Forum on Sexual Fantasies Went Too Far

by Stephen Beale on March 22, 2010

As stated in our initial post, out main objection to Sex Week 2010 was not even that it was happening, but that the offices of Residential Life, Campus Life & Student Services, and Institutional Diversity were listed as sponsors. We are willing to grant that there is some validity to the claim that the University should instruct students on how to have safe sex—although that is certainly debatable—but we don’t think that obligation extends to every conceivable combination of male and female sex acts or the insertion of every imaginable object into every orfice of the body—as liberal as Brown is, it has to draw the line somewhere and a good place to start was the not-s0-subtly titled forum on ‘F*cking Fantasies,’ which was held Saturday evening and featured sex educator Megan Andelloux.

We wanted to get to the bottom of what was going on at the Sex Weeks events, so we dispatched our reporter to sit in on the forum. To be sure, there were some useful safety tips on sex toys and various lubricants, but much of the forum dwelled on how to maximize pleasure and fulfill various sexual fantasies. It seemed that no fantasy was too taboo for Andelloux, whose main point was that it is OK to think about incest, rape, and bestiality, as long as students don’t act on those thoughts. Andelloux has a right to her opinion, but we find it impossible to believe that this is an accepted proposition among the mental health community or that the University really thinks it is appropriate to teach students that such fantasies are healthy. At the end of the event, Andelloux showed clips from a pornographic video that she said was an example of ‘sex positive’ porn—the video depicted a man choking a woman and slapping her breasts while they were having sex—we can only be grateful that she declined to show any examples of what she considers ‘sex negative’ porn.

In the description of the event, which is posted on the comments section under our first post, organizers cheekily remark that students are in “college to get a challenging education.” While the event was educational, we don’t see how encouraging students to indulge in desires and sexual fantasies could in any way be considered challenging. Now, a lecture on the virtues of chastity—that would be truly shocking for an audience that didn’t even blink when showed a video of a man choking and slapping a woman during sex.

{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }

Aida Manduley March 23, 2010 at 10:32 am

Interestingly enough, we *are* actually currently planning to have an event about abstinence (and no, not one where it is vilified–instead, one where it is presented as a valid option for individuals who feel it’s right for them). :)

Encouraging students to indulge in desires and sexual fantasies is not challenging under some people’s standards (though it is when it comes to trying to take the shame away from stigmatized activities, such as anal sex). Encouraging students to think more critically about those desires, where they come from, and how they are operating in individual’s lives as well as society (and thus, ideally become more comfortable with their sexuality), however, is, and THAT is what the presentation was for.

My question is–was that the only event you sent dispatchers to? Is it the only event anyone from your group attended? Again, it seems like a very skewed perspective to be taking, and it seems purposefully done–to attend one of the more “controversial” events and then try to paint the entirety of Sex Week in the same light.

SHEEC events as a whole present a variety of opinions (which is why we are also fond of panel discussions), and these are not necessarily aligned with “Brown’s institutional opinions.” Our INTENT, however, IS certainly aligned with Brown’s—to encourage dialogue and bring presenters that will talk about these topics.

Anyway, in regards to the presentation itself, I disagree with the assertion that Andelloux’s “main point was that it is OK to think about incest, rape, and bestiality, as long as students don’t act on those thoughts.” Furthermore, describing what was depicted in the clip and neglecting to mention any part of the context, the conversation that followed, or the deconstruction of the elements in the video is not only insulting to the presentation, but also to the idea of journalistic integrity. However, it seems like a large chunk of this blog follows the same pattern, so I’m not surprised, only quite saddened that this is the case.

Aida Manduley March 23, 2010 at 10:45 am

Also, a few more things I forgot to mention:

The most important point conveyed during the presentation was the importance of consent between adults before any act happens. Furthermore, not just consent, but educated, informed, and enthusiastic (not just assumed) consent. This is the crux (or, well, one of them) of SHEEC’s mission and this presentation.

