The Sex Workers’ Art Show has drawn a lot of reaction, for and against. Now that it has drawn the attention of the national media (check the Drudge Report, one of the most visited news website in the country), this is my reaction, speaking for many of us who find this show absurd to the point that one can only watch in awe at the Student Assembly’s decision-making.
According to the article “Student Assembly votes for sex” in the Jan. 18 issue of The Flat Hat, “some senators expressed discomfort with the show’s content, but cited the First Amendment as a reason not to stifle free speech.” Our fellow students believe that their obedience to the First Amendment requires that they tolerate the show.
I entreat someone to please show me where the First Amendment requires us to actively seek out, invite into our community and fund perverts and deviants. Maybe that clause is written on the back of the Constitution, to be revealed only with lemon juice and heat. People often lose sight of the fact that freedom of speech grants you the right to speak against perverts as well as in their favor.
These SA members have confused having a spine and protecting their values — exercising their First Amendment rights and their more fundamental right to make personal decisions they think are best for the campus — with limiting the free speech of the pornographers and pimps we have invited to our community. Opposing funding for the show in no way curtails freedom of speech. If the SA voted to condemn all activity promoting nudity or pornography on campus, that might be objectionable, then they would have a case. But this is not such a case. Rather, the issue regards inviting venues to campus that are objectionable and funding them.
Given recent events, the SA’s decision is even more absurd. How can the College lobby to the commonwealth of Virginia with a straight face while it is spending what it does have on burlesque pornography and glorified representations of an illegal industry? We are less than a year removed from an article that detailed how utterly pathetic our economic policy was at this school, and we continue to move in the direction of fiscal irresponsibility because of some ridiculous quasi-religious crusade against social normalcy.
Many have argued that the show is actually valuable. In terms of substance, I’ve heard, for example, “the point of the show is to reveal the horrible nature of the industry,” “the show represents a huge industry that makes a lot of money,” “it’s performance art” and, my favorite, “it belongs in a liberal arts education.”
Contrary to the first argument, the point is explicitly outlined on the SWAS website (which features pink silhouettes of men and women surrounded by the words “New Whore Order,” I might add): to “dispel the myth that [sex workers] are anything short of innovators and geniuses,” as well as to “celebrat[e] prostitutes’ rights.” In essence, it glorifies an industry that degrades women, ruins lives, is largely illegal and has been proven to increase the rate of rape and aggression in men.
Allowing and funding these “artists” to glorify the abuse of women on campus is inexplicable, unsupportable and tragically ironic considering the efforts of the College to educate about and prevent sexual assault.
It is truly shameful to see our elected members of the SA, with the firmest backing coming from our SA president, pass something as insane as this. Tit torture, ball-crushing, whip-yielding, nipple-torturing and works like “I Love Dick,” all of which are direct quotes from the show’s website, bring only shame to our campus. They have no place in the First Amendment, no place in what should be a very tight budget, and no place at a school that claims to be dedicated to treating women equally and with dignity.
Brooks Amster is a sophomore at the College.
RSS Feeds
18 Comments
What’s your major? I’m sure whatever department it is, they’re overdue for an anonymous outside review. Possible demotion of the department chairperson and receivership to follow. Please quit trying to stifle progress.
Your editorial is completely off-target and misguided. Also, I question your understanding of the First Amendment; furthermore, you clearly have not seen the SWAS.
What this really boils down to is that you (and other anti-SWAS folks) don’t want to see your money spent on something you don’t want to see yourself. Here’s an easy comparison: I don’t really want to pay to support athletic programs at WM because I don’t particularly enjoy watching them play. That doesn’t mean I would stop others from going to see it, and I can understand why some might be interested. Nevertheless, you don’t see much of an outrage about this issue, and when there is something published, it is certainly not written in the shrill tone that you employ in your editorial piece. Just as we all pay taxes to local, state, and federal government so that everyone can enjoy the benefits of public services, we all pay to support various programs at William and Mary; just as not everyone is satisfied with public services, not everyone is completely satisfied with all programs available at William and Mary. That’s the nature of the system.
Your misunderstanding of the First Amendment really shines through: the First Amendment protects free speech, even if you don’t like it yourself, Mr. Amster. You can rattle on all you want about “values”, but it is naive of you to think that everyone at William and Mary shares your value system. I, personally, value free speech, which not only protects the performances of the SWAS, but also allows YOU to publish your misguided and hate-provoking editorial. The strongest “spine” the SA could possibly have would be to uphold the values of the constitution, values which ARE actually shared by all citizens.
