791 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(05/09/19 9:50am)
So you want to make a crush list? Great! But before you do, maybe take a second to read through these pointers:
@ senior boys who put first-year girls you have never spoken to but thought were hot at an Atwater party on your list: maybe DON’T DO THAT.
Phew. Now that that’s off my chest, we can talk about Crush List Season. For those of you who have never experienced this phenomenon, buckle in kittens. It is one of the best and worst times of the year. The sun is out (I saw it once I swear), exams are coming up, graduation is on the horizon, and the Adirondack chairs are still nowhere to be found (seriously. Where the f*** are the Adirondack chairs??). That means a lot of people are very stressed and also very horny, if history tells us anything. And that means the crush lists are upon us.
Crush lists as a concept are cute; like a post-adolescent Valentine’s card with more publicity and less free candy. It’s a fun tradition where seniors embrace the devil-may-care ethos of college hookups for what they should be, with a tongue-in-cheek open invitation to a brief fling. Midd kids talk a big game about hookup culture, but we can be really shame-y and toxic about it at the same time. Crush lists are on the lighter, more lighthearted side of this culture, or at least are meant to be. They’re a public expression of desire in a way that is pretty benign and puts the ball in the other person’s court. Which, you know, would ideally be how one approaches one’s crushes in the first place but we can’t all be experts in communication, so we make do.
No one expects to start long term relationships with anyone on their crush lists. They’re crushes in a ‘10/10 would bone’ kind of way, and that’s generally how they’re received. Of course, some people make crush lists and just include their friends, some mix-and-match, and some crush lists are honest-to-goodness shouts into the hookup void. I have enjoyed looking at and helping compose friends’ crush lists over the years, and many of them put a lot of time and energy into making them creative and fun.
However, in practice they can be (as one anonymous source says) “public and terrifying,” and the power dynamics involved can get pretty sticky. The very fact that crush lists are a senior tradition means that the power dynamics involved are automatically in favor of the one who posts the list, especially if the people on your list are juniors or underclassfolx. Power dynamics are suuuuper important to consider, yet are often ignored. While as a first year it might feel gratifying to be noticed and put on a crush list by a senior, it can be a really, REALLY big red flag, especially if that person has never had any meaningful interactions with you. While what you do with that information is up to you, make sure that any choices you make are fully informed by the power dynamics at play. And if you’re the piece of trash that does put first year girls you think are hot on your list hoping that they swoon into your arms, would your mother be proud of that decision? I don’t think so.
Another thing to consider is the fact that crush lists are immensely public things; you may be fine baring your soul to the world and putting it all out there, but think about the people on your list. Would they feel uncomfortable being named in so public a way? By posting a list publically you may be making some of the people on that list very uncomfortable, which is the opposite of the intended use for a crush list.
I know I love looking at all the creative crush lists that get put up (and taken down) and put up (and taken down) ad nauseum this time of the year. I shouldn’t have to spell out how to not be a creepy dick, but as long as you’re not a creepy dick, go forth into Crush List Season and prosper, kittens.
(05/02/19 10:00am)
DINING HALL: OVERALL
The dining hall debate has long served as a campus identifier — are you a Proc person or a Ross person? — accompanied by silent judgement from both sides. In the end, more students favor Middlebury’s oldest, coziest dining hall, according to Zeitgeist results.
[infogram id="favorite-dining-hall-on-campus-by-race-1h7j4d9e0gyd2nr?live"]
With nearly 40% of the vote, Proctor Dining Hall was crowned the favorite among the student population, and Ross wasn’t even in second place. Atwater Dining Hall polled second with 33% favorability, while Ross lagged behind with approximately 27%.
So what is it about Proctor? Maybe not the food. Although it’s popular for its well-utilized panini presses and consistent fare, Ross menus are usually more expansive and students often quip that Atwater’s are “fancier.” Out of the three, Proctor is even ranked last on the college review site “Niche” in the category of Middlebury’s “best on-campus food options.” On the other hand, Proctor boasts the shortest lines, low ceilings and a diverse range of seating choices from the lounge to the booth room, giving it an intimacy that Ross and Atwater might lack. Proctor is the welcoming space you can walk into in pajamas after a night out. The meat of the matter is that Proctor simply doesn’t judge. (And it will be served with kettle chips.)
DINING HALL: ATHLETES VS NARPS
!function(e,t,s,i){var n="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(i)&&(i=d+i),window[n]&&window[n].initialized)window[n].process&&window[n].process();else if(!e.getElementById(s)){var r=e.createElement("script");r.async=1,r.id=s,r.src=i,o.parentNode.insertBefore(r,o)}}(document,0,"infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");
In contrast to results showing students’ overall preference for Proctor, varsity athletes opted for Atwater 40% of the time, They diverged from their non-athlete peers to rank Proctor second (and Ross last, again). Atwater, Middlebury’s newest dining hall, was constructed in conjunction with the notoriously sports team-populated Atwater suites, providing them with a convenient stop at perhaps the campus’ most upscale stop for breakfast and lunch. It also exclusively offers round tables that allow for larger groups.
DINING HALL: CLASSES
!function(e,t,s,i){var n="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(i)&&(i=d+i),window[n]&&window[n].initialized)window[n].process&&window[n].process();else if(!e.getElementById(s)){var r=e.createElement("script");r.async=1,r.id=s,r.src=i,o.parentNode.insertBefore(r,o)}}(document,0,"infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");
While first-years prefer Proctor slightly more than upperclassmen at 43% favorability, Middlebury’s oldest dining hall retains a remarkably consistent 38% of votes among sophomores, juniors and seniors. Ross Dining Hall loses favor as students grow older. Atwater picks up the loyalty that Ross loses. This leaves seniors as the only class that prefers Atwater. Ross tallies less than 20% of favorability amongst seniors. Ross Dining is often favored by those who conveniently live in the Ross dormitories, which contains less housing for seniors than for other classes. This may explain the eight-point drop between junior and senior Ross favorability, and why it’s most popular among first-years.
GRADES / SLEEP / SOCIAL LIFE
(function(){ function ac_add_to_head(el){ var head = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; head.insertBefore(el,head.firstChild); } function ac_add_style(css){ var ac_style = document.createElement('style'); if (ac_style.styleSheet) ac_style.styleSheet.cssText = css; else ac_style.appendChild(document.createTextNode(css)); ac_add_to_head(ac_style); } ac_add_style(".anychart-embed-radar-charts-spiderweb-radar-chart-with-two-area-series{width:600px;height:450px;}"); })();
The “work hard, play hard” attitude is ingrained in Middlebury students before we even arrive on campus. As it turns out, it’s more than a stereotype — data tells us the same story. When asked to choose two of three options out of good grades, sleep and social life, Middlebury students chose good grades three quarters of the time, usually paired with social life. Although the overwhelming focus on good grades may reflect well on Middlebury students’ academic integrity, it’s troubling when paired with low prioritization of sleep. This high-stress, no-rest duo can easily jeopardize students’ mental and physical health, which is particularly concerning when accompanied by Middlebury’s “busy-ness” culture, documented below.
