[UPDATED] Debating on Ultra-Conservative Radio

So…I’m apparently debating Laura Ingraham and Isabel Marin (from Yale’s “Choose Life” and “Undergraduates for a Better Yale College“) on the place of Sex Weeks on college campuses. This will be happening FRIDAY (April 20th) at 11:15 AM EST on The Laura Ingraham Show.

You can listen to it by clicking here.

Long story short, Harvard’s Sex Week got profiled in the New York Times and I was quoted in the article. I’m assuming this is what caught folks’ attention and led them to email me this morning asking if a representative from SHEEC wanted to go on air to speak about Sex Week. They were asking if we could do it “today” (read: within less than 30 minutes of the show having sent that email, which is horrible protocol) or tomorrow. Talk about short notice! But still, I said yes. It’s an interesting opportunity and I feel I can hold my own on the air (or at least I hope I can!). (NOTE: the appearance was originally scheduled for April 18th, but they decided to reschedule for the 20th to give us more on-air time. The first paragraph of this post has been changed to reflect that update).

Wish me luck!

For a bit of background on Laura and her show, let’s look at some of the topics she addresses and the stances she takes (via Wikipedia):

  • Illegal immigration: Ingraham frequently advocates “securing the borders” by putting more resources into stopping illegal immigration. She has a segment called “The Illegal Immigration Sob Story” alert, in which she highlights media articles that she believes are gathering emotional sympathy for illegal immigrants who, she states, are simply breaking the law.
  • Pro-life issues: Ingraham is opposed to abortion on demand, and often talks about human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research and abortion, taking a pro-life stance against all three. She was an outspoken advocate against Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 (2006), a ballot measure that she felt was deceptive and that legalized human cloning. Every January 22, Ingraham promotes and lauds the marchers participating in the March for Life, which calls for outlawing abortion, and takes place on the same day as the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion in the United States.
  • “Pornification” of the culture: Ingraham frequently highlights sex and pornography on her show. She has criticized people such as Howard Stern, Hugh Hefner, and others who she claims have pervaded the culture with what she describes as “filth” at the expense of “traditional American values.”

I think we can safely say Laura and I are not going to end up BFFs. As for Isabel (who’s part of an organization that recommends fake clinics or “crisis pregnancy centers” to pregnant women), the same applies.

Your Ignorance Is Showing: Ridiculous Comments on Empowerment, Objectification, and Domestic Violence

 Alternatively titled: “A Response to Cate Stewart and Lisa Lansio”
For those of you who don’t know, I’m one of the two co-leaders of SHEEC this year–a group with which I’ve been heavily involved since its inception in 2008/2009. I was at a conference in Colorado this week and sadly had to miss 3 of our events, including a showcase/open-mic in honor of Wear Purple Day/Spirit Day and Love Your Body Day that would benefit Sojourner House, a local domestic violence agency founded by Brown students in 1976. The Showcase featured 2 local poets, the Gendo Taiko (Japanese drumming) crew, Attitude (a dance troupe), as well as a few other performers (of the singing/acoustic-guitar variety).
After a set of great performances, the last two individuals who signed up for the open-mic portion took the stage and began to attack the event and the people who were in it, saying that having a campus pole-dancing troupe perform was “not respectful” and that “it just perpetuated gender roles and objectified women.” One said that “she came here expecting to be empowered, but that’s not what happened for her at all” and that we “need to stop singing about gendered things” (and I believe the example was getting kissed in parking lots? Which…what?). 
The other added that “women need to stop playing the victimized role, stop blaming men for our problems, women bring it upon themselves” and that “women have the power just as much as men and are as much to blame for abuse as men, that women are not chained to the floor and can just walk away from abusive situations.”  That same one mentioned some of the performers who talked about abuse or abused women and their mindsets have no right to speak issues that they were not physically a part of (which is actually inaccurate, but I’ll get to that later).
This is my response, not only as SHEEC’s Co-Chair,  but as an individual:

First of all, the controversial pole-dancing performance. I’m tired of defending and explaining this one, so I’ll keep it short and sweet. Empowering women doesn’t mean desexualizing them. Objectification is only a problem if it’s not paired with due subjectification (read this post as well as the comments). Finally, we support a group of educated women who want to “stretch the boundaries of pole dancing as something far more than simply sexy,” who “want to create a place where people feel comfortable, athletic, and yes, sexy!” and who “consistently challenge the stereotypes that surround vertical dancing, and seek to bring together a wide range of art forms through experimentation and openness in [their] performances.”

We wanted to showcase individuals who would address the core of our event, who would speak to their relationships with their bodies via song/dance/poetry and would show us a bit of themselves through their art. This event wasn’t meant to empower every person, but provide a space so people could share what empowered them and talk about what didn’t. Sorry, Cate and Lisa, if this didn’t empower you personally, but that’s not what the event was for. We wanted to start the conversation and show the varied emotions people had regarding their bodies, trying to focus on the positive, but also trying to highlight the complexity and (thus billing it as something “silly and serious and complex” in our advertising).
Now, what I consider the most egregious part of this evening (again, from what I’ve been told) was the commentary around abuse and the power women do or don’t have.
  • As a CLASS of people, no, women do not have the same power men have. This, of course, is affected by the intersections of people’s identities and how they affect their place on the social ladder/s, but if we’re only considering it on the axis of sex, no. We are not seen as equal and we do not have the same power men do. Some individual women may have more power in specific contexts, but ask yourself–is that because they’re women or is it because of something else? And furthermore, think of the difference between winning a battle and winning the war. Few and exceptional individual cases of powerful women don’t erase the massive inequalities across society.
  • We are not blaming individual men for “our problems.” First of all, they’re EVERYONE’S problems. Second of all, what we *are* blaming is a system that in most instances, privileges men and masculinity and devalues or even punishes women and femininity (not that the two–m/m and w/f–are inextricably joined, but are often thought to be). It’s not the fault of individual men (or women) acting in a vacuum; it’s the fault of everyone taking actions that contribute to this system, and that’s why EVERYONE has to work against it.
  • “Women bring it upon themselves” is such a problematic statement, I don’t even know where to begin. My first reaction is to say “Your privilege and ignorance are showing.” I’ll call upon the words of S. Biko: “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.” READ ABOUT OPPRESSION AND POWER. Expand your myopic view. Your personal experience as a a woman and even as a victim/survivor of abuse does not qualify you to invalidate the experience of others, particularly women who have experienced trauma.
  • Abusive situations are DEFINED by a power and control imbalance, so NO, if the abusive partner in a male/female couple is the male, the female partner does NOT have the same power. She is also NOT TO BLAME for the abuse; no victim of abuse ever is. Read up on slut-shaming and victim-blaming to educate yourself on this. Intimate partner abuse is also often reinforced by other forms of institutional abuse/power; again, these things don’t occur in a vacuum. Context is important!
  • Many circumstances make it difficult for women (or any abused partner) to walk away from their situation, and the comment about them “not being chained to the floor” is offensive in its disrespect and flagrant ignorance. This an excellent resource that answers the “why doesn’t she just leave?” question so often posed to and/or about victims. Also check this  out for more information. I personally hate this question because it blames, shames, and disenfranchises victims, though I understand where it comes from (because I once asked it too).
I commend Jenn, Chay, Linh and the other SHEEC planners that were there and handled this as gracefully as they could given the circumstances. Thank you for positively representing SHEEC and doing damage-control, for letting those two girls know that you respected their right to have an opinion and their desire to share it, but that they did not have to attack other performers to express them. I also want to thank the performers for weathering that storm and for reaching out to us after the event with very touching emails.
Having a conversation or constructive dialogue is not the same as being argumentative and rude. Debating a point is not the same as attacking a group of people and not listening to their defense. Constructive criticism is no the same as ignorant remarks made to shame others and devalue their experiences. Learn the difference, Lisa and Cate, and then try again. We’re willing to listen if you are.
SHEEC is a group that was made to address issues of gender, sex, sexuality, and all the things that go along with it. This means we aren’t going to shy away from difficult conversations, controversy, and tackling the taboos. In fact, it means we’re more likely to address them because we come from a place that sees addressing those topics as a PRESSING NEED instead of as something to be avoided. We want to make people feel challenged and productively uncomfortable while also nourishing those who need it and providing support for folks marginalized due to their sexuality or desires. If you are looking for a “safe” group that doesn’t push envelopes, this is not it.