The beauty of America is that a wide diversity of opinions can be expressed without fear of reprisal. While this includes your right to ramble about values, pornography, and whatever else you think people care to hear you talk about, it also includes the right of performers to express themselves. Did you go see the SWAS? Or did you stay away, choosing to remain ignorant? Do you even know what it’s about?
The real embarrassment about the SWAS coming to William and Mary is not that it makes us look like “perverts”, “deviants”, or “sinners”; rather, the fact that such an outcry in favor of censorship has manifested itself in the public spaces of a university founded on the values of freedom, diversity, and intelligence is reason enough for everyone to hang their heads in shame. Thankfully, Mr. Amster, your “values” of censorship and maintaining the cultural hegemony of the ivory tower have not won out in this case, and in a bastion of free thought and independence like William and Mary, they never will, either.
Howell,
Your high-minded understanding of the SWAS is telling. It speaks volumes about yourself that you view nipple tassles and anal penetration as art. Congratulations, you’re contributing to the degeneration of our culture.
John R. Kennedy,
Your comment to Jordan’s well written and thought provoking response is nothing but a soundbite and fails to further the dialogue.
Jordan’s response was eloquent, well researched, and well written. It’s time this campus engaged in true debate and left behind soundbite partisan attacks. This issue warrants deep discussion and substantive dialogue. Snide comments and sarcasm might be flashy, but they only degrade the quality of debate. If you truly believe in your cause, then convince me with response similar to the level of Jordan’s. Otherwise, your endanger this campus.
Ruth
The responses to my piece, posted by John R. Kennedy and “R. Goldberg” (oh we all love his humorous devices!), are typical of the ultra-conservative, if not openly fascist, elements of this debate, which is, despite what these two might say, entirely concerned with free speech. They are typical in that they divert attention from the real issue in favor of sensationalist “facts”, hollow arguments, and personal attacks, which, as many people know, are only used when the person making them has no valid defense of their own.
My statement was criticized by Mr. Kennedy as being “high-minded”; in many places, this is held in much more esteem than something “low brow”, which, for readers unsure of its meaning, would probably be defined as follows: “Overly concerned with nipple tassles and anal penetration to the exclusion of something more substantive.” With that in mind, I would like to thank Mr. Kennedy for commending my writing as high-minded – I can only hope that my Honors Thesis committee has the same opinion!
Mr. Kennedy labels the SWAS a degenerative force, something that will ultimately bring down “our culture”. I ask Mr. Kennedy, could you please tell me about “our” culture? What does it look like, and what are the key beliefs? If you are referring to American culture, then I will offer the following characterization and you can supplement or correct it: “American culture emphasizes individual freedoms, including the freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, and the press. Americans disapprove of censorship and encourage constructive, searching debate on controversial subjects. The great majority of Americans like to think for themselves, and come to independent conclusions on matters of personal import.” Mr. Kennedy, are these values important to you? Is the opportunity to express yourself something you consider one of the most basic human rights, and one that should be embraced, no matter what you have to say? If you find yourself saying “yes”, please stop to consider why on earth you would want to forbid another from exercising that same right – now THAT would really be the degeneration of “our culture”!
I extend a similar response to Mr. Goldberg. The thrust of his argument is that some forms of expression absolutely should not be regarded as art, a stance which many political groups throughout time have taken, including the Fascists, Communists, and repressive monarchies hosting the Inquisition. What CAN we show using College resources, Mr. Goldberg? Should we restrict the showing of controversial or violent movies like Blood Diamond? Should we ban the Vagina Monologues? This doesn’t just cover what you would probably term “disgusting” subjects, either – I’m sure that many would consider the speech given last year by the founder of The Minuteman Project a gross misuse of College resources, too. In your argument, you have comprehensively supported every single point that I made about the debate over the SWAS being, at its core, about free speech.
So what should we do, Mr. Goldberg? Maybe we can establish, without using College funds, of course, some sort of cultural oversight board, with you and Mr. Kennedy as co-chairs, so that our sensitive, sheep-like students don’t have to view anything you deem offensive. Ah, yes, we can look to the cultural review boards of open and civil societies like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Venezuela, and Dictator-era countries the world over for guidance. According to you, Virginia’s taxpayers are “tired of being abused in this manner”, when the reality is that moderate, rational individuals are tired of YOUR abusing their intelligence. Let people think for themselves, Mr. Goldberg – embrace some real values and stop trying to build a police state.
As for me, I must go dress myself for a meeting with the literati, who, by the way, will probably use words properly and with better grammar than either Mr. Goldberg or Mr. Kennedy would.
