RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceAfter students protested an event planned by Let’s Talk Sex (LeTS) that would include a screening of pornographic film clips, the student group released new information about the lecture that it will host in April.
Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux ’11, president ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
If LETS wants students of diverse opinions to engage in a discussion on pornography, then why in the world would they screen material that would prevent anyone who objected to pornography on moral grounds from attending? There is nothing that could better stifle the sort of discussion they intend to hold.
As for the USG funding, I find it troubling that we are, in affect, all being compelled to pay to support what many students believe to be an immoral degradation of women and a force that is destructive to our society. I fully believe that the University should support the expression of all opinions; this furthers the University's primary mission to educate it's students. But this is not funding disagreeable opinions, but rather immoral acts.
Once the University acknowledges this as acceptable, they've no principled reason not to host Brown-like "sex god" parties or descend into any other decadent venture so long as it is legal and some group claims to be using these immoral acts to promote a "discussion."
Are these actually “contrasting” viewpoints? One seems to be that mainstream porn is “damaging and oppressive”, while the other is that a certain kind of fringe porn is “sex-positive and empowering”. The opinions are contrasting and diverse in the same way that the opinions “Republicans are bad” and “Democrats are good” are contrasting and diverse. That’s not what most people understand those terms to mean, but it would not be the first time Amelia et al. have stretched the meaning of words.
And given the fact that your ideological opposites really cannot attend the latter lecture, it will not surprise anyone when there is no “open academic discussion”. It’s like having a lecture where the speaker will say that vegetarianism is immoral, and requiring everyone who attends to eat a steak. Clearly in that case you know beforehand that one side of the argument is not going to be represented.
I’ll leave the honesty of such an approach for others to judge. But if you really want to have an “open academic discussion” about anything, you should simply have a public, formal debate with people (e.g. Anscombe) who you disagree with. I’m sure they would be happy to join you, so why not? Look at the intensity in the Prince comments on these articles and the sexual assault ones. You could charge money for a no doubt hostile debate between Anscombe and lets and you'd still get more people than will show up to this lecture, even with its free porn.
One thing is for sure though, Amelia has definitely done a great job of "raising awareness" about herself.
Do you honestly believe that anything which anybody calls "pornography" is automatically "a force that is destructive to our society"? As I understand the term "pornography" is a label which can cover everything from classical Grecian sculpture to any image of a women showing more than her eyes, depending on when and where the term is used. If Taormina is arguing that she can create something beneficial to be packaged under this label (potentially a reclamation?) surely you owe it to her, yourself, and society to assess this material before dismissing it. Your post is shockingly closed minded. Remember: every hypothesis must be re-evaluated in the light of new data. By trying to discuss the issue without viewing her work you could end up condemning something of value to society. I admit, based on your attitude, that you will in all probability decide that the material shown is still offensive, but at least then it will be an informed decision instead of a knee-jerk reaction. And then you can come to the table as an intelligent social activist instead of a foaming-at-the-mouth zealot.
Prince comments, such a guilty pleasure.
@@'12: Slippery use of terms there, it's obvious what sense of pornography '12 is referring to.
Most of your post can be disposed of with a reductio ad absurdum: If someone argues that eating mud is beneficial, do I owe it to "her, myself, and society" to investigate her claim? I suppose it's true that if I dismiss the mud-eater without listening to her I *could* end up condemning something valuable, but is that really a reasonable seek-truth/avoid-error balance?
You presumably think female genital mutilation is immoral, even though some people disagree; does that make you "shockingly closed minded"? Do you evaluate that hypothesis in the light of new data? And what makes you think that moral beliefs are hypotheses for which there could be data or tests?
What I see in '12's post is a pretty neutral explanation of why this is a stupid idea. What I see in yours is a disdainful pseudo-bodhisattva who condescends to insult someone who disagrees with her--and it is a her, am I right? So though you may not quite be foaming at the mouth yet, Madam, you are a zealot, and you would do well to look into some rabies shots at your earliest convenience. Until then, I remain your most humble, most devoted adversary, &c &c
Thank you Amelia and LETSS for all of your wonderful work on campus. Princeton NEEDS you here. Thank you and keep up the good work!!!
“I would be shocked if Princeton students didn’t embrace this as an opportunity for honest academic discussion.”
i think you are going to be very shocked.
at this point it's hard to tell which campus faction is more obnoxious, the feminists or the anscombe society. I think I'll have to go with the anscombe society, as the feminists are somewhat less deranged, and at least they usually refrain from inundating the Prince with opinion columns. I think most people would benefit if the USG cut off funding for both. Instead of a campus dialogue, maybe we should play the quiet game?
Forget Tristan Taormino. They should bring Quentin Tarantino instead.
I stand by the notion that Thomson-Deveaux has a monopoly over all feminist discourse on campus and does this crap for shock value.
Shock value is precisely what's needed on this sheltered campus.