No-Cost Birth Control – SIGN THE PETITION

The Department of Health and Human Services is currently debating whether to make birth control available at no cost under the new health care law. Removing the economic barrier to birth control would have a major impact on young people’s lives. Distributing condoms already makes a huge difference — and increasing access to no-cost birth control would have an even broader impact.

Are you interested in helping me get signatures? Email brownsheec@gmail.com!

Are you interested in SIGNING the petition? Email or comment with the following (FULL) information:

  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • State
  • Zip code
  • Email

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – Sexuality educators set the record straight: “Talking about sexuality does not increase sexually transmitted infections” despite what non-experts report.

For Immediate Release
Sexuality educators set the record straight: “Talking about sexuality does not increase sexually transmitted infections” despite what non-experts report.

Contact: 
Megan Andelloux
HiOhMegan@gmail.com
401-345-8685 


Contact: Aida Manduley
Aida_manduley@brown.edu
787-233-0025

In yet another attempt to shut down access to quality sex education, South-Eastern New England conservative advocates hit the sex panic button in a multi-state, email and phone campaign to colleges all over New England last week.

On February 3rd and 4th , certified sexuality educator and sexologist Megan Andelloux (AASECT, ACS) received word that numerous colleges and university faculty received a document stating that colleges who brought sex educators such as Ms. Andelloux onto their campuses were linked to the increasing rate of transmission of HIV in RI. Furthermore, among other misleading “facts” that were “cited,” the author of this bulletin claimed that Brown University was facing an HIV crisis, which is false.

Citizens Against Trafficking, the face behind the fear-mongering, spammed numerous local institutions from a University of Rhode Island account with its latest malicious missive that targeted specific individuals as well as Brown University. The author of the letter, Margaret Brooks, an Economics Professor at Bridgewater State, suggested that colleges and universities that host sexuality speakers, including those who are professionally accredited, are partly to blame for the four new cases of HIV which have been diagnosed amongst RI college students this year.

Ms. Andelloux states: “My heart goes out to those students who have recently tested positive for HIV. However, there is no evidence of any link between campus presentations on sexual issues and the spike in HIV cases. Rather, I would suggest that this demonstrates a need for more high-quality sex education to college students.“ It is unclear why people at URI or Citizens Against Trafficking, a coalition to combat all forms of human trafficking, is attempting to stop adults from accessing sexual information from qualified, trained educators. What is certain however, is that this Professor of Economics miscalculated her suggestion that a correlation exists between increased HIV rates in Rhode Island and the type of sex education these speakers provided at Brown University: one that emphasized accurate information, risk-reduction, pleasure, and health.

Barrier methods have been shown by the CDC to reduce the transmission of HIV and other STIs (Sexually Transmitted Infections). Research has shown that when individuals have access to medically accurate information, are aware of sexual risk reduction methods, and have access to learn about sexual health, the number of infections and transmission of STIs decreases, pain during sex decreases, and condom use increases. The CAT circulated bulletin is blatantly misleading about many issues, and often omits information that is crucial to understanding the full picture of sex education at Brown and in Rhode Island.

When individuals who do not hold any background in sexuality education speak out in opposition because of their fear or prejudice, society becomes rooted in outdated beliefs and pseudo-science that do injustice to people everywhere. Furthermore, when those individuals personally and publicly attack those devoted to providing sex education with false and misinformed accusations, it not only hurts those who are defamed, but also the community at large.

We ask for an immediate retraction of the vilifying and inaccurate statements made by Ms. Margaret Brooks and Citizens Against Trafficking in their latest newsletter. We also ask that esteemed local universities such as URI and Bridgewater State continue to hold their employees to ethical standards of normal scientific inquiry and require that their faculty hold some modicum of expertise in a field of education before raising the public level of panic over it.

Megan Andelloux is available to answer any questions the press, Margaret Brooks, University of Rhode Island or Citizens Against Trafficking holds. Aida Manduley, the Chair of Brown University’s Sexual Health Education and Empowerment Council and Brown University’s is available to discuss the upcoming Sex Week and sexuality workshops held at Brown University.