Ms. Andelloux teaches with a harm-reduction model, one that works based off of what is already happening or being questioned by society (and in this case, the group in attendance and the students who gave feedback re: the event), and its purpose is to promote critical thinking and safety. It does not ignore what is going on, but instead responds to it and seeks to reduce risk and harm associated with whatever is occurring. Much like how Brown deals with many of the things that happen on campus, actually; instead of pretending certain things “just don’t happen,” they work with the institution and the students to keep everyone as safe as possible while dealing with reality. Also important to note? The “taboo” topics were called out by the audience, not Ms. Andelloux, and they were addressed accordingly.

In regards to the audience, Ms. Andelloux gave an explicit outline as to what was going to be shown and discussed, and she gave opportunity for anyone who was uncomfortable with these topics to leave (then, and at any point during the presentation, which lasted aprox. 2 hours).

Gypsy March 23, 2010 at 11:00 am

The example of sex-positive porn that Megan showed was deemed such because the actress is not only sex-positive and a feminist, but because of the manner in which sex was depicted. The actress was not only obviously enjoying herself (giving positive feedback), but also touching herself (taking agency over her sexuality), and had a natural, healthy body usually not found in porn. The woman was an active participant in the sex, and not just a body used for the sake of making pornography. How is that not sex-positive?

Also, the majority of the presentation actually wasn’t directly on taboo. More than half of it was about safe sex practices, including information about lubrication and sex toys, as well as “soft” kinks such as dirty talk and roleplay. In the latter topics, two of the points stressed were effective communication and sexual comfort– issues that should be utilized by all sexual human beings, regardless of their fantasies and kinks.

Lastly, I understand that the choking and slapping are not everyone’s kinks; not everyone is required to like that type of pornography, nor is everyone required to even feel comfortable with it. However, I find it interesting that the “Foundation of Intellectual Diversity” seems to intent on judging the diversity of sexuality and sexual preferences amongst consenting human beings. I guess this supposed “diversity” only applies to what’s normative, and sexual education should be restricted to an academic understanding of heterosexual, vanilla sex?

Ai Lake March 23, 2010 at 11:19 am

Again, I’m disappointed in the short-sightedness of the writers of FiD towards Brown’s Sex Week 2010. Perhaps that is to be expected in a society that still has expectations on the behavior of men and women in relationships (or men and women in general, with gender-associated roles). Perhaps society isn’t ready for exploring genuine openness and genuine diversity in sexuality. And, thinking about it in that context, asking students to indulge in their desires and sexual fantasies IS challenging. It’s difficult to open up a dialogue, even with one’s intimate partners, when so much of society is saying that This Is Stuff Not To Be Discussed. When “coming out” is such a source of heartache and heartbreak. Will there be a time when communication is no longer such a challenge? Hopefully… and the speakers and other sex educators that have given their knowledge and experiences to Brown students are the sort of innovators that are leading the cause to a more open, diverse, and ultimately happy society.

Again, I salute Brown University in their courage to stand up against calls to shut down dialogue, conversation, and exploration of sexuality issues. In a single week, more information and education is provided to Brown students about their bodies and their sexualities than they may have in their life up to that point. That is a BEAUTIFUL thing. And it saddens me to hear that this is not celebrated, especially by “non-profit organization committed to the promotion of underrepresented ideas, beliefs, and perspectives at Brown University”.

Joshua March 23, 2010 at 11:33 am

Why is it that liberals seem to think that “diversity” is synonymous with the allowance of everything. There are just some things that are beyond the pale, like an University sponsoring a kinkfest, a racist lynching (or any lynchign for that matter), or a public hanging of any sort. This is a very small list of things that University’s should not sponsor. It would be impudent for any organization, dedicated to diversity or not, to support these things. The fact that Brown via student financial donations supports such idiocy is a testament to the impudence of Brown and schools like it. It is not anti-diversity to think this.

