- Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript support is required to use the media player.
- Related News
Click here to read College of William and Mary President Taylor Reveley’s full statement on the Sex Workers’ Art Show.
College of William and Mary President Taylor Reveley will allow the Sex Workers’ Art Show to return to campus, though he thinks it will “breed controversy.”
The SWAS, a burlesque-style show performed by former and current sex workers, has appeared on campus for the past three years, attracting heavy media attention and controversy in 2007 and 2008. Former College President Gene Nichol cited his having allowed the show to take place as a principal reason his contract was not renewed almost one year ago, though the Board of Visitors said that was not the case.
“Right now is an unusually critical time in William and Mary’s long life … I am personally very disappointed — and quite frustrated — to find that the university must think yet again about SWAS,” Reveley said in a statement released to the news media yesterday. “This breeds controversy. It lessens our capacity to move the College forward.
“This would have been a good year, in my judgment, for SWAS supporters to
have called a time out,” he added.
But Reveley said he could not ban the show.
“The College has long placed great faith in its students to choose the speakers and performers they invite to campus,” Reveley said. “For practical as well as philosophical reasons, I will not play the censor.”
In his statement, Reveley called into question the intellectual rigor of the event.
“The free play of ideas is the best route to truth … The sponsors of SWAS and its performers must do much better on the Jeffersonian front than they have to date,” he said. “In addition to performing, they need to provide means for a serious discussion about pertinent issues, conducted with the intellectual rigor and civility characteristic of William and Mary.”
The BOV issued a statement supporting Reveley’s decision.
“Guided solely by the College’s best interest, [Reveley] made a clear and timely decision. The Board fully supports his conclusion,” BOV Rector Michael Powell ’85 said. “There are substantially more critical issues facing the College to occupy everyone’s time.”
Due to public nudity clauses, the SWAS cannot be shown in Williamsburg-area venues. But the clauses don’t apply to the College’s campus.
According to College spokesman Brian Whitson, the scheduling office had been informed of plans to invite the SWAS for a March 23 performance.
Jessee Vasold ’11, co-president of the Lambda Alliance, the College’s GLBTQ advocacy group, said his group, along with the Meridian Coffee House, Tidewater Labor Support Committee, VOX: Voices for Planned Parenthood, the Feminists’ Majority Leadership Alliance and feminist sexuality magazine Lips, would host the event.
SWAS organizer Annie Oakley noted last year that the opposition the show faced from both politicians and the media made it difficult to organize.
“This has been a more arduous and degrading experience than anything in the sex industry,” she said, adding that she would not want to come back.
But the Lambda Alliance contacted SWAS at the end of last semester to talk about bringing the show back, and has heard those involved would like to return.
According to Student Assembly Finance Committee member Brittany Fallon ’11, a proposal to grant $1,625 for the SWAS was passed Jan. 28.
“While press coverage has been extreme and somewhat ridiculous, there’s a lot of support among those who saw [SWAS] last year, and people who want to bring it back,” Vasold said. “We feel it has an important message to share.”
SA president Valerie Hopkins ’09 said she hopes this year proves to be less politically volatile.
“I think last year [SWAS] was used more as a political stepping zone and rallying cry for ousting Nichol,” she said. “Perhaps I was optimistic for thinking this year would be different.”
Hopkins said the event will likely be held in the Sadler Center Commonwealth auditorium, as theater commitments in the larger Phi Beta Kappa Hall likely would prevent its use. The 450-seat Commonwealth Auditorium sold out both shows last year.
RSS Feeds
30 Comments
Oh Please, I assume you
Oh Please,
I assume you are also against bringing any music groups here using school funds, then. They contribute little educational value for the most part, unlike SWAS, and the money could be used to feed people (even though it actually couldn’t because SA funds aren’t just money up for grabs).
If not, then you must admit that your reason for being against SWAS is not some altruistic desire to help people in the Williamsburg area. I don’t know what your real reason is, but perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the artists in this show are sex workers. You seem to think that this makes what they have to say “stupid.” This very fact is just one of the reasons why SWAS is important, contrary to what you say at the end of your post. People write off those who work in this industry, one of the biggest in the country, as unintelligent and obviously unable to produce art. The truth is that these people are doing this show as performance art and are sharing their stories with the audience – stories that not many people get to hear.