Good heavens! I must have hit a nerve. I had no idea the “poop” artist show was so important to you. I don’t think there’s anything standing in your way, so by all means, sign ‘em up. They’re the next logical step in your theory anyway. As to my “police state”, they’d have to be the Keystone Cops, now wouldn’t they? As they’ve been 100% totally ineffective at stopping any of your incredible misuse of College funds, facilities and time. I’m sure it’s fun to play the injured party but the fact is that, thanks to Nichol, folks like you are the Powers that Be, The Man, the Establishment, the Kings. Your the MAN, Jordan, not me! And you’re free to go about putting on titty shows, stealing crosses and firing philosophy professors till your heart’s content. Hmmmmm… what do you call people drunk with power and disdainful of all who even dare speak against them?
Republicans, Rube, they’re called Republicans!
He shoots he scores!
I was referring to you, dear boy, but you knew that. I had in mind the villains you mentioned above, like fascist, communist, monarchist, etc., but if you’d rather be known as a Republican, as strange as that seems, so be it. Senator Craig a buddy of yours?
All kidding aside, what REALLY worries me is that I think you believe what you wrote above. So anyone who doesn’t approve the SWAS is a fascist, communist or some other variety of oppressor? And there’s little difference between Venus de Milo and Annie Oakley? And you don’t think that Annie and her bunch laugh at you behind your back and think you’re just a bunch of saps? That never crossed your mind? Ok….I think there’s no point in further discussion. Best of luck to you in the real world.
And one more: There was no fleeting “buyer’s remorse”, the feeling that you might have spent the money & effort on something more worthwhile? Not even a little bit? Not at any point? I bet if you put your mind to it you could think of 40 or 50 more deserving causes. So no guilt at all, not even a tiny bit? (I don’t mean the “I got caught viewing porn” kind of guilt, I mean the “genocide in Africa will just have to wait” variety.) Am I firing blanks here? Nothing strikes a chord? Let’s be honest: it’s not as if you were running a blood drive, stocking a food bank or registering voters, now is it?
The last two posts indicate that your entire argument is now conceptually bankrupt. Personal attacks are on the rise, and I will not respond to them or any of the thoughts in your postings except to say that your shooting blanks is a private matter between you and your urologist.
Zing!
That’s unfortunate. I had some hope as your replies do show some native wit and a sense of humor is usually a good thing. Generally speaking, it’s depressing to read FH post. I’ve often wondered what the result would be of a generation raised on the idea that “self esteem” was a critical component of one’s character, even eclipsing other aspects. It seems a huge risk that it’d spill over into shameless egoism and an inability to engage in healthy self-doubt or introspection. But I’m assuming too much based on too little. Besides, it’s partly my fault as I have baited you rather shamelessly. Witty replies and insults are fun! Furthermore, youthful rebellion is quite normal. However, I still can’t believe you have no occasional pangs of inner turmoil over your choices. For example: starving children in Africa vs. the SWAS? Still nothing at all? [sigh] I shall just assume you do and disregard your denials. Nobody is that stone-cold and inured to real suffering. Whether it’s true about you or not is immaterial. It’d make me feel better and give me some small hope for our future.
Let copulation thrive; for Gloucester’s bastard son
Was kinder to his father than my daughters
Got ‘tween the lawful sheets.
To’t, luxury, pell-mell! for I lack soldiers.
Behold yond simp’ring dame,
Whose face between her forks presageth snow,
That minces virtue, and does shake the head
To hear of pleasure’s name.
The fitchew nor the soiled horse goes to’t
With a more riotous appetite.
Down from the waist they are Centaurs,
Though women all above.
But to the girdle do the gods inherit,
Beneath is all the fiend’s.
There’s hell, there’s darkness, there’s the sulphurous pit;
burning, scalding, stench, consumption. Fie, fie, fie! pah, pah!
-King Lear
Edited out for 200 years in the name of “correcting” those parts that might bring down the puritan values of our culture.
Not comparing SWAS to this. Just saying that civilization hasn’t crashed yet, and history tends to repeat itself…
And the buyer’s remorse argument is just silly, unless you never watch TV, movies, plays, or otherwise do anything other than help people all day long. Couldn’t you be doing a lot more useful things than reading this right now? It’s a strawman, just like the “taxpayer’s money” argument.
So, Bill, tell us: Marlow, Bacon, William Pierce…or just yourself? As for “buyer’s remorse”, what I actually wrote was “fleeting buyer’s remorse”, meaning that you feel a twinge though not necessarily enough to change your mind. It goes to the ability to experience self-doubt. But perhaps I was not clear. After all, I’m no Shakespeare!