The irony of your positions is that you claim to be FOR diversity, but you’re not very accepting of the position we’ve taken. Then again, you’re likely a hipster, so irony is probably something you embrace. A foolish consistency, after all, is the hobgoblin of little minds, is it not? So, how small minded of us to be consistently opposed to impudence. I guess I can see where you’re coming from.

Gypsy March 23, 2010 at 12:09 pm

So, the acceptance and education of kink is somehow synonymous with murder and the systematic, inhumane persecution and torture of people of color?

I support the diversity of opinions and experiences. In fact, like I said in my previous post, I *understand* that not everyone shares the same kinks– you are not required to, nor are you required to feel comfortable with it. I am accepting of these facts. What I am not accepting of, however, is the sheer hypocrisy of this organization. Furthermore, calling to question the manner in which the FID judges, shames, criticizes those with different beliefs and desires is hardly not being accepting.

Also: I adore how you assume I am a hipster. No, really. I actually laughed out loud at this. I’ll leave you with this tidbit: being accepting of sexual diversity and the education of such does not make me a hipster. It does not make me a liberal. It makes me understanding and open-minded, despite the assumptions often made about my own political affiliation.

Aida Manduley March 23, 2010 at 12:50 pm

@Joshua:

Putting a public hanging and a lynching on the same level as a “kinkfest” is ridiculous and insulting (on multiple levels) to everyone even remotely implicated. Personally, I’m not opposed to the discussion of conservative politics. I respect your right to express yourself, and I’d respect your *position* about these issues if it were founded on fact and things that actually happened, or even on respect and a true understanding of the variety of ideas that are out there.

Technically, diversity doesn’t have an inherent morality attached to it, so it could be construed as yes, the allowance of everything. Because “diversity” is one of those buzzwords that often gets thrown around, I’d like to define it–the diversity I’m calling for and supporting is the allowance of a multiplicity of ideas that, at their core, are based on the respect for other human beings and their agency, even if they [the ideas] are divergent. If that’s what you meant by “allowance of everything,” then yes, diversity is the allowance of everything and that is what I support.

Being pro-diversity like that is NOT, however, being pro diversity of ideas that are based on injustice, repression, lack of respect, misinformation, and prejudice. Need I call attention to the fact that you cite the “irony” in our unwillingness to support your position (or the existence of your position) when your argument is essentially “liberals/tolerant people should tolerate INTOLERANCE”?

Finally, there is neither need nor space for name-calling, personal attacks, and juvenile assumptions in this discussion, but based on your comments on this post and previous ones, this is a staple of your expression. I’d appreciate it if we could keep things civil and on a respectful plane.

Stephen Beale March 23, 2010 at 12:55 pm

I’m glad to hear an abstinence event is being planned. Please post more information on the speaker and date or e-mail it to me if you are not ready to publicize it. My e-mail is the about us or contact us section.

As to your other point, read the post. We didn’t try to paint Sex Week in the same light. We said Brown had to draw the line somewhere and we thought the sexual fantasies forum was a good example. If you’re looking for coverage of every single event, you need to take that up with the Brown Daily Herald. You also take out comment about Andelloux out of context: that was her main point about sexual fantasies. And, as for the video, as we already stated, we don’t think it was adequately introduced or that the concept of ’sex positive’ porn was explained before showing it.

Stephen Beale March 23, 2010 at 12:57 pm

You are certainly correct: no one was forced to sit through pornography or anything else that was uncomfortable. But were students tuition funds or alumni donations used to sponsor this event. I don’t think they should have had their money used to show pornography on campus.

Stephen Beale March 23, 2010 at 1:23 pm

Regarding the video: we missed have missed her obvious enjoyment when she was being choked or having her breasts slapped.

I find it extremely bizarre that we are being accused of hypocrisy for fulfilling our mission. Based on what we saw on the schedule of events, traditional views of sexual morality, such as the virtues of chastity, were certainly minimized during Sex Week and, overall, are rarely discussed in any sort of public forum at Brown. Nowhere did we say this one view must be promoted to the exclusion of all other nontraditional, alternative views. What we did say was that Brown’s promotion of sexual diverse viewpoints must stop somewhere, and we think fulfilling certain sexual fantasies, such as rape or bestiality is where the line should be drawn. Where do you think it should be drawn?

