Sex Power God

Friday, 3 November, marked the annual Sex Power God 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 Sex Power God on campus is baffling. It sickens me. Rather, it disgusts me. Admittedly, these are strong condemnations. But the continued existence of Sex Power God 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 Sex Power God.

First, Sex Power God 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 Sex Power God. 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 Sex Power God 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, Sex Power God 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 Sex Power God 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.

Let me reference an article that I wrote in the last issue of the Spectator. In this article, which was a review of Ramesh Ponnuru’s The Party of Death, I mentioned a philosopher named Peter Singer. (A more sinister individual one would be hard-pressed to find, but that is neither here nor there.) This man, who has a chairmanship in bioethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values, if you can believe that, argues that infanticide can be morally justified. In fact, he argues that it is often morally obligatory for a person to kill an infant. Any clear-sighted person should bemoan the death penalty moratorium in New Jersey, lest Mr. Singer escape justice if he were to act on his perverted morality.

Regarding the University, how could Brown properly characterize infanticide as deviant and therefore forbidden if it refuses to ever draw a line between normalcy and deviance? And if the University cannot condemn a practice as abhorrent as infanticide, what does that mean about the moral stewardship of the University? Perhaps that it ceased to exist once Brown severed its ties with the Baptist Church?

Third, Sex Power God promotes a dangerous lack of restraint. Fourteen students became so intoxicated at this event that they required medical attention from Emergency Medical Services. Equally as repugnant is the fact that some people herald these fourteen cases as a victory because this year’s number is a decline from the thirty-four EMS calls last year at Sex Power God. In truth, the University should regard even one EMS case of public intoxication as unacceptable, let alone fourteen, which is simply scandalous. All of those students who received EMS calls richly deserve suspension, if not outright expulsion. By neglecting to confront this problem and to grab it by its horns, the Administration is in clear dereliction of duty.

Fourth, Sex Power God has potentially negative repercussions for other aspects of University life. If the University permits the Queer Alliance and its debauched fundraiser, Sex Power God, it must then allow other reprehensible groups on campus. How about a Brown Chapter of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)? Brown College Nazis? Brown Misogynists? All of these potential student groups would receive official University standing if they desired, according to Interim Vice President Russell Carey.

They would even be permitted to host an event, even on the Main Green, as long as they did so safely and in accordance with the University’s social event policy. I asked Interim Vice President Carey if members of the would-be Brown KKK could, while dressed in white robes, host a cross-burning event on the Main Green. Of course, these members would take the necessary safety precautions. Carey declined to comment, but I could tell that he was sliding headfirst down that slippery slope.

One also wonders how this hypothetical Brown KKK event could be advertised? Could pictures representing lynches or the reprehensible abuses of slavery be posted? It is indeed possible, considering that Carey is reluctant to censor posters unless they display genitals (note: actual exposure of genitalia is the only form of obscenity in the University’s opinion). Does this mean that a poster depicting the hanging of a slave would be permitted? Or the raping of one, so long as the genitals were covered? Unfortunately. Now, such a poster would justifiably cause controversy, much like the homoerotic, sado-masochistic, sexually-oriented posters that the Queer Alliance posted in order to advertise Sex Power God. However, they are perfectly acceptable in the view of the Brown Administration, as Carey articulated.

He urges students to “counter speech with speech.” So, should upset parties counter posters of blacks being beaten, raped, and hanged with posters of whites being beaten, raped, and hanged? Guess so. For, according to Carey, Brown is “committed to the free and unfettered exchange of views and ideas in the very best sense.” Well, in THAT case, I can certainly see your point. I mean, screaming, “FIRE!” in a crowded building, when there is no fire, is yet another example of this “free and unfettered exchange of views.”

My point in making such a grisly comparison between the potential KKK event and Sex Power God is that both ends of the spectrum are outrageous interpretations of protected speech. Just as the University should not legitimize a Brown Chapter of the KKK, it should not legitimize a Brown Queer Alliance. Neither should the University legitimize a cross-burning event or Sex Power God. That is to say, both hate speech aimed at directly inciting violence (which the KKK event and accompanying posters would have the intent of doing) and obscene pictures are not protected speech.

It is ludicrous to think that our Founding Fathers and Framers intended the First Amendment to be used as a shield for a person who spews hate speech that directly incites violence. In the same vein, it is equally ludicrous to think that the First Amendment serves as a protection for a group (the Queer Alliance, for example) when it decides to post obscene material in the public domain. Obscene material, as defined by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California (1973), is not protected speech, and therefore legislation can be enacted in order to ban it. The “test” for defining obscene material is known as the “SLAPS” test, which refers to any graphic material without “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Thus, obscene material can be restricted via legislation, which is exactly the case in the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Title 11, Chapter 11-31, Section 11-31-1 of Rhode Island law states:

(a)Every person who willfully or knowingly promotes for the purpose of commercial gain within the community any show, motion picture, performance, photograph (my emphasis), book, magazine, or other material which is obscene shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, or both.

The statute goes on to describe the exact meaning of many terms in the above description, but it is obvious that something as lewd, patently offensive, and bereft of any serious purpose (other than “for the purpose of commercial gain”) as the Sex Power God posters, would be banned under Rhode Island law. As such, I can find no justification for the existence of Sex Power God on campus, or for its accompanying elements, such as the suggestive posters and even the Queer Alliance itself. All merit a rebuke on the part of the University, if not an explicit condemnation.

Not all people agree with me; I am realistic enough to acknowledge that. While observing the hoopla of Sex Power God with a friend from the Spectator, on the outside of course, I briefly interviewed a fellow freshperson (because I’m politically correct). This young vixen was dressed in the undergarments of a 1940s woman, replete with panties, a blouse, and stockings, which were held up by her blouse. The difference between an actual woman in the 1940s and this young woman? Women back then wore a dress or some sort of exterior clothing, and not just the underwear, stalkings, and blouse. The lack of outer clothing kind of takes away from the classiness, don’t you think?

She described Sex Power God as all about “being comfortable with who you are.” She continued, “Whether or not you like it, that’s what America is.” Interesting. Because, you know, I thought America was about the democratic process and the rule of law, all of which the Queer Alliance and Sex Power God flout with their willful disobedience of Rhode Island statutes and community standards. Now, if the current legal system passed laws that usurped fundamental rights, I would condone the transgression of such laws. But honestly, is being able to wear minimal clothing and to expose maximum body parts, or to put up posters that depict such things, a fundamental right? The Supreme Court and the majority of the American public say no. Thus, in closing, I would like to borrow the words of a Phi Kappa Psi fraternity member and demand that those who go to Sex Power God “PUT IT ON!”