UNENJOYABLE CULTURES: GENERAL
!function(e,t,s,i){var n="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(i)&&(i=d+i),window[n]&&window[n].initialized)window[n].process&&window[n].process();else if(!e.getElementById(s)){var r=e.createElement("script");r.async=1,r.id=s,r.src=i,o.parentNode.insertBefore(r,o)}}(document,0,"infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");
The “busy-ness” game is one that’s all too familiar to Middlebury students. From loudly complaining about upcoming problem sets at lunch to half-bragging about hours logged at Davis, more than 40% of students reported participating in “busy-ness” culture, even though they don’t enjoy it. Defined as a competition to appear busy that often comes at the expense of mental or physical health, “busy-ness” pervades Middlebury and has the capacity to push students beyond their means in an effort to be perceived as productive. Middlebury’s infamous hook-up scene also tops the list, with 235 students, or 16%, participating despite not enjoying it. This culture is often paired with drinking, in which 15% of students report partaking despite disliking it. These statistics reflect a social pressure that informs choices that are meant to be personal, which has the potential to foster unhealthy or dangerous relationships to sex and alcohol.
UNENJOYABLE CULTURES: CLASS
!function(e,t,s,i){var n="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(i)&&(i=d+i),window[n]&&window[n].initialized)window[n].process&&window[n].process();else if(!e.getElementById(s)){var r=e.createElement("script");r.async=1,r.id=s,r.src=i,o.parentNode.insertBefore(r,o)}}(document,0,"infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");
“Busy-ness” culture is reported at above 40% even for first-years, but the bad news is that it doesn’t really get better. In fact, its prevalence steadily increases as students get older. The classes of 2019 and 2019.5 reported almost 50% participation, perhaps as a result of increased pressure to complete graduation requirements, boost resumes and find careers. On the bright side, participation in unwanted “brand-name apparel” culture steadily decreases in an ascent through the class years, tallying at 14% in the class of 2022 and 2022.5 and dropping to around 9% among seniors.
Drinking, drug and hook-up culture all remained relatively consistent across the grades, as did a pressure to appear “outdoorsy,” which consistently polled below 10%.
10 PAST TEXTS
In a question asking students to count how many of their past 10 texts were with someone of their own race, it was found that white students’ texting habits tended to be far more insular within their own race. More than 85% of white students reported that more than half of their past 10 texts were solely with other white people, with a majority reporting that eight, nine or all 10 texts were exchanged within their race. Non-white students, on the other hand, most commonly reported that zero, one or two of their past 10 texts were exchanged with people of their race. Middlebury’s student body, for reference, is approximately 64% white. These statistics are also useful in displaying how “othering” takes place at Middlebury, leading non-white students to feel removed from the mainstream campus community at a predominantly white school.
(05/02/19 9:57am)
This week, I am featuring one of my favorite hosiery items. As someone who loves wearing skirts and dresses, I spend a lot of time wearing tights, leggings and knee high socks, especially during the winter. My favorite, however, are my fishnet tights. As a young 20-year-old heading off into the professional business world after college, I have tried to use my remaining time at Middlebury as an opportunity to wear typically unorthodox clothing.While fishnets definitely do not keep me warm in the Vermont winters, I enjoy the sense of edge and empowerment I feel when I wear them. My time at Middlebury has been full of controversial events and personal growth. I have had journeys exploring my sense of self, my womanhood and my Blackness in the context of this institution. I am leaving this campus more empowered and strong. So wearing fishnet tights has felt like one small way to wear my rebellion. It’s been a subtle but bold means of self expression.
This past semester, there have been many events focused on body empowerment and celebration. I attended Behind the Vagina Monologues, Evolution and the BrASS Burlesque Show and each left me feeling reaffirmed within my body. Fishnets are typically associated with hypersexuality, promiscuity and deviance. I wanted to explore how nylons have managed to take on such a heavy connotation.
The origins of hosiery date back centuries. The earliest known pair were found in the tomb of a noble Egyptian women over two thousand years ago who more than likely used them for warmth. A stark contrast to when fishnets became a popular choice for women during the Victorian era as a display of nobility. They have been used for style but also warmth as they’ve been made from animal skin, hair, silk and nylon. And, as technology has evolved, so have hosiery. Knitting, looming and modern day manufacturing have lead to what we know and love today. Fishnets, in particular, have been a stylistic choice for many for the past several decades. Movie stars, celebrities and sex workers have all donned the nylon versions of the past. Fishnets are thought to have been popularized by Parisian performers in the early 1900s before coming to the U.S. and becoming a part of flapper and pin-up culture starting in the 1920s.
I think it is because of these more modern uses specifically that the hosiery has been sexualized and symbolic of rebellious femininity. So, throughout their journey, from flappers to punk rockers to urban streets to me in Middlebury, VT, the trend has persisted and stylistically evolved. When I put on my fishnet tights to go to class, I am reminded of their long history and every type of person who wore them in the past, for whatever occasion.
(05/02/19 9:54am)
It’s Thursday, my dudes. You know what that means! Time for another fun edition of your favorite advice-but-not-really column, Sex Panther! I know you just can’t wait. I’ve been thinking a lot in the past few weeks about relationship structures and hookup culture here at Midd. I mean, it’s pretty much always on my mind but you get the point. I want to talk about hookup culture specifically as it relates to relationship structure; often, it feels like hookups happen in this limbo where talking about emotions, expectations, and desires can be taboo. You know what can help break those taboos? COMMUNICATION. Which I know I talked about last week, but it’s damn important.
While a good part of that taboo is probably due to the way alcohol relates to hookup culture-- let’s be honest, sex kittens, you probably don’t find that surprising. But that means that often people aren’t in a headspace to have those conversations in the moment. And let me be crystal clear: when you or your partner(s) are under the influence you legally cannot give consent. Does that mean that drunk hookups don’t happen? Of course not. In an ideal world would that be the case? No. But we need to recognize that fact before getting further into this discussion.
Ok. So say you’re drunk. You’ve been flirting all night with the cutie/s at the party, who has/have also been drinking. The stars align and you dance together, one thing leads to another, and suddenly you’re wrapped in a passionate embrace. Or a sloppy drunk makeout. That one’s probably more likely, tbh. ANYWAYS, let’s say you head home together. Score! Right? Maybe you’re thinking about the fun that awaits, and maybe not so much on the conversation aspect. But the conversation is very important, especially in hookups.
From here on, things can go a few ways. Now would be a great time to disclose your relationship status, if you haven’t already. And I don’t mean just making sure you’re both single (though that is a good rule of thumb if you are both monogamous people for whom that classification makes sense). You need to make sure you know exactly what you’re committing to for the immediate future, and how that fits with everyone involved.
For example, I am not monogamous. Nor would I classify myself as polyamorous; I lean more towards the relationship anarchy side of things (go/relationshipanarchy; I am sure to let people I am hooking up with know this fact as well as my expectations i.e. that I would love to have sex but plan on sleeping over with my sweetie, or that I would be down to make out and sleep over, but not have sex.) Sometimes it freaks people out to hear me be frank about not only my desires but also about the way in which I engage in relationships. And that’s totally ok. If being upfront about the fact that I have other sweeties or that I am looking for a casual relationship which involves both sex and friendship or what have you, I think it is only fair to let that person know my full intentions at the outset.
If you are in an open or a poly relationship, that might mean telling the person you’re hooking up with that you do have a primary partner/s and checking that they feel comfortable hooking up knowing that arrangement. If you are monogamous and don’t have a partner, that is good information to disclose as well! Point is, the only thing that being upfront about your relationship ’sitch and your expectations adds is clarity. That doesn’t (and shouldn’t) kill the vibe. If it does, that person was maybe not the best fit for you in that moment. Having these conversations is so so SO important, and can save you so much heartache later down the line. And a hookup doesn’t have to end in a sexual relationship. Some of my closest friendships here have come out of hookups we all agree were fun, but the chemistry was more that of a non-sexual nature, and that was fine! What isn’t fine is refusing to communicate with your hookups.