Michael March 23, 2010 at 1:30 pm

Joshua, do you understand the difference between a kinkfest and a lynching? In a kinkfest, people have fun, enjoyable sex, in a large group, and possibly end up sweaty and tired. In a lynching, a group of people gather together to kill another human being without a trial. At the end of a kinkfest, people are happy. At the end of a lynching, someone is dead. Do you understand why this comparison is both inaccurate and atrocious?
Both may offend your moral sensibilities. I accept that. I would like you to understand that there are other institutions and events that Brown funds that I’m not entirely comfortable with. However, I understand that it is possible for students to have ways of living and being that are not exactly the same as mine, but are equally valid, and this acceptance should be encouraged. This should not be equated to an acceptance of everything, note.
If you are really concerned about where Brown is spending its money, though, why are you focusing on this event? Shouldn’t you be looking at where much greater quantities of the university’s money are going? Are you familiar, for example, with Brown’s investment in a hotel management company called HEI? When HEI enters a new hotel, it fires half of its employees and cuts the wages and benefits of the other half, while expecting them to do double their previous workload. All workers who attempt to form a union or speak out against the company are threatened with immediate dismissal. A worker who came to Providence to speak to the issue returned to a three-hour interrogation in which she was threatened both physically and with the loss of her job. The company is currently under investigation by the National Labor Relations Board. Don’t you think /that/ issue would be much more worth your attention, given what I assume is a very busy schedule?

maymay March 23, 2010 at 6:12 pm

Regarding the video: we missed have missed her obvious enjoyment when she was being choked or having her breasts slapped.

I think this is a very telling remark, Stephen. Are you suggesting that because you missed seeing the model’s enjoyment, that the model necessarily did not enjoy herself?

I find this kind of thinking is a very slippery slope.

What we did say was that Brown’s promotion of sexual diverse viewpoints must stop somewhere

Dovetailing off the previous point, you never seem to say why you think that. Why must sexually diverse viewpoints not be promoted? This seems fundamentally opposed to your own diversity goal.

I find it extremely bizarre that we are being accused of hypocrisy for fulfilling our mission.

Uh, how exactly is saying that the content of events regarding sexual diversify “must stop somewhere” not antithetical to your purported mission of spreading discussions of diversity? You strike me as either very confused or very ignorant of the things you “report” on. Or both.

Molly Ren March 23, 2010 at 7:19 pm

“We are willing to grant that there is some validity to the claim that the University should instruct students on how to have safe sex—although that is certainly debatable—but we don’t think that obligation extends to every conceivable combination of male and female sex acts or the insertion of every imaginable object into every orifice of the body—”

You don’t think people–students, even–aren’t *already* doing all of these things? You might not see it happening right in front of you on campus, but my own recent college experience there were gay and straight couples, the occasional guy urging his gf to put on a strapon so she can give him anal sex, hookups, and my fuckbuddy, who was coaching me on how to put smooth objects down his penis for pleasure.

That has all the holes covered in a group of maybe 10 individuals. Multiply that by your student body and think about the consequences of students doing things on their own when they have only misinformation to go on.

QED March 25, 2010 at 12:00 am

“and my fuckbuddy, who was coaching me on how to put smooth objects down his penis for pleasure.”
Are you for real? It doesn’t take a urologist to tell you that this is going to result in a trip to the ER and a referral to psychiatry. Maybe you should find a fuckbuddy who doesn’t get off on an activity that prisoners frequently use to traumatize their guards.

“Multiply that by your student body and think about the consequences of students doing things on their own when they have only misinformation to go on.”
So Brown is supposed to anticipate every asinine and treacherous hobby (such as urethral foreign body insertion) that its students may have, and hold symposiums on them? Maybe next up should be a seminar on how to better gargle Drano.

