridiculous. Even so, your philosophical cretinism is evident in that you believe that being against masturbation while practicing it makes one sexist. It may make one a self-righteous bigot, but certainly, you will have to agree, it does not make a person sexist.

Second, I never once in the entire article explicitly articulated or implied my own feelingsa toward masturbation, whether or not I participate in the activity, or judgment toward those who actively masturbate. I merely discussed what FemSex is and talks about. I think that FemSex probably does offend the sensibilities of traditional Americans. But all I did was tell you what goes on in FemSex. If you think that my characterization of that is inaccurate, you can criticize that, but to date, everyone has told me that what I wrote is basically accurate. But they think I’m a chauvinist because I put it in writing. Apparently people don’t want the world to know what they learn in FemSex.

Third, I didn’t announce to the population that FemSex is a place to find a horny hookup. It’s something that I have actually heard from other people. Also, it doesn’t objectify women. The hookup culture at Brown is objectifying. If you actually want to take aim at something offensive, perhaps you ought to look there. Additionally, it doesn’t take away their identity as people. That’s just idiotic; you’re just making stuff up at this point.

Fourth, I congratulate your masterbatory self-denotation of the word sexual harassment, and you may even be right. But methinks this hits on the necessity of seeking remedial help regarding your literacy. First off, if your definition of sexual harassment holds true, then wouldn’t seeing table slips prominently displayed in public areas that make me uncomfortable certainly be sexual harassment. Second, WTF! don’t you get it, you just paraphrased the quote I used from the student handbook. Third, if what I did is sexual harassment (that is to say, by writing my own opinions regarding FemSex on paper that a person can choose to read or not to read), than anything a person thinks that might remove a person from their zone of sexual comfort if it is made known in conversation or in writing, is sexual harassment. Basically, you are saying that a person can’t decent regarding free-sex culture because that automatically makes it sexual harassment. I could write another 9 pages as to why your definition is inadequate and small-minded, but I won’t waste my time (or yours considering I give you enough credit to know that what you wrote is discredible on its face).

Fifth, I didn’t make FemSex or the girls that participate in the program a target of male desire. If I did, then I guess I’m among the ranks of such fashionistas as Isaac Mizrahi, Versace, Dolce & Gabbana and others that create stuff in order to make women the “target of male desire”. I mean, after all, isn’t that the purpose of low-cut shirts and iddy-biddy miniskirts?

Sixth, this article is 90% facetious. If you had read it fairly, you would see that there isn’t even a tinge of moral indignation anywhere in the article. It is both critical of FemSex’s decision to put those table slips out, as it is critical of the rule in the handbook.

A final word: I hope that your a freshman. Because to unleash your analytical abilities on the world today would be dangerous. But nice try. I suggest that you check the placement of your head, and put it back on your shoulders.

“For the women of Brown University, FemSex is a good excuse to masturbate (and for guys, I have heard, it is a place to find a horny hookup).”

Two things come to mind when I read this sentence. One, I would wonder if you’ve never masturbated before? If you really haven’t, I will still disagree but accept your judgment that masturbation is a bad thing and one would need an “excuse” to do it. If you have masturbated in your life, then you are being pretty overtly sexist. Also, you have referred to a picture of a vagina on your table as sexual harassment. Although I also disagree with this, I would be able to accept your point of view if not for the latter part of this sentence. Here, you pretty much directly compare the women in FemSex to “a horny hookup”. There are several problems with this. The first issue is the way this objectifies the women in the group. Not only have you taken away their identity as people, you have made them solely an object of male desire. Secondly, you have just announced to the population of the school that they can find a “horny hookup” at FemSex. To me, sexual harassment can be classified as something that forcibly removes you from your zone of sexual comfort. It’s pretty clear that you just sexually harassed the entire FemSex group both by objectifying them and making them a target of male desire. Completely ignoring the moral implications of what you just wrote, (which is rather ironic because this article is argued entirely from a moral point of view save for the weak legal argument about age and nude images) it is still pretty difficult to take anything you said seriously with the obvious contradictions.