(04/25/19 10:36am)
MONTPELIER — This past Wednesday, April 13, the Vermont House of Representatives held a hearing for State Representatives to listen to constituent testimony about Proposition 5, a proposed state constitutional amendment over the Right to Personal Reproductive Liberty. Feminist Action at Middlebury (FAM) provided transportation for students to the Statehouse in Montpelier, where the hearing was held.
This proposed legislation exists within the context of the United States at large, where a national debate over abortion has been taking place for years, with the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade as a legal backdrop. While Roe v. Wade currently protects abortion across the country, five states have recently proposed “trigger laws” which would immediately criminalize abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned, with potential consequences for those seeking abortions as severe as the death penalty. With this in mind, if legislators act to amend the State Constitution to preserve a woman’s right to choose, it would hold national significance — especially given that Vermont’s constitution is one of the shortest and most difficult to revise.
The proposition is still in the early stages of the amendment process, and has been passed in the Vermont Senate with a vote of 28-2. The next step is a vote in the House of Representatives, but Proposition 5 will need majority votes in the Senate and House legislature as well as a vote of Vermont residents before it is ratified.
Vermont typically cultivates a politically liberal image, something reinforced among other elements by Senator Bernie Sanders’s runs for presidential office as well as recent environmental legislation and activism. However, the reality of Vermont political energy is much more complicated. Vermont did pioneer legislation on same-sex marriage (Baker v. Vermont 1999) and environmental oversight (Environmental Oversight Act of 1970), two incidents of progressive lawmaking that set national precedents. On the other hand, a cultural emphasis on property rights, gun ownership and individual privacy within Vermont tie into typically conservative priorities. Vermont is one of eight states that allow concealed carry without any permit, a classic pillar of conservative policy. Of those eight states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming — only Maine and Vermont have voted Democratic for any presidential election in the past 20 years. Recent decades have seen the Democratic and Republican parties concentrating in urban and rural areas respectively, making Vermont an especially interesting case study.
So, if Vermont tends to act progressively with environmental regulation and more conservatively when faced with, say, gun control, what happens when it’s faced with the ever-divisive abortion debate? The answer is: it’s complicated.
For one, as with many states, the local pro-life movement in Vermont is incredibly well-organized and vocal. A Google search of “Vermont PR.5” brings up four separate links to the Vermont Right to Life Committee within the first page of results. No such links exist to pro-choice groups. That said, many Vermont residents do support the right to choose an abortion, as evidenced by the Senate 28-2 vote in favor of PR.5.
The hearing on Wednesday, then, exposed a wide rift in opinion among voters. Perhaps to avoid confrontation or perhaps just to streamline the process of the public hearing, both those in favor of the proposition and those against entered the Statehouse from different sides of the building. The Planned Parenthood VT Action Fund offered trademark-pink shirts to arriving supporters, and as a result many of those in the chamber wore T-shirts emblazoned with “I Stand With Planned Parenthood.”
Constituents were each allowed the chance to testify for two minutes before a committee and the general public, often reading their thoughts from prepared notes. Several of those speaking in favor of Proposition 5 noted that they had not planned to speak, but were moved to express their support by others’ testimony. Others had pages of printed opinion of which they only had time to read portions. Despite rules against posters in the House chamber, one constituent displayed a poster of a fetus until he was asked to put it away.
Testimonies in favor of the proposition included opinions from health educators and nurses. Students and retirees alike consistently returned to themes of bodily autonomy, liberty and the freedom that comes with a right to choose.
Those against the proposition often spoke of their religious affiliations and the ethical concerns over fetal life, bringing up concepts of sin, crime and the duty of motherhood. Several of those speaking against the proposition cited medically, financially and scientifically inaccurate information about abortions and Planned Parenthood. These claims included that Planned Parenthood made billions of dollars from abortions, used fetus body parts to create humanized lab rats on which to test HIV and engaged in advertising campaigns to “increase demand” among American women for abortion.
“It’s strange to hear such radical opinions and misinformation from people in my own state and community,” said Emma Bernstein ’21, a FAM member who helped organize transport to the Statehouse. “I know those beliefs exist, but I never think of them being expressed by people I could pass on the street.”
Regardless of the divided testimonies, many of those who traveled to Montpelier with FAM expressed their interest in witnessing the process of local politics. “Especially since Vermont is such a small state, I really felt like my presence there mattered,” said Haley Goodman ’21.“I hope it passes.”
The House of Representatives has yet to vote on Proposition 5.
Correction: An earlier version of this article misidentified the final vote total. There are thirty members of the Vermont Senate.
(04/25/19 10:00am)
Last week, the administration canceled a talk by conservative Polish scholar and politician Ryszard Legutko due to safety concerns. Prior to the cancellation, students had planned a non-disruptive protest in conjunction with a queer pride celebration to challenge Legutko’s homophobia and misogyny.
The administration took two days to specify that student protesters were not the cause of their security concerns. Regardless of the administration’s good intentions, the lack of specificity about the threat subjected Middlebury and its student protesters to an unjust swarm of national criticism which understood protesters to be the cause of the security threat.
Many student organizers devoted hours to carefully planning the protest in accordance with Middlebury’s new protest policies. The protest had been meticulously set up to be non-disruptive and strictly non-violent; the student protesters did their part to adhere to college policy.
Middlebury, however, did not uphold its end of the bargain. The institution failed to provide an adequate space for free expression. Any vetting that took place was obviously not thorough enough to prepare the college to accommodate Legutko’s visit. Had the administration been more prepared, they could have hired additional security to enable both the talk and the protest to proceed as planned.
Although the public talk at the Kirk Alumni center did not take place, Legutko did speak on campus, to Political Science Professor Matthew Dickinson’s “American Presidency” seminar in the Robert A. Jones House conference room. While Legutko’s appearance there was initially private and restricted to the seminar’s nine registered students, the talk became somewhat public as word spread throughout campus and more students began to arrive. At the talk, asked about his views on homosexuality, Legutko replied, “Same-sex marriage is against the fundamental law of the human race.” His comment is disgusting, and would most likely lead to disciplinary action if said by a student in the classroom.
Because student protesters were not informed of this semi-private talk in advance, they had no adequate opportunity to protest or challenge Legutko’s ideas. This was partly due to their concern for their own safety. After the office of the provost cited unnamed “potential security and safety risks” in the email canceling the event, some students who had dressed for the pride event did not know whether they were safe on campus.
Although the cancellations of both the protest and the talk are regrettable, we disagree with the choice to give Legutko a private platform after student protesters had been denied a chance for public expression. Students have the right not only to hear and debate ideas with which they disagree, but also to protest them. The college’s handbook specifically states that students may express ideological opposition so long as their protests are non-disruptive and non-violent. Professor Dickinson has said it was a shame that the student protest did not take place, but the decision to invite Legutko to speak in R.A.J. showed disrespect and disregard for the students who had spent hours planning the protest.
Middlebury was deeply divided after the Charles Murray protests in 2017, but the college community is now largely in agreement that the Legutko protest ought to have happened. Student organizers deliberately planned their protest to accommodate college policy, but were robbed of their platform. The community could have benefited from the protest as well as the talk. The two events together would also have been a perfect opportunity to test the new protest policy.
In the future, Middlebury must seriously consider how it can simultaneously support both protesters and speakers in its quest for a robust public sphere; these two goals do not have to be at odds.