Finally, you say that “helping your neighbor” is important. I’m willing to bet you that at least one of your “neighbors” in the Williamsburg area is a sex worker or has been involved in the industry in some way, as a consumer or a producer. If we never talk about the industry, how can we “help” those involved in it. Not everyone in the industry needs “help,” but those who do need real help, not just moralizing dismissals of the way in which they make their livings.
Dear Oh Please, How much
Dear Oh Please,
How much money have you donated to charities recently? Furthermore, the money is in a fund that the SA controls. People can’t just go around applying for funding for charity donation (though maybe that would be a better use of unused SA funds).
Besides, your argument is a logical fallacy and is an irrelevant conclusion. You do not address the issue at hand here: Taylor Reveley’s misinformation about the Free Speech Forum and Q&A provided last year, and his and Michael Powell’s threats to free speech (they somehow have the power to determine programming on campus and are deciding to allow SWAS? That thought it is scary).
Finally, by your argument, we shouldn’t partake of anything in life other than the most pressing issues. According to you, there should be no paintings created or songs written or LGBT rights addressed, since, after all, people are starving everyday. And yet, I bet you go about your daily routine without thinking about becoming vegan (since more humans can be fed on a vegetable/fruit/grain-based diet than a meat diet), without donating a significant portion of your income to charity, etc. The maze of red tape that is the capitalistic system removes us from much of the suffering and makes it difficult to address the most pressing issues directly. So I say, can’t it be both? Can’t we address multiple issues at once and be activists for all sorts of things (and the SWAS helps us examine many different aspects of society)? And it seems to me that you are using a logical fallacy to justify your own bigotry and desire to silence the voices of the very people we need to hear.
Has Alex Guillen been fired
Has Alex Guillen been fired from the staff, or honor counciled for lying in his articles on SWAS?
Can you just listen to
Can you just listen to yourselves for just one minute? Think of all of the necessary items the money paid for this “show” and admission could do to help a needy family in the Williamsburg community right now… People are unemployed and losing their jobs daily, losing homes they have worked for because they can’t find work, breadwinners can’t feed the families they could provide for months ago, those are the important things in life, not some stupid “sex workers” show…..Think of the possibilities that would be provided if the same students who thought the SWAS was a “worthy” cause, decided in the scheme of things, that helping a poor family in the Williamsburg community was a more worthy cause, deserving of the money that would be paid to bring this show to campus….. The media wouldn’t know what to do, because there wouldn’t be a “controversy” to report, the students who are trying to be a part of the community would benefit, not to mention that it may buy a local family the time they need to get back on track…..
Sometimes in life, people are so sure their opinion is right, they lose site of the important things in life. The SWAS isn’t important, but helping your neighbor is… Think about it…..
In response to those
In response to those faculty (?) who suggest we students (? I assume I have the speaker and audience correct) read local media and gain some understanding of the local communities:
I am a student. I am from Virginia. I also live in Williamsburg year round and have worked for most of my time here in locally owned businesses. While I understand where you’re coming from with the suggestion that we students don’t “understand Williamsburg” or “understand Virginia”, I find the way you’ve expressed yourself condescending.
Furthermore, if you read any local papers from Williamsburg or other areas of Virginia, prostitution (one of many issues SWAS touches upon) is much more common here than you might think. There are surprisingly frequent articles about prostitution rings throughout local papers from all over Virginia – rural and urban – and even in the Williamsburg area. (If you don’t believe me, you obviously didn’t read the Gazette Article about the prostitution rings that were busted by police last fall in James City county).
IF YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH PROSTITUTION AND OTHER FORMS OF SEX WORK ARE PREVELANT IN THIS COUNTRY, THIS STATE, AND EVEN THIS COMMUNITY, THEN IT IS YOU WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN COMMUNITY.
Though The Sex Workers Art Show is, as the name suggests an “Art Show”, and includes somewhat sensationalist performance art, it has some very valid, very important things to say about the intersection of class, poverty, economics and society…
The SA and the W&M student
The SA and the W&M student body is being used by the SWAS for cheap publicity, and the students seem to be blind to it. Are W&M students so frozen in adolescence that they are willing to fun a sex show (giglle, giggle) for four years in a row? Are there ANY other events that get funded this consistently? Is the point to put the College in a bind or a lose-lose situtaion, because the SA has been successful in doing just that. Perhaps it’s time for the SA to collectively grow up, quit the adolescent obsession with porn stars and hookers, and start focusing on critical issues in this community. There are children in Wburg/JCC/York going to be hungry, not keeping up in school, and where is the SA to help educate students about these issues?