Signed,
Megan Andelloux
Shanna Katz
Reid Mihalko
Aida Manduley

##########

Talking About The Taboo – Conference 10/10

Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health to hold its 2nd Annual Conference,
“Talking about the Taboo”.
Pawtucket, RI September 20th, 2010 –
The Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health (The CSPH) will be holding its second annual conference titled “Talking about the Taboo: Discussing Difficult Issues in Human Sexuality” on October 10th at 1:00 pm at its location in the historic Grant building in downtown Pawtucket, RI. The CSPH is the first sexuality resource and information center on the East Coast.
What: This conference represents the outcome of a battle to open the CSPH dating back to September of 2009. The CSPH was originally denied permission to open after a controversial zoning decision made by the Pawtucket City council, stating that the Grant building was not zoned to allow businesses of and educational nature. After a media frenzy and intervention from the ACLU, the city reversed their decision and allowed the CSPH to open in February of the following year. The “Talking about the Taboo” conference will be the first legal event the CSPH will hold in Pawtucket.
Through this conference the CSPH will provide sexuality education to adults in a safe and open environment. By bringing together sexuality and the pleasure, education, advocacy and medical worlds, the CSPH will take subjects that are traditionally “taboo” and illuminate them, showing that exploring taboo topics is necessary for providing basic education, and can be discussed in thought-provoking ways.
When: October 10th, from 1:00pm-5:00pm.
Where: 250 Main Street, The Grant Building, Pawtucket, RI 02860
Who: The “Talking about the Taboo” conference will include panels with sexuality specialists such as Dr. Charlie Glickman and Dr. Logan Levkoff, alongside nationally known authors and bloggers such as Sinclair Sexsmith and Audacia Ray. There will also be vendors and local- and national-level community organizations exhibiting 100% safer sex products to conference attendees.
Why: The CSPH is designed to provide adults with a safe, physical space to learn about sexual pleasure, health, and advocacy issues. Beginning with this conference the CSPH will offer educational discussion groups, conduct sexuality studies, and hold classes both for professionals and for the general public.

For more information, please visit the CSPH’s website at http://thecsph.org or contact Ms. Andelloux by phone at 401-345-8685 or email at thecsph@gmail.com

SPC Series Part II: Purpose & The Rules of Engagement

(Before reading this, check out SPC Series Part I: Introduction to Stop Porn Culture! Conference)

So what was I, a porn-positive, pro-sex-worker rights individual, doing at an anti-porn conference? I wanted to:

  • Listen. I wanted to hear about anti-porn thought straight from the horse’s mouth. Or, in this case, horses’ mouths; there were many presenters and their views were not 100% aligned with each other’s. I not only wanted to learn what they thought, but how they presented it, and why they thought that way. What better way to gain insights into all this, and what type of people attended this type of conference than by attending the conference myself? What better way to understand “their” tactics and thought processes than by walking among them and taking notes? What better way to address their concerns than to know exactly what those are, and the nuances of their production and dissemination? SPC promotes something similar from their end (though it obviously sounds less interest in dialogue than just learning about “the enemy,” but still)
    • “This isn’t for everyone, but it can be helpful to surf some porn sites every now and then to stay up on the pornographers’ latest tricks. Reading Adult Video News online (avn.com) and other news sites about the industry (xbiz.com) is helpful in understanding pornography.” 
  • Humanize “my side” and present at least one good face of sex/porn-positive activists and activism. Similarly, I wanted to humanize the anti-porn activists, because too often there is intense mudslinging at faceless enemies and we forget that, at the end of the day, these are all PEOPLE–individuals with lives, ambitions, and pressures. Need I remind people about the hate-mongering and vicious bulletins Donna M. Hughes (one of the presenters), Margaret Brooks, and Melanie Shapiro (both in attendance at the con) put out about Maymay and my/our events? They dehumanized us, and it was also easy to dehumanize them because all we could see was that they were The Bad Ones. I think if we all actively thought about our humanity more often, we would feel more empathy and there would be less douchebaggery out there from BOTH sides. Once someone can connect faces to a movement, faces they might relate to on some level, it makes it harder to easily and blindly spread hate + vitriol (not that it doesn’t happen, OF COURSE). It’s not about respecting other’s hatred; it’s about respecting others as human, and respecting their positive aspects (because no one is 100% bad). And if someone calls me naive for saying this, I will fucking scream; being respectful and realistically optimistic is not naive, so stop being an asshole kthxbai. Also, again, SPC has a “tip” regarding presentation-etiquette that I find relevant regarding this (emphasis mine):
    • “For the discussion after the slide show, come into the audience if possible so that you can stand near the questioner, looking the person in the eye and acknowledging them. Listen attentively to each question, even if you’ve heard it a thousand times.”
  • Ask insightful questions and correct factual inaccuracies if I spotted them & had the info to back it up. I wanted to make people at the conference THINK, and at the very least be slightly jolted if I asked a question they hadn’t thought about before. This purpose wasn’t entirely fulfilled because I only attended the second day, which was less lecture-heavy and apparently less tense, but I did speak my mind a few key times.
  • Give some semblance of a voice to pro-porn ideals in the midst of all the anti-porn people by speaking up. I wanted to show them that there were people who disagreed (& how), but were nonetheless interested in learning, interested in dialogue, interested in fostering some sort of understanding while still having their own agenda, values, and goals. Maybe some would even be inspired to attend OUR events as well! One can only hope.
  • Find the places of convergence and swim through the sludge to get at the ACTUAL concerns being clouded by thoughts of “porn is evil” so we could somehow address those and hopefully effect change regarding them. What concepts did both sides talk about most? What ideas did we share? Where could we build bridges? And at the same time, where did we have seemingly irreconcilable splits (and why)? Between this and listening, I think those were my main goals because they would be the most effective later.

What did I NOT do at the conference?

  • Try to radically change the minds of seasoned, extremely-anti-porn activists. 
  • Be rude! I didn’t name-call, glare at, condescend, or otherwise mistreat anyone.
  • Get into heated arguments.

To elaborate upon these points:

Some folks accused me of wasting my time trying to change the views of “leading anti-sex-worker extremists,” but that wasn’t my point. I wasn’t there to somehow magically & forcefully change their minds, especially when so many of the most “notable” presenters at the Stop Porn Culture! Conference have made careers out of their anti-porn stance. I was there for the MODERATES, for the audience, for those who have little information. (Sure, if you’re already attending this conference, it’s more likely that you’re leaning in the anti-porn direction, but still. There were definitely people there seeking information, who weren’t hardcore anti-porn folks) Y’see, this is another place where the pro/anti-porn people converge as well: we’re all out to get the moderates. It sounds predatory, but it’s true.

I’ve heard it countless times in both camps; we are not going to sway the loudest, most intense people from the opposition, but we can definitely sway those in the middle, or those seeking information. We may not be able to change the views of “leading anti-porn activists,” but the thing is MOST PEOPLE AREN’T LEADING ANTI-PORN ACTIVISTS. Most people are normal folks, who may or may not yet have opinions on “the porn debates,” but haven’t devoted their entire lives to it. These are the people we can inform and “win over” through mature activism instead of blind fury that only serves to alienate others and give credence to the anti-porn extremists who vilify us.