(04/25/19 9:50am)
From the moment I became aware of Ryszard Legutko’s statements, I have shared them with the organizers and the sponsors of his talk. The context of the first statement I saw was a new turn towards homophobia in Poland’s ruling PiS party, a backlash against the Warsaw mayor Trzaskowski, who offered to extend protections to LGBT people. Legutko echoed the official party line, but added “These activists and organizations are very brutal. They have Bolshevik methods. If someone imagines these people as lost, abused by human prejudices ... of course not! These are the people who rule. They have behind them the most powerful means that exist.”
This is a common paranoid fantasy among the anti-gender and anti-LGBT activists I research. Gays are all-powerful. There is no need to protect them. They in fact oppress others. Legutko cites no evidence for his claim. Prof. Callanan thanked me for my “perspective,” but has never engaged with the actual quotations I pointed to or rebutted them.
When student organizers publicized quotations from Legutko’s book, as well as some from this more recent talk on Polish TV, Prof. Callanan did respond: in a letter to Political Science (PSCI) students defending Legutko, he says of these quotations, “Some are doctored and others accurate, some in context and others not.” Like Legutko, he cites no evidence for these claims. My colleagues and I have checked the quotations, and in some cases provided translations from Polish. They are accurate.
Prof. Callanan goes on to write, “For my part, I find in these quotations the words of a man who has been sharply critical of the methods of activists in the European Union, and who holds the same position on same-sex marriage once held by President Obama, President Clinton, and Secretary Clinton.” I am acutely aware of Obama and Clinton’s evolving positions on marriage equality. Never, however, did they argue that LGBT people were not discriminated against, but instead rule over others. In fact both supported extension of rights, more like mayor Trzaskowski than Legutko. Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Protection Act into law, something Legutko would vigorously oppose.
My first inkling of Legutko’s position came about as a result of a post by Polish feminist and scholar, Agnieszka Graff. She and the team of European scholars with whom I collaborated on Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe recognized Legutko’s rhetoric as typical of the anti-gender discourse of the far right. It is not just Catholic or just conservative, but part of a global attack on women’s rights, LGBT rights, and more. I spoke about this at last week’s panel on Populism, Homophobia, and Illiberal Democracy, a panel Prof. Callanan did not attend.
As student parodists have demonstrated in their annotated version (on go/beyondthegreen), Callanan’s letter itself contains much more false information than the quotations posted by student organizers, which were accurate. Yet student organizers have been harassed, first by some PSCI students who received his letter, and now by right wing trolls outside Middlebury. The students and I appealed to the PSCI department to correct the record early last week. I challenged Prof. Callanan last Thursday to provide evidence for his claims. Again he has failed to engage with the facts. Apparently he cares more about giving Legutko cover and protecting his own false narratives than about the pursuit of truth or about the welfare of our students.
(04/18/19 10:00am)
(04/18/19 10:00am)
(04/18/19 10:00am)
Human trafficking is a universal issue, not just one which happens in developing countries. On Tuesday, April 9, Middlebury’s Stop Traffick Club presented a panel which educated the Middlebury College community on some different perspectives on human trafficking, with local, academic and global takes on the issue.
The panel, titled, “Breaking the Bonds of Modern Slavery: Perspectives on Human Trafficking,” included Darlene Pawlik, sex trafficking survivor and now advocate from New Hampshire, Sarah Stroup, Associate Professor of Political Science at Middlebury and Princy Prasad, grant writer and graphic designer for Nomi Network.
The panel was moderated by Madeleine Tango ’21.5, president of Stop Traffick who stated that the panel was “crucial to engage the campus community on the imminent dangers of trafficking, its causes and what students can do to fight against modern-day slavery.”
Treasurer Spencer Royston ’21 said that “human trafficking is an issue that is so hidden from our daily lives, and government agencies are not doing enough to see this as an important issue in terms of the laws that are currently in place.”
He believes that as a campus, we should be addressing this issue more fervently, as human trafficking is a million-dollar industry. He added that panels like these are platforms that empower survivors to tell their story and support them, as well as organizations that are doing more for them like Nomi Network, a partner of the Stop Traffick Club at Middlebury.
The panel began by explaining human trafficking and its various manifestations, from sex trafficking, to organ trafficking, to labor trafficking. The issue roots itself in the action of harboring and transporting human beings with force, promise or coercion.
Prasad shed light on how the problem is deeply rooted in culture in countries like Cambodia and India where child marriage and the caste system are still in place.
“If I send my daughter off, then they will be someone else’s problem,” Prasad said. “This is a cultural mindset that prevents girls from having their own freedom and rights.”
“It is the fastest growing commercial enterprise today. However, since it takes so many shapes, governments often miscalculate the numbers of how many victims there actually are,” Pawlik said.
The panel also discussed the role of globalization and fast-fashion in the growth of the human trafficking industry. The growing demands of the fashion industry in keeping up with changing trends create an increased need for a greater supply of clothes production, and globalization has made outsourcing of labor incredibly easy for businesses.
Nonetheless, it is important for consumers like us to be conscious of where our clothes come from. Pawlik and Prasad asked the audience to use the mobile application “My Slavery Footprint” when going to a store to purchase goods. Moreover, they acknowledged the issue of choice and how it truly is a privilege to be able to be mindful of what one purchases, knowing that those who live in poverty do not have the choice of choosing what is consciously-made over what is cheap.
“Anyone anywhere can be a victim of human trafficking,” Pawlik said. She called on college students and their ability to be conscious of and fight against human trafficking, which can start by calling out stores and companies that may not be complying with ethical standards of production through social media such as Twitter and Facebook. Informed activism through connections with local organizations is also a step in the right direction to take action.
In the end, Professor Stroup highlighted the importance of law enforcement in seeing and recognizing that trafficked persons are victims and not criminals, so as to promote a more conducive environment to combat human trafficking in a hyper-local level.
To learn more about human trafficking, attend Stop Traffick Club’s weekly meetings at 6 p.m. on Tuesdays in the LaForce Lounge.
(04/18/19 9:58am)
[gallery columns="4" size="medium" ids="44527,44524,44526,44525"]
SGA President
As the weather on campus is warming, Student Government Association (SGA) elections are heating up.
This week, the Middlebury student body will elect a new SGA president for the 2019-2020 academic year. The position involves directly overseeing the SGA Cabinet and Senate and supporting the work of 11 Cabinet committees and five Senate committees. The President is viewed as the de facto leader of the entire student body.
Three candidates are running for the position this election cycle, and The Campus spoke with each of them to get a sense of their qualifications, priorities and visions for the SGA.
John Gosselin ’20
Winchester, MA native Gosselin has served in several leadership roles on campus throughout his time at Middlebury, including SGA Atwater senator. He is currently treasurer of the Tavern social house and Community Council co-chair. His campaign website can be accessed at go/voteforjohn.
“I feel as though I’m an effective administrator who doesn’t respond with strong emotions,” Gosselin told The Campus. “This calm temperament will help with any possible hostilities that may arise next year.”
While serving with the Community Council, Gosselin was the leading student voice on the steering committee for the Residential Life Report and has been involved in the process for over two years. As SGA president, Gosselin hopes to implement the first steps of the report, and believes that having a president who understands its importance is critical as the steering committee begins to tackle long term projects like renovating Battell and building a new student center.
Gosselin also wants to improve social life and late-night non-alcoholic programming. To this end, he plans to work with different organizations on campus to provide higher quality non-alcoholic programming and work with the Vermont Department of Liquor Control and the college’s general counsel to “relax policies which currently restrict many events with alcohol.”