Aida Manduley March 26, 2010 at 1:47 am

When I have more info about the abstinence event, I’ll be posting it through my own means, but thanks for the potential free publicity. We were planning on having one during Sex Week, as we did last year, but we weren’t able to make it work, so we decided to put it off and have a bigger event later in the semester or in the fall.

Re: painting Sex Week in the same light, your comment of “We wanted to get to the bottom of what was going on at the Sex Weeks events, so we dispatched our reporter to sit in on the forum” proves my point about your intentions. If the idea was to “get to the bottom of what was going on,” you would’ve attended more than one event, talked to the presenters/coordinators/attendees, or SOMETHING that could’ve posed as actual interest instead of a desire to bash us.

Re: your opinion about the video, I’m sorry you feel that it wasn’t adequately introduced. What do you feel would have been a more appropriate introduction and explanation about sex-positive porn? I’m quite curious. Personally, Megan saying right at the beginning that we would be watching a porn clip near the end + (before showing the video) explaining the tenets of sex-positive porn, talking about feminism and the different debates surrounding these issues, saying *exactly* what would be shown in the video, giving the audience time to get up and leave if they wished, and then discussing what was seen…I thought that was a pretty damn good introduction and follow-up to the video. But I guess that’s just my opinion (and that of the various attendees who spoke to me afterward about how great the workshop was).

“But were students tuition funds or alumni donations used to sponsor this event. I don’t think they should have had their money used to show pornography on campus.” – Well I’m not particularly thrilled that my tuition money might go to sex-negative, conservative publications, but that’s how the cookie crumbles and we all have to respect that. Brown protects the rights of all to engage in dialogue, and even if we don’t agree with others’ views, as long as they’re respectful (which quite sadly, is so not always the case), they have a place on Brown’s campus. Furthermore, to say their money was “used to show pornography on campus” is a gross simplification of what happened and what the event set out to do. It’s like saying tuition money shouldn’t go to paying a professor if they talk about pornography, or even show it in class (which I have witnessed).

“Regarding the video: we missed have missed her obvious enjoyment when she was being choked or having her breasts slapped.” – May I suggest watching the video clip again? I’m sure you can find it online, or perhaps Megan could give you a copy.

I also would like to point out that there’s a big difference among:
a) thinking about raping someone / thinking about getting raped
b) having a sexual rape fantasy
c) actually raping someone or getting raped
d) fulfilling a rape fantasy in a consensual manner [consensual]

Aida Manduley March 26, 2010 at 2:01 am

Dear QED–context, context, context. Just because prisoners use sex as a weapon, and because sex is used as a tool of torture/ownership in times of war, does that mean we should stop having sex? In case you were stuck on the answer, it is NO. Similarly, just because “prisoners frequently” use urethral sounding to “traumatize their guards” (where the heck are you getting this information, anyway? I’m curious) it doesn’t mean the activity shouldn’t happen as long as it is done safely and consensually.

Also, FYI urethral sounding is a process used during medical procedures (to widen the urethra’s diameter and check how things are in there), genital piercing, and sexual play. As long as it’s done carefully, by someone who knows what they’re doing, it’s pretty safe. If not, it can lead to irritation, UTIs, or tearing. So no, urethral sounding won’t land you in a psychiatrist’s office, unless you’re somehow sticking something in there and inadvertently poking your brain.

“So Brown is supposed to anticipate every asinine and treacherous hobby (such as urethral foreign body insertion) that its students may have, and hold symposiums on them? Maybe next up should be a seminar on how to better gargle Drano.”

^ Nope. That’s not Brown’s job. HOWEVER, if a student group decides it’s their mission to educate the world about, say, urethral sounding, they can certainly do that. And no, gargling Drano is not even remotely safe, so your comparison is ridiculous.

Stephen Beale March 26, 2010 at 12:16 pm

Aida,

Thanks for your points, many of which have merit to them, even if we still disagree. We don’t think the porn clip was adequately introduced, you do, and we disagree on that.