How do we engage with these people, though? The first thing we have to do is NOT BE ASSHOLES. I fucking hate it when people are rude and condescending. Thus, I strive to NOT do that to other people, and call them out if/when I see them doing it to others. If I’m ever condescending, it’s because I’m purposefully trying to be cruel, and I’m not particularly proud of that. Anyway. At the con, I firmly stood my ground, looked at people in the eye, smiled, and engaged. It’s bizarre to be in a room where most people have some views that are radically different from one’s own (esp. when they regard one’s entire LIFE and even personal safety), yes, but it’s not an impossible thing to tackle, especially with a support network. I had the fortune of not being personally disrespected (aside from 2 incidents with Donna M. Hughes, which I will blog about later, but that wasn’t surprising at all), and I found no excuse to be anything but respectful back (not that I was looking for one in the first place).

It’s not about “turning the other cheek” and taking violence with a smile, just begging for more. It’s instead about not resorting to the shady tactics of those we consider our enemies and STILL acting positively to further our goals. It’s about not being rude, about not debasing oneself to the practices we revile in others. It’s about minimizing harm and striving for ideal situations of engagement. Again: it’s not about being NICE or KIND or FRIENDLY; it’s about *NOT* being an asshole. The first demands an action; the other demands that one restrains from an action. 

To those that CAN be friendly with “the enemy,” more power to you. Like Rachel D. said, those who can be kind, should, but not everyone is required to do so. I, personally, am on the fence re: how I deal with “my enemies.” First of all, I don’t draw such neat lines, boxing some people as “enemies” and others as “allies.” I usually just draw big Venn diagrams, where everyone is a circle, and I can find our places of overlap/difference and then act based on those, not the entire circles, y’know? (Sounds kinda like “hate the sin, not the sinner.”) Secondly, I’m torn because I find pleasure in being kind to “mostly enemies” because I feel it’s a slap in the face to them and their ilk, and that it’s embarrassing for them in the eyes of other people. However, at the same time, I don’t want to even engage with them sometimes, because it’s hard to be positive and optimistic when people are threatening your life, livelihood, and entire…well, everything! Still, I usually strive for positive engagement and know that being a hostile little fuck won’t get me anywhere with them.

On the SPC website, I found a particularly pertinent tip. While they’re giving the tip so people can effectively present one of their antiporn slideshows, I think it applies to any person giving a presentation about which they feel passionate (emphasis mine):

It is important not to come across as overly hostile or aggressive, both while narrating the slides and when answering questions. It’s understandable that we feel angry and sad when we see these images, and it’s OK to let the audience see that. But remember that audience members (especially women) are in a very vulnerable place seeing these images for the first time. They need to feel like you have things under control. Also, by keeping your own emotions in check, you allow them more space to experience their own feelings and reactions.

I repeat: it’s understandable to feel angry and sad. Heck, it’s understandable to feel so utterly outraged and upset that you want to smash things/people with a hammer. However, it is my belief that we should strive to channel strong emotions (as they are definitely important catalysts!) into more practical and useful weapons for change. Furthermore, to quote Emma: “We need to be strong, mature advocates of our viewpoint. Disagreement doesn’t mean we can take others lightly.

Once again: I’m not against ANGER or people’s personal feelings, but I *am* against letting that anger result in vicious attacks that don’t do anything but alienate others, both on “our side” and “the other side.” I think it’s useless to go into a conference (or general situation) swinging the battle-axes. We need to listen and engage first so we can properly educate, demystify, and ACTUALLY create some positive change. We need to make our “enemies” respect us as people too, and hopefully get them to engage in the same way with us.

I think it DOES harm our causes of promoting a healthier sexuality, more open communication, sex-workers’ rights, gender-justice, size-positivity, anti-racism, and all other such worthwhile movements when we act with condescension, disrespect, and immaturity. This doesn’t mean there’s no room for humor, but  that we cannot wave away other people’s concerns or comments with sarcasm and jokes. I’d feel insulted if someone dismissed MY points of view and didn’t engage with them, so I strive to avoid making others feel that way as well.

Finally, we must simultaneously remember our insignificance AND our power. Our actions have the potential to ripple off into many individual people’s lives, and that’s definitely not something to be underestimated. Also, that just because we don’t engage with “the enemy” doesn’t mean they magically disappear. Just because we close our eyes or turn our backs, it doesn’t mean their opinions go away. Thus, instead of ignoring them (for whatever reason), I feel we have the imperative to face them head-on.

Stay tuned for Part III!

P.S. More on this later, but I want to highlight early on that we DID find spaces for dialogue. One of the presenters commented–not just to us, but on her Twitter and the Scottish Coalition Against Sexual Exploitation Facebook–that she “also had the chance to sit and speak to the folks from yesterday who were live tweeting. really productive and positive conversations and hope that it helped in keeping options for dialogue open. Understand alot more how they felt as individuals in a room full of people where they were unsure of how they would be treated. nice to see the tweets today taking a different tone.”

SPC Series Part I: Introduction to Stop Porn Culture! Conference

(When you’re done reading this, check out SPC Series Part II: Purpose & Rules of Engagement)

As some of you may already know, this past weekend I attended the Stop Porn Culture! Conference held at Wheelock College. I wonder if any outsiders (or even insiders) made a kerfuffle about semantics like they did to us Brown University students and organizers when we held KinkForAll Providence, Get Your Heart On: Sex Educator Showdown (feat. Reid Mihalko and Megan Andelloux), or Sex Week 2010 (held AT vs. sponsored BY vs. happening on X campus–oh my goodness, you’re affiliating the name of a university with sex-related activism!)…but that’s another matter entirely.

Anyway. Get excited because I’m going to be blogging at LENGTH about this conference and my experiences there as a means to foster dialogue, inform people, state my views, and provide a more elaborate summary of the conference (since I was live-tweeting like crazy *AND* taking notes during the time I was there). I might also be appearing on “the smart sexuality netcast” Kink On Tap next Sunday to discuss these matters, so stay tuned to that as well. Heck, stay tuned to Kink On Tap regardless; it’s a good resource of sexuality-related current events and overall fascinating stuff.

Before I start talking about my impressions, thoughts, and all that good stuff, let’s get some basic information out there. I like my readers (and everyone) to have all the information they need to make educated opinions, so here we go.