On Community Council, Gosselin strove to support students of color and worked to approve PALANA as a new social house. He said the group has and will continue to do “a phenomenal job at providing a diversity-oriented space on campus.”
Gosselin also wants to find more ways to support students over breaks. He feels the lack of resources provided to students, especially in the dining halls, prevent students from “having a full and equal Middlebury experience.” He says that he expects the SGA to either work with administration or prioritize the support of such efforts with SGA funds.
Varsha Vijayakumar ’20
Vijayakumar, from Harrington Park, New Jersey, is a current junior senator with the SGA. She sees SGA president as a role that supports students who are already passionate about particular causes around campus. Vijayakumar made it clear that her platform does not only belong to her, but to the numerous students from whom she’s received input and support. Her experience with the Institutional Diversity Committee and the Senate have shown her the immense power the SGA can have for students. “I want to harness the passion of students,” she said. “Their power is unstoppable.”
Vijayakumar’s leadership on campus is not limited to the SGA. She serves as the president of Midd Masti, has led a MALT trip to Miami about sex trafficking and hasserved as a JusTalks facilitator. Vijayakumar feels deeply connected with many communities and spaces around campus through her extracurricular involvement and hopes to bring these connections to her role as president. Her experience with Midd Masti, for instance, allowed her to “fall in love with her culture in a way that’s loving and affirming” and hopes that the SGAcan empower groups to provide those and other opportunities to even more students.
Her campaign website, go/varsha, represents a platform created by students and for students. She stresses that her goal is not to push a certain agenda but to support the work and goals of student-centered causes. She hopes to work with groups on campus to tackle issues within health and wellness, social spaces and social life, inclusivity, access to resources, and financial aid and employment. She has identified these areas as key prioritiesfor an SGA under her leadership and is excited by the upward trend in student involvement with the SGA in recent years. She pointed to divestment and to-go boxes as examples of encouraging signs of progress. Vijayakumar hopes to find ways to streamline the SGA to be more representative and more efficient. “Student engagementwith SGA is the equivalent to our success,” she said.
Joel Machado ’22
Machado, a Posse Scholar from New York City, is encouraged by what underclassmen can bring tothe SGA. Machado noted that first-years “are generally the most engaged and most involved on campus, and generally have the most turnout in elections.” Machado, who is involved with First@Midd and Distinguished Men of Color (DMC), pointed to his lack of experience with SGA as “not the end all be all.”
“I want to bring new energy to the SGA, whereas the other two candidates lack the lens of being on the outside looking in,” he said. He hopes that he can bring his leadership skills to the role by using first-year enthusiasm to represent the entire student body.
After identifying several institutional issues at Middlebury, such as rape culture and new Title IX policies, Machado first decided to speak out through the Spencer Prize, a first-year speaking competition. Machado then submitted his speech to The Campus as an opinion piece, noting that “it wasn’t worth it to wait” to act. “I wanted to vocalize problems I saw even in my first semester here on campus," Machado said. He tried to use these moments as a form of protest and hopes his candidacy can shed more light on the issues he hopes to focus on while in office.
Machado’s platform, which can be found on his website at go/ourSGA, attempts to answer four questions. First, who gets to be a Midd Kid? Here, Machado wants to focus on issues surrounding diversity and creating opportunities for marginalized groups on campus in and out of the classroom. Second, how can we improve life at Middlebury? He hopes to enact change in such areas as registration, opening up study abroad opportunities in winter term and funding individual students to host their own parties and events on campus. Third, how should the SGA operate? Machado feels as though the SGA has too much bureaucracy and hopes to simplify the body to make it more efficient. He feels it should have “less of an organized structure and be more informal and conversational.” Fourth, what can we do for our future? Machado looks to work on long term efforts like enforcing Energy2028, eliminating rape culture on campus and collaborating on a new commons system.
Community Council Co-Chair
The race for co-chair of Community Council, a position shared with Dean of Students Baishkahi Taylor tasked with leading discussions and action on all non-academic issues on campus, will be uncontested this year. The Campus spoke with the sole candidate.
Roni Lezama ’22
Lezama, a Posse Scholar from New York City, feels that the Community Council is a unique body that brings together students, faculty, and staff for important discussions about life at Middlebury. Lezama, who currently serves on the SGA’s Institutional Diversity Committee and recently won the Spencer Prize in Oratory, wants to embrace the power of the community and empower others to voice their opinions in an open, respectful forum of ideas.
“I want to work towards a Middlebury that’s for the community and empowers community members and especially those of marginalized identities to speak up and voice their opinions,” he said.
Lezama doesn’t want to set an agenda because Community Council is the “most important time to hear what other people have to say.” However, he wants to hear from the community on additional programs beyond Green Dot to fight back against sexual assault as well as focusing on issues like accessibility to a Community Council that should be “a place of openness.” In general, Lezama wants to focus on issues that affect all facets of the community. He gave registration as an example of an issue that gives headaches to everyone involved. He hopes that Community Council discussions and respectful debates can bring progress and meaningful solutions to problems like these in the next year.
(04/18/19 9:56am)
You’ve probably heard it a million times, sex kittens, but communication is key! This counts in pretty much every relationship you will ever have, whether it is a sexual one or a romantic one or a professional one or anything in between. If you don’t start honing your communication skills-- really making sure that you equip yourself with the tools you need to speak honestly, compassionately and openly about things that maybe make you uncomfortable or that are difficult to talk about -- then you are setting yourself and the people you interact with up for failure and frustration.
Sure, communication looks different to everyone, but holding space for others and having a willingness to be vulnerable are important skills when it comes to romance or sex. Like, super important. Realistically, I myself have failed at communicating my wants and needs or holding space on many occasions, and you probably have failed and will continue to do so. What is important is building those skills and striving to have those hard conversations, even when choosing to ignore or dance around them seems easier. Trust me, it is not easier, not in the long run.
Take, for example, disclosing your STI status to partners. First off, if you are going to be having ANY kind of oral or genital contact with anyone ever, YOU SHOULD KNOW YOUR STI STATUS. This could be a whole damn column in its own right, but seriously. If you are not mature enough to march your ass down to Parton, say “Hi, I’d like to request a full STI screening please,” and TAKE THE DAMN TEST, you are not mature enough to be putting your genitals or mouth near anyone else’s but your Fleshlights.
Parton has funding to subsidize these tests, making them FREE to you as a student. It is literally free. I am begging you. Plenty of people don’t have sex with other people, and while it is still helpful to know your STI status even in those cases, it is less irresponsible to the health and safety of others than if you don’t know your status and do choose to engage in acts which can transmit STIs.
This is not to say that STIs are dirty or immoral or bad in any way- there are many ways to contract STIs. A partner of mine once got oral herpes from sharing a water bottle with a friend. Another friend of mine contracted chlamydia after a drunken hookup where their partner didn’t know (or worse, failed to disclose-- which in certain cases can be a federal offense) their STI status. Sex is fun, and sometimes you’re gonna have to deal with STIs. It happens. But don’t let it ruin your fun. Make sure you’re equipped to deal with those crucial conversations.
Here’s an example:
Person A: “I can’t wait to eat you out.”
Person B: “That sounds amazing! Before we do that though, when was the last time you got tested? I just got tested last week, but nothing to report here!”
Person A: “About 6 months ago. But I did have a cold sore a couple of weeks ago…”
Person B: “Thanks for letting me know! I’d still love to get eaten out. Let’s use a dental dam to be safe. What flavor do you prefer? I have cherry, mint, and unflavored.”