From their repeated commitment and funding of the SWAS one could conclude that all W&M students seem worried about is proving some point about their freedoms and the 1st ammendment no matter how damaging to the college or it’s reputation. OK, we get it, you want to make sure the community knows that the SA will not be bullied or censored. OK, we get it, you’re all grown up and can make your own decisions re: the SA budget. Fine. That’s the easy part of being a responsible adult. Making good ones is the hard part so can you start doing something useful for a change?
WHAT?? first of all there
WHAT??
first of all there are DOZENS of events that the SA unquestionably funds year after year after year, many that have been mentioned previously on this comment board (especially sporting events that vary wildly in attendence)
second of all “start focusing on critical issues in this community. There are children in Wburg/JCC/York going to be hungry, not keeping up in school, and where is the SA to help educate students about these issues?”
where exactly do you think some of these children will turn to for money? do you think prostitutes just spring whole from the earth? a large part of the SWAS is to face many of the societal causes that create the sex industry, to educate people for the exact purpose that you seem to care about. yes, certainly not everyone in the sex industry is forced into it, but most are if only for a lack of education or opportunity!
finally, i don’t think any of us set out to make a point about free speech. we want to see the show because we find it to be entertaining and informative. if we could just have the show with no controversy, that would be ideal. but the fact that people are determined to create drama just proves the usefulness of the show in engaging the very controversy surrounding sex and the sex industry.
until we can have a SWAS w/o people being alarmist, its value is very apparent.
nr33w, no, i am not
nr33w,
no, i am not misinformed or ignorant. i am also not naive. the circumstances surrounding the first swas is a far cry from the circumstances surrounding the fourth one. i hardly think they can be compared.
concerned faculty,
your comparison of waving the red flag in front of the raging bull is quite accurate…
Dear are you kidding
Dear are you kidding me?,
You ask, “Do you honestly believe that this show could have been held on campus under the radar of the press? Seriously?” LOL. Why, yes, I do. Are you misinformed? Ignorant? The first year the Sex Workers’ Art Show was here, it received relatively little controversy/coverage/attention. And now Reveley is stirring it up, so, yes, I do blame him.
Dear Pro-SWAS, Anti-SWAS at W&M,
Have you seen the show? It’s nice that you support it, but you keep emphasizing it is solely feminist and only mentioning Lips. First of all, it deals with many intersections of oppression, not just women’s issues. Secondly, a myriad of clubs are hosting it, not just Lips. Maybe this will help convince you that the benefits outweigh the “cost” (as you perceive it, since it is hypothetical; there have been no repercussions for this upcoming SWAS). Since it looks at so many aspects of identity and society, don’t you think it’s too valuable to pass up?
Dear Uriah Heap,
I have no clue who Methane Man is, but if you want to take the initiative to bring him here, go right ahead. It doesn’t really affect me. He might be entertaining to you; it doesn’t really matter. Now, the SWAS, on the other hand, has so much educational value in addition to its artistic entertainment, clearly demonstrating its superiority to any childish programming you may desire. But you are free to indulge yourself in Methane Man humor (I can only hope your amusement with him shows up some way in your sexual kinks. I hope you enjoy this: http://www.thefartgirls.com/).