For information about Stop Porn Culture!, the organization behind the conference, you should check out their own website AND also check out this article by VioletBlue, where she provides some information about the organization, points out SPC’s awkward religious affiliations, and highlights some of their main anti-porn tenets. As a general rule, never just look at one side of the coin. 🙂 Be critical and analytical in your consumption of information! /PSA

I’m not going to go in-depth regarding the organization’s position just yet, since it is clearly written about already on the websites I’ve linked, but I’d like to quickly debunk some of the things in their FAQ:

  • It’s inaccurate in the EXTREME to talk about “pornography” as if it were an entirely monolithic concept and “the industry” as if it were in the hands of people with just ONE agenda (to degrade and exploit women, of course), who are all solely perpetuating just ONE type of image. We can SORT OF talk in generalizations about the “mainstream porn” that’s available, but even then we have to tread a bit carefully. It’s INACCURATE and MISLEADING to talk about pornography using a definition that tries to imply things that are NOT in the actual definition of pornography, which is “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.”
  • To say that pornography as a whole “offers the same progression of sexual acts, ending in the same sexual act – ejaculation onto a woman’s body or face, over and over again” is to ignore, y’know, the entire existence of gay-male porn. It’s to ignore the existence of SO many different genres of pornography that it’s personally sickening to me how reductionist many anti-porn folks can sometimes be. There are folks who are CONSTANTLY reducing the entire realm of pornography into these specific boxes, specific acts, and almost 100% ignoring anything else that’s out there as if they were wearing blinders. Furthermore, the use of this specific example of male-ejaculating-onto-woman clearly shows us that there is a need for EDUCATION (surprise, surprise). As long as we continue to assume that men ejaculating on women is inherently about power and inherently degrading to women, we’re gonna have fucked up relationships to our sexual expressions. 
  • Their Q: “Don’t feminists focus on the worst kind of pornography, the most brutal images? Isn’t most pornography just people having sex?” and A: “StopPornCulture! focuses on the “mainstream” of the pornography industry. A tour through any pornography shop or internet sites will demonstrate that. If anything, we have avoided the worst of what’s available” = NOT TRUE. They have certainly not avoided the worst of what’s available, and many big names in the anti-porn community often do resort to highlighting some of the most “hardcore” porn over and over to try and drive their anti-porn points home. Want examples? How about Donna M. Hughes citing cases of bestiality, illegal + NON-CONSENSUAL BDSM, and criminal activity as “examples” and “case-studies” of sexual fetishism and BDSM as a whole in widespread bulletins through organizations like CAT? How about the continued talk of humantoiletbowls.com during the 1st day of the SPC conference? That’s like trying to represent an entire country by going to its prisons and picking the maximum security offenders to be the poster-children. It’s inaccurate and just plain stupid. More importantly, it’s DISINGENUOUS and dishonest.
  • “While it’s true that ‘scientific proof’ establishing a direct connection between pornography use and rape doesn’t exist, research has made it clear that the use of pornography is a factor in shaping the attitude and behaviors in some men who use it and that it is a factor in some men’s sexual aggression.” – Okay, fantastic. Now let’s actually investigate what other factors shape their aggression and how we can fix that. Furthermore, let’s talk about HOW it shapes their attitudes and behaviors. Let’s talk about education and empowerment and social change. We can “fix” pornography and “fix” society, but it won’t happen by eradicating pornography.
  • “Q: Can there be feminist pornography? A: No doubt there is a place in the creative arts in the culture’s struggle for gender justice and a healthy sexuality. And, it’s not surprising that there would be interest in countering sexist and racist images with healthier depictions of sexuality. The rush to imagine “good” pornography can be a way to avoid contemplating the nature of the actual pornography we live with. Perhaps a more constructive first step would be to talk honestly about the sex/gender crisis we face.” – Notice how they didn’t even answer the question AND how they avoided endorsing or acknowledging the term/concept “feminist pornography” by couching a yes-like answer under verboseness (“there is a place in the creative arts in the culture’s struggle for gender justice and a healthy sexuality”). Also, it’s silly to imply that a) we should first contemplate the porn we have before we try to imagine “better porn” as if we couldn’t do both simultaneously and b) those who are trying to articulate a sex-positive, feminist, non-oppressive pornography haven’t taken the time to analyze the “current system.” I do agree that we need to first analyze what’s going on before we can TRULY provide good alternatives to what’s currently out there, but I just take issue with the implication that we can’t even start to imagine the possibilities.

Also, please take a look at the conference’s schedule, and if you can, check out the information about the speakers. Don’t just stop at what they’re linking (or even what I’m linking) though. Google some of those names (e.g. Donna M. Hughes). Do your research.

Saturday, June 12

8:00-9:00         Registration
9:00-9:15         Housekeeping  (Lierre Keith)
9:15-9:30         Welcome and introductory remarks  (Dr. Gail Dines)
9:30-10:15       “A Power Paradox: The Online Commercial Pornography Industry Network” (Jennifer Johnson)
10:15-11:15     Making Hate: Porn, Sex and the Destruction of Intimacy (Dr. Gail Dines)
11:15 -11:30    Break
11:30-12:30 Self Exploitation:  The Slippery Slope of Self-Made Porn  (Dr. Sharon Cooper)
12:30-1:30       Lunch: There will be sandwiches for sale on site, and there are plenty of lunch spots close to the college.
1:30-2:30         “Hip Hop Honeys, Nappy Headed Hoes, and Hustlaz: The Pornofication of Hip Hop Music and Videos” (Dr. Carolyn West)
2:30-3:30         “The Personal Hazards of Porn” (Wendy Maltz, LCSW, DST)
3:30-4:00         Break
4:00-5:00         “From Jekyll to Hyde: The Grooming of Male Pornography Consumers”  (Dr. Rebecca Whisnant)
5:00-5:45         Reconvene for discussion
(Break for dinner)
7:30-9:30         Dessert party and (optional) films
The Price of Pleasure” (with director Chyng Sun)

Sunday, June 13

9:30-11:00             Pornography and the Law: New Approaches

Diane Rosenfeld  (Harvard University Law School)
Clare McGlynn (Durham University School of Law)
Donna Hughes  (University of Rhode Island)

11:30-12:45          First Workshop
Anti-Pornography Organizing on the Internet
Samantha Berg (Genderberg) and Jill  (One Angry Girl)
Working with Men
Matthew Ezzell (James Madison University)
Cameron Murphey (Western Washington University)
Robert Jensen (University of Texas)
12:45-2:00       Lunch

2:00-3:15 Second Workshop

International Anti-Pornography Organizing
Linda Thompson  (Women’s Support Project, Glasgow)
Natalie Nenadic (University of Kentucky)
Donna Hughes (Dignity)
College Students, Hook-up Culture and Pornography:  A Discussion
Denise McGoldrick (Director of Health Education, Amherst College)
Gretchen Krull (Assistant Director of Health Education / Sexual Harassment Specialist, Amherst College)