As for the SWAS being remotely connected to your plays, I think you grossly overrate one and/or grossly underrate the other. Guess which? After all, “all that glitters is not gold”, eh Billy? Couldn’t have said it better myself…didn’t need to…you did!
By the way, I know you’ve been dead for awhile, be we now also call TV the “bood tube”, so I suppose it is somewhat analygous to the SWAS. As for wasting time… guilty! But I never pretended I was bringing art to the masses or solving social issues. That bit of pomposity is yours alone. But hey, your William frikin’ Shakespeare and all the world’s a stage… on with the titty shows! As you once said: “a fools bolt is soon shot”. No bulls-eye for WS today, which is odd, cause normally you “Make mad the guilty, and appall the free, Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed The very faculties of eyes and ears”. Please feel free to reply quoting yourself again. Just remember, brevity is the soul of wit (you also!). How about “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without thoughts never to heaven go”, or did I “offend” you with the religious reference? Lord forbid you should misunderstand yourself due to W&M induced ignorance of your Judeo-Christian heritage. (Rats! I invoked the Lord…sorry. I know how that upsets you.) Back to sleep Willy, perchance to dream of SWAS babes onstage at the Globe!
Here are my issues:
1. These so-called perverts and deviants are artists who happen to have a job that you find distasteful. I don’t relish what how some lobbyists make their money, but the point is not their job, but the art that they create. These sex workers are making art. If you find it titillating, that says more about you than them. Fundamentally, it discriminates against them as artists based on what they do to make money.
2. I completely agree with Jordan P. Howell. While I don’t love the amount of money that goes towards athletic programs, which are completely unrelated to education, I am not protesting their events. The arts are related to education. Dialogue and discourse are related to education.
3. If we ban art, what’s next, book burning? Just because one person doesn’t“like” something does not mean it cannot be meaningful or informative to another. The one place we should be able to explore these controversial issues should be within the free realm of American academia.
4. Why is it that only W&M has been targeted for trying to host this event? What about the other public Virginia universities that have done so?
Part of the freedom of speech is allowing you to say things that make me want to fling my laptop across the room. But I respect your right to say them. I also realise that if you don’t want to see an art exhibit, you are not bound by law to do so.
I am a member of the class of 2005 and have been stunned by the amount of controversy and activity surrounding the College. I thought I may offer a different perspective, since I attended the Sex Workers’ Art Show when it was in Manhattan.
Prior to the show, I saw reports online about protests against the show on campus. However, I can say with confidence that none of those who protested had a true understanding of the show’s purpose or presentation. Perhaps the title was enough to set off a domino effect of speculation, disgust, and perhaps fear, but at the heart of the show were people wishing to be understood and seen as viable human beings. Yes, their methods were unconventional, but ultimately the performers in the show wanted to shed light on a type of living that exists, whether people like it or not.
The sex workers presented their material in a way that made the audience take notice. Their creative approaches to story-telling, performance art, political commentary, and identity exploration showed these people for what they are—human. Humans who do what millions of people do in the largest industry in the world. Just because an individual’s sexuality tends to remain private and hidden does not mean it ceases to exist or does not have an effect.
These workers are incredibly talented, and I feel sorry for those of you who saw the watered down version of the show on campus. You missed a true piece of eye-opening art that challenged convention and preconception, which is what all good art should do. I also feel terrible for the performers. The New York City show occurred only a few days after the ones in Virginia, and the performers expressed sheer exhaustion and trauma from being ridiculed, knocked down, and snubbed, which are the misguided feelings they were working hard to confront in the first place. I am disappointed, although not surprised, by the overly conservative response to a show offering perspective to a voluntary audience, especially when the students elected to have the show come to campus. Several programs involving sexual identity, exploration, and understanding came under similar scrutiny during my time at the College, and I would have hoped that students, faculty, and administrators alike could have recognized the need for these types of events.
As a therapist working with adolescent males, I see how so much depression, anxiety, etc. result from questions that arise around sexuality, and failing to address these concerns among the student body is irresponsible for any modern day university. While I am pleased that the show remained available to students on campus, I would hope that those protesting against it, whether it be students, faculty, or the administration, would do their homework before arguing against something they know little to nothing about.
Diversifying a place like William and Mary means exposure to all types of people, and while some may make others uncomfortable, that discomfort is what inspires learning, understanding, acceptance, and community. It is a hard road to travel, but ultimately, to be diverse means to include all. Perhaps I will be lucky enough to eventually see William and Mary become the community it claims to be.