The commentators who
The commentators who believe that the Sex Workers’ Art Show could have been held “under the radar” and blame President Reveley for causing a fuss are extremely naive—you clearly don’t know our local media or politicians all that well. Last week, well before the Flat Hat wrote anything about the show coming to W&M this spring, the Virginia Gazette published an article stating that some students concerned about the possible return of the SWAS had contacted Delegate Brenda Pogge; she then wrote to President Reveley demanding that he stop the show. (And hence, his statement was in response to a letter from Virginia legislator—he did NOT seek publicity for this controversy, but was forced to respond publicly.) Ii you actually think this show could have gone forward without anyone knowing about it, you simply haven’t been around Williamsburg long enough to know either the Virginia Gazette or Delegate Pogge, who, along with a few of her colleagues in the General Assembly forced several members of the W&M BOV to submit to a public hearing last spring in response to the Sex Workers’ Art Show. Only yesterday, the Gazette published a large op-ed piece by Karla K. Bruno, an local writer and alumna notable for her repeated denunciations of Gene Nichol over various issues during the last few years, complete with photos from last year’s show that’s bound to get the grayhairs all over Williamsburg writing letters denouncing the immorality of College. (Bruno’s work stirs up controversy and sells newspapers and the Gazette knows it.) I would ask that students weighing in on these issues start reading the local off-campus media and informing themselves about off-campus politics so that they better understand the consequences of their actions and the city and state in which they live. As for the content of the SWAS, I’m personally not offended by it. Still, while some faculty may choose support it, I do not, not because it offends me, but because I think it foolishly waves a red cape at the raging bull that is the General Assembly. (Nudity doesn’t bother me at all; stupidity does.) The timing of this event, during the General Assembly’s annual session, is simply terrible. I see absolutely no need for further “consciousness raising” about the plight of sex workers at this particular point in time. The show has raised plenty of people’s consciousness about W&M (and not in a helpful way) over the last three years. Whatever educational value it ever had is now extremely limited and definitely not worth the political and economic costs it will incur. I’d much rather that Lips and Lamda sponsor a conference about pornography, free speech, gay marriage, obscenity laws, or whatever controversial issue it chooses instead of having the SWAS yet again and provoking a three-ring media spectacle that’s bound to cost the College dearly at a point where we least afford it. Moreover, in todays’s dire economic climate, there are social issues far more pressing than those addressed by the SWAS that students could profitably look at—such as the vulnerability of our ill-paid housekeeping staff at W&M to the downturn in the economy. Again, I emphasize my feeling that bringing this show (and its probable negative economic consequences) to the College is the height of insensitivity, particularly for the most economically vulnerable members of the College community, who are struggling to make ends meet. Is that a message that Lamba, Lips, Meridian and the others in the coalition sponsoring this show really want to send?
How about Methane Man?
How about Methane Man? Let’s be fair. If the SWAS is art, why not fart humor? He’s entertaining, especially after a few beers. (Will the SWAS have beer? I bet not.) One thing though: Unlike that SWAS babe, Methane Man will not be able to crawl along the stage with a lit sparkler sticking out of his ass. I mean, fart + sparkler = KABOOM! We’ve got to have SOME standards at the College.
THE PRO-SWAS ARGUMENT FOR
THE PRO-SWAS ARGUMENT FOR NOT HOLDING THE SWAS AT W&M
I support the Sex Workers Art Show 100%: I think they are providing a valuable and thought-provoking opportunity for students, and I think we as students have every right to bring them onto campus. Ideologically, I totally side with them on their implicit feminist message.
But, in the spirit of Obama-style pragmatism and compromise, I have to ask: Does the SWAS cause more trouble for W&M students than it is worth? That is to say, would not inviting the SWAS to W&M actually be BETTER for feminism and free speech on campus? It seems counter-intuitive, I realize, but bear with me please.
Surely the SWAS is not the source of the trouble they bring. Crazy protesters, angry conservative alumni and sensationalizing media coverage are the cause of the trouble (I’m not singling out The Flat Hat—other papers are much worse). But, after two years of trying to reason with protesters and assuage alums and educate the media, we just haven’t been successful. It’s not the SWAS’s fault, but there it is. And I worry: will inviting back the SWAS “educate” protesters, alums and media why they’re wrong? I wish it were the case, but let’s be honest: protesters will still be angry, alums will still revoke donations, and media outlets will still cover the “sex” and not the “art show”.
Frankly, bringing the SWAS back will just make it worse. Protesters, seeing they’ve been unsuccessful, will gather more church buddies. Angry alums will continue not to donate and will call up other alums to encourage them to withhold. The media, I promise you, is already salivating over the crazy photos they can run.
BOTTOM LINE: The feminism and free speech that the SWAS was formed to promote will only become more entrenched and attacked by bringing them here. Again, it’s not their fault, but it’s how it is.
I know groups like Lips want to promote their cause, and they should because it’s such an important cause that’s needed here at W&M. But the SWAS has been, though unjustly, associated with too much “culture war” baggage to effectively further those ideals at W&M in the immediate future.