3:15-3:45         Break
3:45-4:30         Final wrap-up and discussion

Sex Panic!: When Educators Are Censors

Sex Panic!: When Educators Are Censors
a panel and Q&A session moderated by 
Brown Professor of History and Brazilian Studies Jim N. Green,
author of Beyond Carnival: Male Homosexuality in Twentieth-Century Brazil

Free and open to the public!
Tuesday, May 4th @ 6:00 pm
in Smith-Buonanno Hall, Room 106 (View Map)
95 Cushing Street, Providence, RI 02906

This event is co-sponsored by: SHEEC and QCC

Panelists:
  • Aida Manduley: SHEEC Chairperson (that’s me!)
  • Megan Andelloux: Certified sexologist and sex educator
  • Reid Mihalko: Brown alum and presenter on sex and relationships 
  • Meitar Moscovitz: Community organizer and technology professional
  • Ricky Gresh: Senior director for Student Engagement at Brown University

What would you do if your organization were criticized for following through with its mission statement? What if you were publicly denigrated, misrepresented, and harassed for your work? What if educators themselves were trying to hamper your attempts at education

Finally, who should have a say in a college student’s sex education?

——————————————-

This panel has been born out of a need to discuss the role of students, educators, and institutions in regards to censorship, free speech, and the right to organize.

More specifically, this panel has been born out of one group of incidents that have spanned this entire semester. SHEEC: the Sexual Health Education & Empowerment Council, an organization which I not only chair, but CHERISH, has come under vicious attack due to some (if not most) of the events it has been sponsoring, coordinating, and organizing. Who have been the attackers? Primarily, Donna M. Hughes (Prof. of Women’s Studies at the University of Rhode Island) and Margaret Brooks (Brown alum and Prof. of Economics at Bridgewater State College). Other folks who have been involved? Melanie Shapiro, co-founder (along with Donna M. Hughes) of “Citizens Against Trafficking” and folks from the “Foundation for Intellectual Diversity,” a non-profit that is dedicated to funding the “underrepresented” ideas on the conservative end of the spectrum at Brown University.

We will briefly explain this ordeal at the panel, in the spirit of full transparency, and then we will delve deeper into other instances of censorship and moral panic so we can have a productive conversation about these issues. It’s an event that shouldn’t be missed, honestly. (If you’re curious and want to check out some back-story right now, though, feel free to peruse my SHEEC-tagged posts in this blog, which explain the matter/s and link to other sources of information.)

The event will focus on discussing censorship as it relates to sexual education and programming around sexuality issues because of the reasons why this panel came into being and because we hope to use the panelists’ experiences as “case-studies,” BUT we highly encourage EVERYBODY to attend, especially those who have had similar scary experiences with censorship or those who are curious because they don’t want to have it happen to them.

Come join us in our dialogue!

Though it’s open to the public, Brown students are especially encouraged to attend because we’ll discuss what Brown can do for YOU, and how Brown can protect your rights to hold events. This is CRUCIAL information, especially if you do any sort of “controversial” work on campus.

Also, in the spirit of bridge-building, communication, honesty, and all that good stuff, I personally invited the folks who have gone after me and my friends to the panel (and I’ve attached a copy of the email at the bottom of this post). So far, I haven’t received any sort of reply, which is very disappointing, although not terribly unexpected. Based on their track-record, it seems these people are not interested in any sort of conversation; they’re just out to bash individuals, censor comprehensive sexual education that acknowledges diversity, and shut down the things with which they don’t agree.

Perhaps they’ll surprise me on May 4th and attend the panel. It would be fascinating to finally see them in person, for once, and maybe have a chance to talk to them. All of this has gone on without them EVER asking me anything or directly contacting me–just paying eerily close attention to my online presence & SHEEC events and then criticizing, bashing, and lying about them behind my back. It seems they don’t acknowledge my humanity, or the humanity of the other people they have attacked and hurt with their mean-spirited campaigning, and that is really sad.

The worst part is, while we could ALL be spending time actually learning about and addressing the issue of trafficking & forced labor (because “sex-trafficking” is NOT the only issue here, or the only one affecting women; it is only ONE of the subsets of forced labor and human trafficking), we are instead caught in a web of animosity that distracts us from the REAL issues, confuses the public, and spreads inaccurate information. My friends and I are trying to make positive change in the world by educating and empowering people, while at the same time having to defend ourselves against harsh attacks by “educated” folks who conflate sex-work with sex-trafficking, equate kink and BDSM with slavery and abuse, purposefully lie and misrepresent those they see as “the enemy,” and deny women’s agency to make informed decisions because they somehow “know what’s best for them.”

Personally, based on the things I just highlighted, I think there are way more issues here than solely sexuality education and morality, don’t you think?

In short, I hope that if you CAN, you attend the panel.
I think everyone would benefit from hearing what we have to say and taking part in this discussion.




——————————————-


Open Letter to Melanie Shapiro, Margaret Brooks, and Donna M. Hughes:

Date: Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:38 PM
Subject: Invitation to Event at Brown University
To: melanieshapiro4@gmail.com, mbrooks@bridgew.edu, dhughes@uri.edu, dhughes71@cox.net

Dear ladies, Since you have shown persistent interest in the events I have coordinated and facilitated at Brown University through SHEEC (the Sexual Health Education & Empowerment Council), as the organization’s Chairperson, I cordially invite you to attend the next one: “Sex Panic!: When Educators Are Censors” on May 4th, 2010, at 6:00pm in Smith-Buonanno Room 106. I hope you will take this opportunity to constructively converse with myself and the other people whom you have publicly denigrated and misrepresented, as I feel it is deeply saddening and highly unfortunate that you are so eager to attack my organization and its events while refusing to engage with me or even do basic research about what it is that I do and promote.

Sincerely,

– Aida Manduley

KinkForAll Providence: Clarified [Updated]

While I was planning KinkForAll Providence, I was contacted by Brown officials because a community member was emailing the University with concerns about the event. Though, as I found out, most of these concerns were alarmist and visibly laced with prejudice and ignorance about the event and many of the sexuality topics that we hoped to address, the University heard this individual out and I met with various Brown officials to discuss the points that had been raised. After speaking with me and making sure I was following the appropriate protocol (which I was already doing because I’m a very experienced event organizer at this institution), the Brown officials did not find a reason to cancel the event or do much else, other than closely review my plans and tell me to keep in communication with them before, during, and after the event.

