Yet again, campus organization Tufts VOX was attacked in the guise of a rant on sex toys, pamphlets and gender stratification. In her Feb. 26 Viewpoint, "Sex fair sends the wrong message," Ashley Samelson argues for a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for on-campus sexuality, which merely hinders the progress of the dialogue so many have fought to achieve. Her solution to the rape crisis is to reinstate antiquated gender norms, suppress sex education and threaten freedom of expression.
Samelson believes that "events like the sex fair that promote such an understanding of sex facilitate rape." The leap in logic is astronomical: are we to believe that both the advocacy of safe sex (condoms, dental dams, hormonal contraceptives, etc.) and reproductive health cause crime?
The notion that labial-shaped baked goods and education on masturbation (usually a one-person endeavor, as you probably know) translates into sexual aggression is puzzling. Samelson provides only weak anecdotal evidence to support her claim, quoting an indeterminate amount of anonymous people about their one-word-long attitudes (i.e. "disgusting" - which I agree with, but that's what I like about it).
Tufts provides an atmosphere that allows students a thorough view of sexual health and gender roles, and many students have done a remarkable job in reaching out to peers. By not turning a blind eye to sexuality, Tufts boasts an annual production of the Vagina Monologues, a thriving LGBT Center, Student Sexual Assault Response Assistance (617-627-7272), and the recently founded Tufts Men's Activist Coalition (their slogan is "anti-being dicks, pro-having one"). Samelson's proposed stifling of activities like the Sex Fair would not only render penile-based alliances like TMAC impotent (...), but would make essential resources more difficult to obtain without such events to bring them to the attention of the campus.
Samelson argues that the "emotional and moral boundaries that so often guard our sexual urges are hardly arbitrary. When you eliminate those barriers, a dangerous gray area is created." It's true. Our sexual restraint is not arbitrary. Our own inhibitions, however, are arbitrary: the ones that prevent us from asking health care providers important questions or discussing protection and control with our partners. My question is: what happens when you eliminate the barriers of condoms, dental dams, and birth control pills from the public eye? Would this not come at a tragic cost; a higher cost especially in the case of rape?
Perhaps Samelson is not asking for full censorship of these topics. What she does imply, though, is that a friendly, humorous atmosphere is dangerous and may encourage women to be "careless and emotion-free about sex."
Her solution, however, would cause careless and emotion-free behavior: notably, careless neglect/misuse of protection. Censoring promotion of contraception is not only the best way to promote sexual ignorance, but to cut funding to charities, rape counseling centers and battered women's shelters. If Samelson received her wish of banning sex fairs, VOX outlets, and maybe even the Vagina Monologues, all the profits the events would have garnered to stop rape would diminish.
So much for sending the wrong message.
Our society is past the point where men are "chivalrous" and women are "ladylike." These notions of manhood and womanhood are patriarchal, archaic and utterly primitive. Encouraging this type of one-dimensional social construct can only exacerbate misogynist discrimination.
Lizzie DeWan wrote in an online response: "One way to see rape is as a tragic expression of the patriarchal society we inhabit today, in which men hold power over women in both overt and subtle manners. Patriarchy is reinforced in many ways, and one of those is by the propagation of anarchic and sexist gender roles."
Roles, in short, that Samelson supports. Not to mention Samelson has neglected to mention homosexuality among other non-normative orientations. It is myopic to suggest that rape is only a heterosexual problem with heterosexual solutions.
Samelson uses the term "sexual liberation" in a manner that vilifies the cause and its supporters. Yet what organizations like VOX seek to achieve is not to "liberate" women from their actions' consequences (is such a thing possible?), but to include everyone in the discourse of individual sexual identity. To pretend that sexuality is not an intrinsic part of our growth as young men and women is to deny ourselves; ultimately, the discouragement, alienation and suppression of natural urges that Samelson encourages can only cause more damage than good.
Michael Yarsky is a junior majoring in economics.