Yes, we would be interested in publicizing an abstinence event. When you post the information, please let us know. I assume this would be on your blog? I’m also curious why the abstinence event fell through this year. Was this due to a lack of funding, lack of student interest, or difficulty in finding a suitable speaker?

We certainly are ardent supporters of free speech. But that does not mean the University has to fund every single student event. Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t necessarily expect the University to fund, for example, a very far far-right speaker. But if students wanted to host such a speaker themselves or espouse his views themselves, we certainly think they have the freedom to do so.

If there are other reports on these events, please post them in the comments section. We are happy to let readers decide for themselves. With out limited resources, we were unable to attend as many events as we would have liked.

By the way, I assume by ’sex negative conservative’ publications you mean The Brown Spectator? Well, you may be relieved to know that The Spectator does not receive University funds. We fund it. We also fund a Christian magazine called Closing Remarks which recently published an article arguing that it is biblically incorrect for Christians to say homosexuality is a sin. I assume you’d find that a ’sex-positive’ position.

QED March 26, 2010 at 2:09 pm

To Aida
How do I know these things? I’m actually a medical professional. I have personal experience with patients who have been harmed by this practice (including the prisoners part), and I have read the literature on this topic.

You on the other hand resorted to wikipedia to paste in the risks of putting things in your urethra. “Sounding carries a risk of irritation, tearing of the urethra, or of urinary tract infection,” (wiki) and “it can lead to irritation, UTIs, or tearing.” (you) Sound familiar?

A STERILE catheter inserted by somebody who actually knows what they are doing (ie not you) carries a significant risk of complications. While a UTI can be mostly harmless, pyelonephritis is not.

A urologist will give prophylactic antibiotics before using STERILE instrumentation. How safe do you think your nasty sex toys, without concurrent antibiotic use, are?

By the way, the drano comment was a joke. Just like Molly’s argument that the joke was referencing.

Aida Manduley March 27, 2010 at 12:22 pm

Yep, stay tuned to our website and Twitter; we’ll always be posting event information there. The abstinence event we had last year’s was a WPC-led one, but the people we contacted this year didn’t really get organized in time/didn’t have too much interest(?), so we decided to do an event later, and make it bigger and different (different format, focus, and speaker/s). It wasn’t due to lack of funding or lack of interest in the part of SHEEC to have the event. In fact, I’m personally invested in that event, and am working quite actively to make it happen (just as I worked actively to make Sex Week happen as a whole).

Re: University support–That’s how it works, more or less? This is why students have their own ways of fund-raising and supporting their own events. When the University, for whatever reason, doesn’t provide funding (enough or at all) for an event, the groups involved pick up the slack. Anyway, I think it was appropriate that they funded Sex Week, and if they didn’t want to fund specific workshops because they were not “academic” enough (which is rarely the case, since there are lots of groups on campus that receive funding that aren’t “academic” at all), we probably would’ve respected that.

Limited resources in terms of time, money, and/or manpower? Because all the events were free… Anyway, we’ll be creating a new section on our website soon, and it’ll have all the press/feedback we have received, either directly or indirectly, regardless of how positive or negative it is, to give a fair representation of the talk that’s out there regarding Sex Week, SHEEC, and all our other events. I’d love for you to redirect folks there, so they can see all of it.

And no, actually, I wasn’t referring to The Spectator. I was talking more generally/hypothetically. I know you which publications you fund. :) And, also, I read that article in Closing Remarks. Wasn’t that a few semesters ago, though? I remember reading it at Jo’s one night.

@QED:
Wow, the prisoners part is intriguing. Is that in general correctional facilities or…? I’ll admit, I didn’t know anything about that (and thus my curiosity and not knowing where the heck information about this was). If you could direct me on the path of learning more about this, I’d love to hear it.

And no, I didn’t resort to Wikipedia to check the risks involved. I read up on sounding years ago after I read a book where it was mentioned (and was done ineffectively aaaaand resulted in lots of pain), and since then I’ve read up a bit more due to being curious about the sexual use of sounding (as opposed to the strictly medical or strictly aesthetic/piercing use). Also, it’s kind of logical that those would be the side effects, isn’t it? I mean, I have a urethra too, and I’m aware of the risks associated with putting things in it.