That, however, was not the end of the saga. After KinkForAll was held on February 6th, and after Get Your Heart On: Sex Educator Showdown with Reid Mihalko (a Brown alum) and Megan Andelloux (a certified sex educator) happened on Valentine’s Day (co-sponsored by SHEEC, Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance, Students for Choice, Queer Alliance, Sarah Doyle Women’s Center, and Brown Health Education), the emailing continued.

As I eventually found out, thanks to the Internet, this community member was someone by the name of Margaret (Barber) Brooks, none other than a Brown alum and professor of Economics at Bridgewater State College in MA. I was deeply saddened that a professor and Brown alum would go to the lengths she did to shut down a student event (or two, really), especially one aimed at creating a space where information about sexuality could be shared, a space where people could feel safe and empowered to discuss these issues without being judged. I appreciated her concerns and her desire to maintain Brown students and community members safe, but the overall manner in which she approached the situation was appalling. 

Aside from the emails, she and Donna M. Hughes, a URI professor, posted and widely circulated a bulletin about the event. The bulletin, however, was more about bad-mouthing my friend Maymay (the co-founder of the KinkForAll unconference model), spreading inaccurate information about KinkForAll Providence, and fear-mongering than actually addressing any real issues.

Did Margaret ever reach out to me, the event organizer? No.


Instead, she chose to contact Brown multiple times, even after the University officials responded with their final decision to allow SHEEC to make the events happen.

Did Donna ever reach out to me? I’ll give you one guess.

Neither of these individuals have engaged with anyone directly related to the events’ organization. Instead, they have paid eerily close attention to our blogs, Twitter accounts, Google-groups, and online presences and have then twisted the information found there to fit their agendas. They have spread inaccurate information (heck, they have spread flat out LIES) and incited other individuals to call us horrible things, such as sex-traffickers.

Because of this, and because I believe in what I do (and I want to be as transparent as possible), I wish to clarify certain things about KFA Providence. Though most (if not all) the information in this post is easily available on the Internet, I will attempt to make a concise summary of concerns and my responses/clarifications.



1. KinkforAll–model or organization?


KinkForAll is a conference model, not an organization. Simple as that. There are no “members” or general KFA “presidents.” Each KFA event is specific to that time, place, and set of organizers. As far as KinkForAll Providence goes, I can’t claim ownership of the MODEL, but I can claim responsibility for the drive and organization of that event.
2. KFA’s relation to Brown and who organized it

I was the main organizer, and my community co-organizer was Emma Gross. The sponsoring group was SHEEC. It’s insulting to hear people like Margaret (Barber) Brooks and Donna M. Hughes credit Maymay with organizing the event, because that was not the case. Personally, while I think May is an AMAZING human being (a-may-zing? wow, I just went there) and I appreciate his founding the KFA model, I feel my work is being invalidated and dismissed by these two women. Furthermore, I feel that one of the organizations I lead at Brown University, the one dearest to my heart, is being disparaged. This is all very unacceptable.

The idea that “No one is apparently in charge; therefore no one is responsible” is, again, insulting, because I was clearly in charge and SHEEC was the group responsible. If anything had gone wrong, it would have been our responsibility. 

Throughout the conference, we stated that the sponsor for the event was SHEEC, and that Brown was giving us access to the venue through that. This was said a few times, and in multiple rooms, and also during the live-stream. I also know that in CarnalNation, the language used was “held AT Brown,” which is accurate. Also, there were signs in the building explaining what the content was, where the livestream was, that the sponsor was SHEEC, and so on. Everything was carefully labeled.

In regards to us using Brown’s Wi-Fi and facilities, and arguments that these conditions make Brown a sponsor? By that logic, it would mean that ANY and EVERY event held on campus is “officially sponsored” by Brown University. This makes no sense, and is NOT aligned with Brown’s definition of sponsorship. In our communications, we weren’t using Brown’s name to make it sound “more legitimate” or anything; we merely had to use Brown’s name so that people would know where the conference was being HELD. Finally, GuestIDs are given to people who stay at the Brown Inn and people coming in for conferences, so this, again, was within their/our right to pursue.

3. Safety issues and children

This particular event would have never resulted in children being “approached, propositioned, or molested.” We took specific safety precautions to ensure the comfort of all our participants and to make sure that everything going on at the event was legal, consensual, safe, and in accordance to Brown’s policies and regulations, as evidenced by my meetings with Brown officials and the ridiculous amounts of signs and posters stating what was going on and what rules the attendees and presenters had to abide by. Furthermore, no minors were allowed at the conference unless they were there with a legal guardian or parent.
4. Extra rooms and “one Brown female undergraduate at the conference” that “appears to have engaged in a sexual activity at approximately 2:20 pm” 

Extra rooms, yes. I reserved them to make sure that all the people on the first floor were people we WANTED there, and who were explicitly coming for the conference instead of merely wandering in. We also had greeters at the door, time-keepers in the rooms, and people flowing in and out of presentations making sure things were going according to plan. In regards to small groups of participants going off by themselves into the extra rooms—I wandered around and people were always in rooms where presentations were actively going on; otherwise, the other rooms were empty. The only time when presentations were NOT going on was during lunch, from 1 to 2 pm, and we were on break. 

A Brown undergrad “engaging in sexual activity” at approximately 2:20…? What does that even mean?

There were NO SEXUAL ACTIVITIES TAKING PLACE AT OUR EVENT (unless you count DISCUSSIONS about sexuality) and we made it clear at the beginning of the event and on the venue rules in each room that no sex/nudity/play was allowed. 
5. Credentials of presenters
The public is welcome, and thus, we don’t require people’s credentials in, say, sexology or psychiatry when they want to present about a topic they’re passionate about. This conference is a place for people to speak candidly about sexuality from their own perspectives, and that is how we describe it. We do not in any way misrepresent who is attending and what they’ll be doing at KinkForAll.

6. Videos and livestream 
All the people who were videotaped either personally asked us to record them OR specifically chose to use Room 102, with the livestream. NO ONE was taped that did not consent to being taped; we had our sticker system (orange dot = do not tape), time-keepers, and organizers helping enforce this in every room. We made everyone who was going to take pictures be identifiable on their name-tag, and the people taking pictures were basically me and Meitar. There was a huge sign explicitly stating that there was a live-stream in room 102 and what that meant (for those people who were unfamiliar with the term “livestream”). Furthermore, there were signs ON the computer that was recording and all around it cautioning people that it was taping, so no one would accidentally walk into its line of vision (another reason why we angled it in such a way that it wouldn’t capture the doorway).
7. Meitar, KinkForAll, KinkOnTap podcast, and money

Meitar is the co-founder of the KinkForAll conference/model. He has organized some KFAs, but not all of them. Re: KinkOnTap podcast, Megan Andelloux and I were on as guests the day after KFAPVD, and a) this podcast is NOT personally making Meitar money at all because whatever donations they receive are for the funding of the program itself and b) the podcast is a separate entity that is not seeking to make money off KFA Providence. The podcast is separate and, yes, we mentioned KFAPVD, but that’s because we were talking about recent events and news items (such as the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy articles that have been floating around). The footage shot at KFAPVD is NOT being sold and is NOT being used commercially at all. In fact, quite the opposite. The mission statement of the KFA model is to make all this information FREELY available to everyone. That’s also the reason why the conference ITSELF is free; it’s one of the most important parts of the model! 

8. “Illegal sadist practices,” NELA’s Fetish Flea Market, and KFAPVD
As far as I know, discussing “illegal practices” is not illegal itself, or else no one could ever talk about, say, underage drinking. This conference is a place for critical analysis and discussion, where these topics can and SHOULD be addressed, especially when it comes to talking about their legal ramifications. Again, I invoke our right to free speech. As far as NELA goes, yeah, I HOPED to get BDSM advocates from across the country. The presenters at the Fetish Flea are highly respected in the community and have a lot of things to say, so they would’ve been more than welcome at our event. Also, for those of you who don’t know, NELA is  “an incorporated non-profit 501(c)3 organization dedicated to the support, education, and political organizing of the leather/fetish/SM/bondage communities in New England.”

Open Response to Brown Alum: More Sex Week Madness!

I love how people who have negative things to say about me, SHEEC, and Sex Week rarely come to me directly, and instead contact other conservative folks and start spreading rumors. I can’t decide if this is ignorant, cowardly, or what. Maybe a combination of both. Sigh.

Regardless, here is my response to the questions a Brown alum apparently sent FID here. I’ll try to be concise, but also informative, so while some answers only deserve a one-word response (or even no response at all because they’re so absurd), I will try to expound upon them a bit if I feel there is a need to do so. I think most of these questions are pretty cute (in that “wow, it’s cute how you’re trying to find ANY possible way to get us in trouble, even when it sounds and IS totally ridiculous” way).


—————-


1. Did the Wet Spots’ spanking of audience members cause injury to someone? – No.  

2. Student organizers plan to post the best “erotic” story on Brown SHEEC web site. Does Brown allow obscene material on its web site? – The website is not hosted by Brown. We’re posting it on our blog: http://brownsheec.wordpress.com/  

3. Sarah Sloane taught a workshop for sex assault survivors. She is not a psychologist. She is a sadist, etc. Her statements could be harmful to anyone who is attending this session looking for help http://www.sarahsloane.net/?page_id=208. – Since when does being a sadist in BDSM contexts invalidate one’s advice about actual sexual assault? Whatever. Feel free to email me and I can give you a copy of the handouts for the event; I’m sure you’ll find them quite positive and informative. FYI, we also discussed and made available Health Services pamphlets and information about official counseling at the event. During the week, we also had another event about sexual assault led by Trish Glover, Brown’s Sexual Assault and Prevention Coordinator. Furthermore, Sarah Sloane made her experience/educational background/interest in speaking about sexual assault quite transparent at the event and never claimed to be a psychologist (and we never billed her as such). Finally, I attended the workshop and can vouch for everything she said.

4. Sarah Sloane taught a class on safe sex. Is she qualified? She teaches BDSM. How safe is that? – To answer the first question, yes, she is qualified. For our intents and purposes, someone who is qualified to talk about safer sex is someone who has the knowledge necessary to provide an accurate, educational, and informational workshop or discussion. As someone who knows a lot about safer sex and as the person who booked her for attendance (and thus made sure that she had the knowledge to back up her event), I can stand by all the information she gave during her presentation. To answer the second question, BDSM is as safe as you make it, just like walking down the street is as safe as you make it. Heck, BDSM can be even safer than walking down the street. 

5. Megan Andelloux’s class is asking for audience participation, both mind and body. Are there could be sexual harassment issues with what took place? – Nope.  

6. Raffles were held. Were appropriate licenses obtained? Can dildos, etc legally be raffled? What about minors who may have been present or who may buy a ticket? – No minors purchased tickets or were present. And as far as we know, yes, all proceedings were legal. Finally, the sale and use of sex toys is legal in Rhode Island. What do you think they sell at Mister Sister on Wickenden? Pastries?  

7. Did Brown check IDS of all people attending Sex Week events, given the content? – Nope. Most events were workshop-sized and thus either I or the other coordinators in attendance knew the people who were there (either personally, or they at least knew their grade year, age, and/or affiliation with SHEEC and Brown/RISD).  

8. Were these events be open to the community, and will their IDs be checked? – They were open to the community, yes, and no, their IDs were not checked for the aforementioned reasons. The community-members that were in attendance were either visibly college-aged or older.

9. What is the policy about photographing students who attend any Sex Week workshops? Do attendees have a right to privacy, including the possible taking of their names for raffles? – No names were taken for raffles. If you want more information about how the raffles worked, you can check here. Also, the raffles were completely voluntary, so while names were not necessary, even if they HAD been, people would have been GIVING us their names voluntarily. In regards to the pictures, at events, pictures were taken of presenters (if they consented to it), volunteers/coordinators (again, if they said it was okay), and the venue (beforehand). The other instances of pictures being taken were by BDH reporters taking pictures from the back of the room for one event, and thus no one’s identifying features were visible.  

10. The Raunchy Bake Sale was held on the Main Green. Passersby including children could have seen these items. It’s not only offensive but could violate RI Laws. – Mm, and what laws would those be, exactly? As far as I know, Spencer’s at the mall doesn’t have signs saying “WARNING: PENIS-SHAPED LOLLIPOPS AHEAD.” We didn’t either.  

11. Is SHEEC ever going to identify all the Brown Sex Week sponsors (including sex toy companies who donated products for the raffles?) Will this raffle funding be made public? See Aida Manduley’s twitter for mentions of companies that made donations: http://twitter.com/pledgemistress (scroll back by hitting “more” at the bottom of the page) – I’m amused by the phrasing–“is SHEEC ever going to identify all the Brown Sex Week sponsors” because it implies that we’ve taken forever and a day to say who the sponsors are or something. In fact, they have been identified/promoted multiple times through multiple media, before the raffle even happened. We have been quite transparent about this. Check our Facebook event, blog (https://brownsheec.wordpress.com/), and posters for more information.