Yeah, we all know that the conversation might be longer or a little bit awkward, especially if the person has not been tested in a while, but it is important to know what you’re walking into to have both a safe and fun experience. And if you get tested and find out that you have contracted an STI, it is always a good idea to let partners you have had since your last test know that they should get tested too.
If you ask a partner or partners their STI statuses and they can’t or won’t respond...then RUN. They might be perfectly nice people, they might have perfectly beautiful fellatio skills or pound you to a pulp in the best way, but they are also irresponsible and you (and your body) deserve better. If you really like them (or their genitals and physical touch and want it to continue) do yourself and them a favor by insisting they get tested. If they won’t, there are other fish in the sea. And at least you know what some of those other fish’s STI statuses are.
(04/18/19 1:51am)
Despite the cancellation of his public lecture earlier today amid what college administrators described as “safety concerns,” the right-wing Polish politician Ryszard Legutko still spoke on campus this afternoon to a private classroom audience. A peaceful protest originally scheduled to take place outside of the lecture did not occur.
In an email to The Campus on Thursday, April 18, Head of Media Relations Sarah Ray clarified the “safety risk” that prompted the cancellation was an inability to crowd-manage the escalating number of people planning to attend the event.
"The fact that there were students who were planning to hold an event near the lecture was not an issue," she said in a subsequent email. “The safety concerns stemmed from the rapidly growing number of people who had expressed an interest in attending the two events. We simply did not have adequate staffing to ensure the safety of all the attendees.”
When asked whether other students were threatening the protesters, Ray responded that she could not confirm this.
Rather than speak before an audience at the Kirk Alumni Center as planned, Legutko delivered his lecture to Political Science Professor Matthew Dickinson’s “American Presidency” seminar. The talk, initially intended for the nine students in Dickinson’s class, became a pseudo-public event as students arrived over the course of the talk, which continued about 15 minutes after the class period ended. Student protesters, who had originally planned to peacefully and non-disruptively protest Legutko’s talk with a queer celebration, were not present at the event today.
A student in Dickinson’s class who was involved in the Hamilton Forum — the speaker series that brought Legutko to campus, headed by Political Science professor Keegan Callanan — asked if he could invite Legutko to the 1:30 p.m. class in the Robert A. Jones ’59 (RAJ) House. According to Dickinson, the event was entirely impromptu.
“I asked the students, as part of the classroom experience, do you want to invite him in here to critique his argument,” Dickinson told The Campus. When students expressed interest, Dickinson administered a secret ballot. He said that he would not invite the speaker unless there was a unanimous decision to invite him, which there was.
Before Legutko arrived, Dickinson had students research the politician’s views and formulate questions. “We spent the first hour of class conducting our own research to gather questions for discussion,” said Owen Marsh ’20, a student in the class. According to Marsh, Legutko came in to the class about halfway through, at 3 p.m.
Dickinson did not invite students from outside his class because he did not originally intend for the event to be public, but students sporadically filtered into the RAJ conference room throughout the talk. Political Science Professor John Harpham and the students in his “Rousseau” seminar joined the crowd after hearing about the lecture from a student in the class and cutting class short. Some of Harpham’s students, who had planned on protesting the lecture, chose not to attend.
Legutko delivered the lecture he was originally planning to give at the now-canceled event, though it was abbreviated for lack of time. He then took questions from Dickinson and the audience, which was by then comprised of students from his class, students from Harpham’s class and other visitors. A portion of the question and answer period was recorded on live stream by The Campus.
Provost Jeff Cason, who sent the school-wide email earlier about the cancelation of the lecture, told The Campus in an email that the college did not know about Dickinson’s decision to invite Legutko to his class in advance of it happening. Cason clarified that if the college had received a request, they would have advised Dickinson not to host Legutko “given our safety concerns.”
“If we had been approached asking if there were safety concerns, we would have said yes, most definitely,” he said. “We don’t have any policy to shut down a speaker invited to a class; faculty have speakers come to their classes regularly without any centralized approval.”
INSIDE THE CLASSROOM
Dickinson asked Legutko if reinterpretations of marriage over time to include same-sex marriage are a social intrusion. Many of the concerns student activists initially voiced about Legutko’s visit centered around controversial statements he made regarding same-sex marriage and gay rights.
“I am very reluctant to tamper with the meaning of words,” Legutko responded. “Once you change the meaning, you are in for trouble. Marriage as we understood was between a man and a woman. What has happened recently is a radical change. I don’t think that we should be allowed to go as far as changing one of the most fundamental institutions of the world.”
Legutko took more questions about liberal democracy and his views on tradition. One student asked how Legutko felt about the controversy surrounding his visit, and invoked the Charles Murray incident.
“Charles Murray was the first thing on my mind when I was invited ... It was unpleasant information, but it proves what I wrote in my book ... How can these things happen?” Legutko responded. “Why is there this spirit of ideological crusade?"
Dickinson stepped in to inform Legutko that student protesters had no intention of stopping him from speaking. Callanan, sitting in the audience, argued that there were some students who wanted the invitation revoked, claiming it was “not a majority, but definitely some.” Dickinson responded that he respectfully disagreed with Callanan, and that no protesters had an interest in stopping the event.
GOING FORWARD
After the talk, Dickinson expressed concern to The Campus about the administration’s decision to cancel the event. He heard about the decision as he was arriving to his class, and though he emphasized that he did not know the details of any alleged safety concerns, felt that the choice to cancel the talk “validates our fears coming out of the Murray talk.”
He added that the administration’s cancellation of the event denied students the right to protest, another manifestation of free speech.
“In my conversations with the protesters they made it quite clear they were going to voice their concerns about inviting this guy to campus, but they were not going to try to shut him down, which is precisely which should happen,” said Dickinson.
“They lost that opportunity to express that feeling of being violated in their own home, and that’s their right here as students,” he added.
Dickinson also fears that media coverage of the events will reflect poorly on Middlebury.
“[The media] is going to portray this as, once again, Middlebury College not being able to tolerate controversial views, and that’s not the case. The students did not shut this down, they did not prevent him from speaking,” he said.
Callanan told The Campus that he already invited Legutko back to Middlebury next year. Dickinson said he hopes that Legutko will return.
“I would hope students have the opportunity to protest and engage in response to him appearing on campus in a way they weren’t able to this time because of the administration’s decisions,” Dickinson said.
Although the whole college community did not have the chance to listen to and/or protest Legutko’s talk, Dickinson was pleased with how the students in his class engaged with the speaker.
“I was very proud of Middlebury students today, very proud of them,” he said.
[related title="Related Stories" stories="44374,44323,44368" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]
(04/17/19 3:06am)
UPDATE — Wednesday, April 17: The college has canceled Legutko's lecture, citing security risks. Professor Keegan Callanan said he has already invited Legutko to speak again on campus next year. Click here for full coverage.
——
Tuesday, April 16
An upcoming lecture by a far-right scholar and member of the European Parliament has renewed the college’s ongoing debate over the difference between free speech and hate speech, and whether those accused of the latter should be allowed to speak on campus.
Ryszard Legutko, a scholar and far right member of the European Parliament from Poland, has made incendiary remarks about LGBTQ activists, tolerance and multiculturalism, and is a critic of liberal democracy. Legutko was invited to speak by the Alexander Hamilton Forum, a series founded last year that “aims to foster thoughtful engagement with the ideas that have informed the creation and development of the American polity.” The talk, which is co-sponsored by the Political Science Department and the Rohatyn Center for Global Affairs, will be held tomorrow, Wednesday, April 17 at 4:30 p.m. in Kirk Alumni Center.
