The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Duke’s sex worker show provokes controversy, but without merit

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Gerald Cox:

Taking 'green' to new heights (February 3, 2008)
Unifying candidate or bigoted clown? (January 28, 2008)
'Oprabama?' No thank you (December 10, 2007)
I'll take a female president, just not her (December 3, 2007)
Religion aside, faith perseveres (November 26, 2007)

by Gerald Cox

Monday, February 11, 2008

Last week, students on two different campuses were confronted with two very different ways to think about sexual and pornographic material. Thursday night, University of Wisconsin students were provided the opportunity to learn about living in a “Porn Nation.” If, as The Badger Herald reports, the anti-pornography theme of Thursday night’s “Porn Nation” was a surprise to many in the audience, Duke University’s Sunday night hosting of the Sex Workers Art Show probably held more surprises for its audience. Or perhaps less. After all, audience members were assumedly well aware of what they were getting themselves into.

Duke’s hosting of the aforementioned Sex Workers Art Show has been decried in North Carolina and elsewhere as an incredible affront to decency and academic discourse. It has also been defended as yet another expression of free speech and a valuable tool in discussing sexuality and women’s issues. Proponents have lauded it as a discourse driver and a sundry look at the raw realities of the lifestyle, which it neither defends nor condemns.

As a progressive-minded student, I value the idea of frank, honest and unconventional discussions and subject matters. However, I find it unbelievable that a university of Duke’s reputation need lend its name and dollars to an event that features pornographic material, sexually infused performances by strippers and prostitutes and — as reported by The Chronicle, Duke’s daily independent newspaper — an “anal sparkler” in order to provoke discourse on any topic.

The law provides allowances for individuals desiring to procure the services of a stripper. However, a university, as an institution for higher learning, has a greater responsibility to its students in providing and provoking thoughtful, powerful and often uncomfortable and controversial topics, events and discourse for its students. A university should not be prude and should seek not to expurgate itself or what its students explore and learn. But a university should not endorse, support or fund lewd, lurid or otherwise pornographic performances in order to spur its students to a deeper understanding of issues facing their sexuality, or a woman’s identity.

A university should not have censors, but it should have morals.

According to ABC News, the event was sponsored and paid for in part by Duke University’s Student Health Center, the Duke Women’s Center, and the women’s studies department, as well as Duke’s sexual assault support services. The event, according to The Chronicle, was organized to invoke a dialogue on women’s issues and sexuality. In defense of the show, The Chronicle quotes Duke junior and organizer of the event Martha Brucato as saying, “When people are exposed to something so different from what they are used to, it will get them (to) talk about these things.”

While I certainly can’t argue with Ms. Brucato on this point, I must raise concerns with the venue she chose to raise the topics of sexuality and women’s issues. Logic like Ms. Brucato’s will find eager adherents — less-than-faithful husbands can assure their concerned wives their visit to the strip club should not be construed as a thoughtless act of infidelity on their part, but a constructive attempt at better understanding issues their wives face.

“Don’t worry, honey,” any husband recently returned from a strip club will certainly assure his wife, “I was at the club in order to better understand issues that face you as a woman.”
Such logic does not work in justifying a burlesque show for academic purposes, either, and the presence of Duke University’s sponsorship and funds serves further to make a bad idea worse.

Further, the dialogue the show and its performers seek to invoke may not prove constructive to the plight of women. I challenge Ms. Brucato or anyone associated with the show to prove that such an event has served to provide constructive, actionable dialogue and did not serve only to titillate, entertain or, even worse, objectify the performers the event claims to represent. The salaciousness of the show may have, instead, distracted its attendees from seriously pursuing a constructive dialogue on any issue.

Before any UW entity decides to sponsor or fund an event such as the Sex Workers Art Show — an event sure to be about as controversial as the College Republicans’ hosting of David Horowitz — consider that sometimes an event may supersede and distract from the very dialogue the event itself is intended to provoke.

Unconventional and controversial means don’t always end up justified by a good and just end. Sometimes they just end up distracting their audience from the real issue, or defeating the purpose they intend.

Gerald Cox (gcox@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in economics.

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.