I don’t really appreciate the assumptions that you make about my qualifications, by the way. In this case, you are correct about me not being qualified to perform sounding, NOT because of your uneducated assumption, but because I’m not into sounding, medical play, or professional genital piercing (and thus I’ve never sought out any type of training or more extensive education about how to personally *perform* urethral sounding). Finally, I’m making my identity quite transparent in here, whereas you are using a pseudonym, and nothing that you’ve said is strictly medical knowledge, so it’s not like I’m sure you’re a medical professional anyway. I’m not saying you’re NOT, because it’s not really relevant right now, but I’d like to point it out seeing as some of your arguments are based on qualifications people on this thread may or may not have and you are not being truly open about yours.

Anyway, a lot of it also depends on what instrument you use and how deep it goes (there are more risks associated with inserting a catheter all the way into the bladder vs. a sound just a few inches into the urethra). This is why people should know what the heck they are doing if they’re getting involved with sounding. Using a surgical steel, sterile implement? Good choice. Using a PEN or hard strip of candle-wax? Not so much.

Re: nasty sex toys? I’d be interested in seeing which toys you mean, unless you’re making a generalization about ALL sex toys, or all things SHEEC promotes, in which case I highly suggest you look at our website or talk to me about it. I don’t recommend people stick, say, little plastic tubes they got off their desk into their urethra. Surgical stainless steel rods, however, that are MEANT for urethral sounding, once sterilized properly, are quite marvelous. In the realm of non-sounds, we highly advocate for glass (lab-quality/Pyrex) and medical-grade silicone toys, all of which are sterilizable as well. And when the toys we advocate for are NOT sterilizable, we make sure people know how to clean them properly and make any use as safe as possible (and this is why knowing which ones are porous vs. non-porous is important). Are those things consumers get told on a regular basis? No, and that’s why you see so many people buying cheap jelly toys at sketchy sex-shops and using them in ways that aren’t safe. We hope to counter this.

maymay March 30, 2010 at 12:56 am

Stephen, you wrote:

Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t necessarily expect the University to fund, for example, a very far far-right speaker. But if students wanted to host such a speaker themselves or espouse his views themselves, we certainly think they have the freedom to do so.

Really? Under what conditions, exactly, do you think the University shouldn’t fund a far far-right speaker if students wanted to host such a speaker, and if they went through the proper channels to request University funding? I think having a clear idea of what you would object to would illuminate many points, as I feel you haven’t been very clear so far.

And on that note, I’m still waiting for a clarification to my question, above.

Molly Ren April 6, 2010 at 10:30 pm

Heh. I am kinda impressed by the violence of the opinions on here. But now that it is all in the past, I’d like to make my intentions clearer. When I was playing with my fuckbuddy, I wasn’t putting things down his penis to torture him, or because he was a masochist. It wasn’t remotely painful for him at all. Not *all* men enjoy being penetrated in this way, but some can achieve orgasm from it, and my fuckbuddy was one of those guys. After each session he was alive, well, and with a working penis, instead of being torn up or traumatized (huge post-sex grin, more like!)

At the time when I was doing it with my fuckbuddy, QED, we didn’t use sterilizable objects (yep, we used smooth pens, and a different pen each time!) Not smart. But neither of us had ever attended a class where sterilization techniques were taught, or knew about urinary tract infection risks. That’s why I think a general class for sterilization of toys would have come in handy. Though I haven’t been with another partner who wanted to practice sounds play since then, if I were to do it again I would use “clean” techniques (rubber gloves, sterile pads, cleaning the outside of the hole with alcohol, etc) and stainless steel sounds that could be sterilized, much as I use latex barriers for acts of “normal” sex. My partner never got even a urinary tract infection when we were doing it before, but why take unnecessary risks?

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: