It promotes a “healthy lifestyle.”
At least that’s what Larry Moneta, Duke University’s Vice President for Student Affairs, claimed after the Brodhead administration gave the green light to Duke’s sponsorship of the Sex Workers’ Art Show.
Moneta didn't say how shoving dollar bills and sparklers through your anus and into your rectum and standing with other Dukies and shouting, “I take it up the butt,” promotes healthy living.
Perhaps Moneta said nothing because he knows President Brodhead is planning to explain everything to us in his next “Dear Duke Alumni, Parents and Friends” letter.
Whatever the case, The Chronicle today published a column by Martha Brucato, a Duke student who helped the Women's Studies Department, the Women's Center and others organize the sex show.
Brucato’s column has already drawn many comments on the thread, including this one:
heartsurgeonAs I often point out, how a person self-IDs on the Net is not a sure guide to who or what the person is.
posted 2/19/08 @ 11:39 AM EST
I might ask what percent of sex workers have communicable diseases, some of which (HIV, Hep B,C) are life-threatening.
What percent of sex workers have drug or alcohol addiction? What percent of sex workers have some form of serious mental illness? What percent of sex workers have a serious criminal record?
I hardly think this segment of society needs my encouragement (and tuition dollars) to pursue its "art".
Rather, screening for communicable disease, substance abuse, and psychiatric disorders among these folks would seem to be a more appropriate and beneficial use of University funds, for all concerned.
Sometimes I wonder if these GLBT/Sex Week events are really recruitment tools for the alternative life style.
So I have no reason to say heartsurgeon is, in fact, a heart surgeon.
But what we can all be sure of is this: heartsurgeon asks questions and raises concerns any responsible physician would put before us.
Now why didn’t Moneta speak to those questions and concerns?
Why has President Brodhead said nothing in response to those questions and concerns?
Is Brodhead really waiting to discuss them in a letter?
I don’t think so. Brodhead wants to duck them and other important questions and concerns regarding Duke's sponsorship of the sex show.
Brodhead's been able to duck them because The Chronicle's editors have gone along with him by agreeing to ask him nothing about the sex show and saying nothing editorially about his silence concerning it.
Do any of you disagree?