I imagine Lips and the SA probably still want to do something furthering feminism and free speech on campus. It is much needed! I hope they do something, perhaps hold a panel discussion on gender & free speech, or invite Annie Oakley to speak (which would allow her to express her views without giving protesters the satisfaction of a “scandal”). But bringing back the SWAS is not the way to do it. They should politely rescind their invitation to the SWAS with the promise that some day, when our campus is ready, they will come back.
Thanks for reading.
We at the College do
Do you honestly believe
Do you honestly believe that this show could have been held on campus under the radar of the press? Seriously?
I don’t blame Reveley anymore than I blame Gene Nichol. Neither of them invited or funded the show.
you cannot argue a
you cannot argue a hypothetical. this year there have been no cutbacks for the upcoming Sex Workers’ Art Show so you have nothing to argue. and if there are cutbacks? you can blame taylor reveley because he brought attention to it. if he had kept silent, everyone would have continued on with their lives, not thinking about an event that is a year old. then, when it came time for the show there would be the normal advertising on campus, but the outside media need not know. now reveley is just stirring up his own controversy which is sure to get more attention from other people in VA than if the show had just been left alone.
concerned faculty, i
concerned faculty, i couldn’t agree with you more. i dread the controversy created by bringing the sex workers art show back for yet ANOTHER year, not because of morals or because i am uncomfortable with the word ‘sex’. i dread it because of the consequences. we can’t afford any more cutbacks from virginia, and while the supporters of the art show may not feel those consequences are just, they are the consequences nonetheless. what about the students and parents who are barely able to finance a william and mary education now? i, for one, can not afford anymore drastic tuition increases. are the benefits of this art show really worth the consequences? i don’t think so. i’m not saying there are not benefits of the show, i simply don’t think those benefits are worth the consequences this institution is bound to face because of it, and i feel it is irresponsible to bring the show back to campus yet AGAIN.
Concerned faculty
Concerned faculty (member),
“Holding a program that would create greater awareness about poverty and hunger, which are likely to become an increasing problem for the less privileged people living in Williamsburg would probably be a lot more educational, if less entertaining than the Sex Workers’ Art Show.” I’m curious if you have seen the Show… While it doesn’t address hunger, SWAS does clearly address poverty and class issues when discussing reasons why people enter the sex industry. I ask you to see the Show since you are interested in poverty and similar issues. Like any other industry, the sex industry and its success is dependent on the overall economic climate. Interesting, sex toy sales have increased as the economy declines. (link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/fashion/08TOYS.html?_r=1&ref=fashion) It appears that people rely on sex toys (and perhaps other parts of the industry) to relieve stress and get them through the hard times. So, I don’t think the SWAS should be looked at badly this year. Other groups like HOPE and the Counseling Center do stress relief programs, just a more “traditional” type.
For those concerned about budget, the College has been sharing for weeks how student, faculty, and staff can help. Write to your state legislators expressing your concerns. Especially Pogge. Additionally, the Show has had faculty support in the past and probably does again this year.
Expressing concerns and opinions are very important and appreciated. However, address the problem that actually exists. If you are frustrated at the sensationalism surrounding the Show talk to papers and other news media about actually publishing accurate information.
Who does revely think he
Who does revely think he is?
“In addition to performing, they need to provide means for a serious discussion about pertinent issues, conducted with the intellectual rigor and civility characteristic of William and Mary.”
Riiiight….. just like all of the athletic competitions we host at the College. Or the action/romcom films that UCAB puts on every weekend. Or the Ying Yang Twins. There’s so much intellectual rigor involved in all those things… clearly we need to hold the SWAS to those same standards!
UNACCEPTABLE. REVELEY HAS
UNACCEPTABLE. REVELEY HAS TO GO. EVERYONE CALL THE BOARD OF VISITORS RIGHT NOW... WE CANNOT LET THIS STAND. WE FIRED THAT GUY NICHOLS FOR THIS VERY REASON AND NOW W. TAYLOR HAS TO GO
Morality aside – and no,
Morality aside – and no, I don’t find the show to be immoral, thank you very much – The Sex Workers Art Show** is obviously a good use of student activities funds – it sells out every time, meaning a significant portion (some form of majority, I think it would be safe to assume) of the student body clearly wants the show to come to William and Mary.
Yeah. Just wanted to put this thought forward before someone starts whining about the (alleged) misuse of student activity fees.
Frankly, now that Obama is
Frankly, now that Obama is President why do we even have to think of this shit. We all know he gives it to Michelle every night thricely.
Unlike a certain other President who probably only fucked Laura in missionary.
How will the Flat Hat
How will the Flat Hat rectify its astonishing rebuke of Reveley’s criticism of the show, when it is the Flat Hat which generated sufficient misleading content to fan the flames of controversy? Doesn’t sound fair to me. The author Alex Guillen should issue some public apology for the abhorrent lies contained in these headlines. An absolute scandal what you people are doing to this college.
“Student Assembly Votes for Sex” By: Alex Guillen
http://flathatnews.com/content/student-assembly-votes-sex
“Sex, Art and Outrage” By: Alex Guillen
http://flathatnews.com/content/sex-art-and-outrage
“Students Speak Out in Favor of Feb 4 Sex Show” By: Alex Guillen
http://flathatnews.com/content/students-speak-out-favor-feb-4-sex-show
“Sex Show a Go-Go” By: Alex Guillen
http://flathatnews.com/content/sex-show-go-go
I would just like to point
I would just like to point out that President Reveley feels that the question and conversation time with the “racial separatist” fulfilled the “Jeffersonian ideal,” but we also offered a Q/A session with the performers of the SWAS and we “must do much better on the Jeffersonian front than they have to date.”
The Q/A session was open to individuals of any viewpoint and we did not charge admission or even make people watch the show (i.e. become informed on the topic). The program for the “racial separatist,” however, closed the door at the beginning (room occupancy), which meant one had to listen to the presentation (i.e. actually know what one is talking about) and did not allow people in just for the Q/A.
We have also asked for the second year for a Forum on Free Speech as it relates to the SWAS. This was also open to everyone, the panel had three students who took issue with the program, and then allowed for a Q/A. In addition to the plethora of social critique in the Show itself, we have gone above and beyond what any other event is asked to do to fulfill the “Jefferson ideal.”
Yeah, I remember when the
Yeah, I remember when the Ting tings stopped in the middle of their concert to allow for “a serious discussion about pertinent issues, conducted with the intellectual rigor and civility characteristic of William and Mary.” Get real.
The only reason this event
The only reason this event is controversial is because people make it controversial. It should just be another event, like a speaker or any other kind of performance (magic, magician), but because it has ‘sex’ in the title and features people who worked in the sex industry it immediately gets bashed by people who can’t be bothered to get actual facts, or, god forbid, see it for themselves. The whole point of the show is to give a stage to people who are constantly marginalized by society and yet continue to exist in a substantial capacity driven by the very demands of society.
The Flat Hat owes its
The Flat Hat owes its readers and the organizers of the show an enormous apology. Four articles, all written by staff member Alex Guillen, seem to intentionally mislead readers. All four articles are titled inaccurately and accompanied by dishonest gabs. If Guillen is responsible, justice may need to be effected by the Honor Council. If all four instances were editorial choices, then the editorial leadership needs to issue a profound apology.
“Student Assembly Votes for Sex” By: Alex Guillen
http://flathatnews.com/content/student-assembly-votes-sex
“Sex, Art and Outrage” By: Alex Guillen
http://flathatnews.com/content/sex-art-and-outrage
“Students Speak Out in Favor of Feb 4 Sex Show” By: Alex Guillen
http://flathatnews.com/content/students-speak-out-favor-feb-4-sex-show
“Sex Show a Go-Go” By: Alex Guillen
http://flathatnews.com/content/sex-show-go-go
Dear ‘Really?’, The
Dear ‘Really?’,
The headline of the article clearly read Sex Show no more than an hour ago. Perhaps the writer has something against the content, perhaps the Editorial Decision was made to slam the show. All that can be said is that the Flat Hat engaged in rampant slander against the show last year, and until the title was recently changed again mis-identified the performance a Sex Show.
No one called it a sex
No one called it a sex show, Andie. The paper clearly titles it, The Sex Workers Art Show, which is exactly what it is and exactly how the sponsors bill the program. An art show by sex workers.
I would just like to
I would just like to clarify that this is
nota “sex show,” as the headlines of every single article the Flat Hat has written about this event imply. No sex of any sort occurs on stage.Although SWAS is entertaining, the main reason we bring the show to campus is to enlighten people about the actual experiences of sex workers. To characterize it as a “sex show” cheapens the educational value of the show.
Why do some