“I don't understand why anyone should want to be proud of being a homosexual,” Legutko said in 2011. “Be proud of what you do, not of being a homosexual.”
Student activists have planned a performance protest in response. The protest will take place outside of the lecture and is, in part, intended to be a celebration of queer identity. Protesters plan to hold signs, play music, and throw a dance party. They will also hand out pamphlets informing attendees of Legutko’s views. Protest organizers will be shuttling protest participants to the center from Adirondack Circle, starting at 3:45 p.m.
“It is absolutely, unequivocally not the intent of this protest and those participating in this protest to prevent Legutko from speaking. Disruptive behavior of this nature will not be tolerated,” wrote Taite Shomo ’20.5, an organizer of the protest, in the official Facebook event.
After the Facebook event for the protest went live, the director of the Hamilton Forum, Assistant Political Science Professor Keegan Callanan, wrote an open letter in defense of the lecture.
“At Middlebury, some would prefer that we not have the chance to hear and to question Prof. Legutko and other heterodox scholars. The Hamilton Forum takes a different view,” Callanan wrote. “In short, the Hamilton Forum has no ideological litmus tests.”
Responding indirectly to Legutko’s comments on gay rights, Callanan claimed in his letter that some of Legutko’s comments had been altered or taken out of context, and compared Legutko’s views to the “position on same-sex marriage once held by President Obama, President Clinton, and Secretary Clinton.”
When a Campus reporter reached out for an interview, Callanan replied only with a copy of the letter. Callanan did not respond to additional questions asking how speakers for the Hamilton Forum are selected and whether the forum’s organizers were aware of Legutko’s history of controversial views prior to inviting him to campus. He also did not answer inquiries about the Hamilton Forum’s source of funding, which has not been made public.
The subject of Legutko’s lecture is not his views on gay rights. His talk is entitled “The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies,” and will examine the way “that western democracy has over time crept towards the same goals as communism, albeit without Soviet-style brutality.”
LEARNING ABOUT LEGUTKO
Russian Professor Kevin Moss, who studies gender in Eastern Europe, first encountered Legutko’s position on tolerance and the LGBT community last week when he saw that Legutko had made incendiary comments about homosexuality on a Polish news channel.
“Through my colleagues in Poland I became aware of what else he had said, and what his views were, and it turned out that the ‘demon’ in democracy that he is referring to is tolerance,” Moss told The Campus.
Legutko’s views are shared throughout his right-wing, populist Law and Justice Party, which holds the most seats in Poland’s legislature. The party was responsible for a now-reversed law that instituted jail time for suggesting that Poland was complicit in the Holocaust, and recently came under fire from the European Union (EU) for attempting to amend Poland’s courts in ways that threatened the state’s separation of powers. Legutko and his party also oppose expanding rights for gay Poles.
After discovering Legutko’s controversial views, Moss shared his findings with members of the Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies Department, inclusivity groups and Political Science professors.
The information spread and several student initiatives opposing Legutko’s visit materialized over the last few days, the most prominent among them a queer-focused protest of the lecture.
Word about the protest has spread by way of a Facebook event page, entitled “Ryszard Legutko is a f*cking homophobe (and racist and sexist).” The page’s go-link, go/homophobe, has been advertised on chalkboards and posters across campus. Some have written the go-link on the official lecture posters.
THE PROTEST
“As someone who cares about making this campus a better, more thoughtful place, I think it would be irresponsible not to protest against such a person's presence,” Shomo said. “I intend on exercising my own right to free speech and protest by refusing to allow Legutko to speak here without informing the community of his harmful ideas.”
Protesters are mindful of the discipline that student protesters faced following the Charles Murray protest. “We decided that it would be better for the safety of students who want to be involved in this protest if we did not try to stop Legutko from speaking,” Shomo said.
“Outside of the event, we will be celebrating queer identity — something that we feel this institution is implicitly undermining by giving Legutko a platform to speak,” said Grace Vedock ’20, another protest organizer. “Students are encouraged to come to the lecture in rainbow colors and carrying pride flags.”
THE COMMUNITY RESPONDS
In the lead up to the protests, activists also drafted an open letter urging the Political Science Department and Rohatyn Center to rescind their sponsorship of the lecture. The letter quotes Legutko’s past statements, and has been signed by hundreds of students, dozens of student organizations, and several faculty members.
Erik Bleich, chair of the Political Science Department, responded to the open letter with a letter of his own.
“I will also support your right to protest this speaker or any speaker and to state your views as fully as possible,” he wrote. “My fundamental goal is to uphold the key values of academic freedom and inclusivity, even during moments when these core values are not fully or easily compatible.”
Tamar Mayer, director of the Rohatyn Center, explained her decision to sponsor the lecture. “We get hundreds of requests a year and we base our decision on the limited information provided by the organizer,” she explained. “Nothing whatsoever that could have raised a flag.”
All seven members of the Rohatyn student advisory board denounced the center’s endorsement in a letter to The Campus.
“While we were neither informed of nor involved in the decision to sponsor the event, we are acting in our fullest capacity to advise the Rohatyn Center leadership, imploring them to withdraw support and co-sponsorship,” the members wrote. “We stand in solidarity with the rest of the student leadership listed on the open letter to the RCGA and Political Science Department.”
The Hamilton Forum also has a student fellows program. The Campus reached out to Linda Booska, the Political Science Department coordinator and listed contact for the Hamilton Forum, and inquired about the names of the fellows, which are not listed on the website. She did not respond. The Campus asked both Booska and Callanan whether students were involved in the selection of speakers. They did not respond. In the course of reporting, The Campus also learned that one of the forum's main student coordinators advised other students involved in the forum not to speak with Campus reporters in order to keep “out of any potential public battle,” though they said the decision to do so was ultimately theirs.
The forum also has a three-member steering committee: Political Science professors Murray Dry and Allison Stanger and former Vermont Governor Jim Douglas ’72.
PANEL DISCUSSION
On Tuesday afternoon, the Rohatyn Center and Political Science Department hosted a panel discussion in Dana Auditorium as a prelude to tomorrow’s lecture.
“The department is taking a ‘more speech’ approach by co-sponsoring an additional panel discussion,” Bleich wrote in an email announcing the panel. “The goal is to provide context for the Legutko talk and to address some of the key concerns raised about his positions.”
The panel brought Political Science professors Gary Winslett, Katherine Aha and Russian Professor Kevin Moss together to discuss their respective expertise on liberal democracy, the rise of the Law and Justice Party in Poland and the anti-gender movement in Eastern Europe. Bleich moderated the event.
In the question and answer period after the panel, students grilled Bleich about the Political Science Department’s decision to sponsor the lecture. Students also raised questions about extra credit being offered for attending the lecture, criticized Bleich’s decision to approve Callanan’s request to sponsor the lecture, and drew connections to the protests associated with Charles Murray’s lecture over two years ago.
The tradition has been that sponsorship requests submitted by a member of the department are automatically approved. Bleich responded that he was open to discussing the way that speakers are approved by the department, but said he would be hesitant to implement a system in which faculty members vet their colleagues’ requests.
Despite divisions, students and faculty appear united in their common goal of not stopping the lecture. Moss, in particular, is looking forward to asking Legutko tough questions.
“If gay people are controlling the world and destroying families and destroying religion as well, please give me examples,” Moss said he will ask Legutko. “How many people have died in this struggle? Because gay people have died; there are suicides among gay people. How many Christians have committed suicide because of gay tyranny? Please tell me. I am waiting for your statistics.”
A Campus reporter will be on hand to cover tomorrow’s lecture.
Correction: A previous version of this article stated that Callanan had advised students in the Hamilton Forum not to respond to requests for comment from Campus reporters. This directive actually came from a student coordinator. We regret the error.
(04/11/19 9:59am)
The way we deal with the death of a loved one makes for an incredibly personal narrative. After the passing of her beloved brother Carl, playwright Paula Vogel found her own unique way to let the world know how dear he was to her, by writing a loving tribute and political statement through a play titled “The Baltimore Waltz.”
This past weekend, Seeler Studio Theatre was transformed into the thrilling set of “The Baltimore Waltz” for the first of two Spring term faculty-directed shows. Directed by Associate Professor of Theater Cláudio Medeiros ’90, the 90-minute production ran evening performances on April 4 through 6 and one matinee on April 5.
Originally written as Vogel’s response to the 1988 death of her brother Carl, who died from complications due to AIDS, the play takes place in Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, where Carl (Alexis de la Rosa ’19) has a terminal illness, and Anna (Madeleine Russell ’19) imagines a trip the two never took. This fantasy of Anna’s takes the audience with her and Carl on a quest for a cure — but instead of her brother being the one ill, it is Anna. In her fantasy, she suffers from the fictional and terminal ATD (Acquired Toilet Disease), which she is said to have contracted by using the bathrooms at the elementary school she teaches at.
On this quest, Anna is driven by the hedonistic pleasures of museums, luxurious brunches and casual sex with as many men as possible. Assisting the pair on their journey is the mysterious Third Man (Kevin Collins ’20 and Ryan Kirby ’22) who takes up many roles in the play, from a lust-driven waiter in Paris, to a mad Viennese doctor who swears to cure ATD by having his patients drink urine.
The play explores how the pair’s European idyll is broken by Carl’s death and the tragic revelation that the entire play was simply Anna’s valiant fantasy to keep alive her brother’s spirit, when she could not save his life. Their final dance, the Baltimore waltz, was danced under a disco ball, a true symbol of the times.
The production’s choice of music sets the play in a particular space in time. From ABBA to Dutch and German tunes, the songs evoke the experience of the siblings’ lives in the ’80s and their romp through Europe.
Forty years later, the themes in the play remain relevant. “I was surprised to learn about how little people on the campus knew about the AIDS crisis and the scale of the Act Up movement,” Masha Makutonina ’21, who stage managed the play, said. “This play sheds light on how important it is to not only realize the tragedies of the past, but also give a voice to communities that are deeply hurt and are continued to be targeted even today.”
“The tragedy of losing someone close to you is a theme that is very universal,” Makutonina added.
Although there were only four actors on stage, this production had a large team behind it. In addition to Russell, de la Rosa, Collins and Kirby, the production team was comprised of director Medeiros, lighting designer Stephen Chen ’19.5, stage manager Masha Makutonina ’21 and assistant stage manager James Peacock ’21 and dramaturg Travis Sanderson ’19.
Because the production was faculty directed, it was able to realize the “wildest of ideas,” said Makutonina. Sanderson presented the cast and crew with research background on the AIDS epidemic through findings and the Act Up documentary, and the production team chose their props, costumes and lighting design based on references of the book from the film noir, “Third Man.”
“Even the smallest details, such as the hats worn by the Third Man, and the pillows on set, had to be exactly right,” Makutonina said.
Recalling the moments spent in the rehearsal room with his crew, Director Medeiros said that the play has given him two very special gifts: “a destination for my affections and the realization that I must be an alchemist of my own losses.”
(04/11/19 9:53am)
I loooove talking during sex. Moans and groans? Sexy as hell. Affirmations of consent? Even sexier. Making jokes to lighten the mood? Dirty talk? Yes and yes. I’ll take it all, please and thank you.
But there is one thing I never, never want to hear during sex. “I think the condom just broke.” That one’s a real mood-killer.
If you’re like me and you’ve been on the receiving end of a broken condom, you know that stomach-dropping, panicky feeling that comes with it. Sex can be scary — why are there so many risks associated with something so fun??? — but a broken condom doesn’t mean the world is ending. If STD transmission is the paramount concern, I recommend talking to your partner about their and your sexual health and getting tested immediately. But if you’re like me, a pregnancy-paranoid, uterus-havin’ humyn who’s not on another form of birth control and is trying to keep her eggs unfertilized, it’s time to take the handy dandy morning-after pill.
The pill, colloquially known as Plan B, is an emergency contraceptive that delays ovulation so you can remain your un-pregnant self. The most popular and widely-available brand of the pill is Plan B One Step, which uses the synthetic hormone levonorgestrel (which is a lot like the natural hormone progesterone) to delay the release of the egg from the ovary. The science jargon makes that all sound more intense than it actually is - Plan B is basically just a single-use, higher-dose birth control pill. The levonorgestrel Plan B pills are especially great because you can get them over the counter; another variety of emergency contraception, called ella, is more effective but requires a prescription. None of the Plan B options prevent contraction of STDs.
A broken condom isn’t the only reason for enlisting the help of my girl Plan B. You might have forgotten to put the condom on, or haven’t been taking your regular birth control, or maybe your partner didn’t pull out in time (a separate column on pulling out to come – pre-cum, beware!). In any case, you shouldn’t use Plan B as regular birth control — other forms of contraception, like birth control pills and IUDs, are more consistently effective and less expensive — but there is no limit to the amount of times you can take it. She really is a life-saver.
This magical little pill does come at a price, about $50 at most drug stores. But GREAT news: You can buy Plan B at Parton for only $18, which is the per-unit cost for the pill when the health center buys it in bulk. AND if you need financial assistance for Plan B (or other sexual health services), Parton will hook you the f*ck up for even cheaper. I don’t think that many people know this — the health center said it receives between zero and six Plan B visits per month — but I am telling you now: if you have a sex-mergency, get your ass to Parton! And get it there within 72 hours – the pill is most effective within three days of a slip up, though it is technically good for an additional two days after that. But the sooner you take it, before the pregnancy has implanted in the uterus, the better it will work.
The health center also offers STI screenings and treatment, contraception counseling and UTI exams and treatment, among a bevy of other sexual health services. And the health center won’t tell your parents, or alert them of your Plan B purchase, if you’re worried about them finding out. Though I can’t relate. In high school, I asked my mom to drive me to CVS to get Plan B when the condom broke with my high school beau, so we’re past that point and comfortably living in the TMI zone.
The pill is also available at Planned Parenthood clinics, most drug stores and online. There is no age minimum or any health requirements precluding purchase. You can also find rebates and coupons on the Plan B website to avoid that daunting $50 price tag.
I will warn you that Plan B can come with some gnarly side effects. More often than not, it messes with your period and causes some nausea (though there have been instances after which I’ve been completely symptom-free). But you know what else has those effects? Pregnancy. And I’ll take mild nausea and cramps if it means my uterus can remain baby-less any day, please and thank you.
Plan B is great, but even better is avoiding the need to take it altogether. A preventative, pre-penetration precaution I recommend is to keep your condoms safety stored so that they won’t rip or wear too thin before the sexy times even happen. Condom carrying cases, for example, will keep your rubbers from rubbing against the other shit in your bag and will keep them away from sharp objects. Plus, if you’re like me and you store your condoms in the school supplies compartment of your backpack, it makes opening your bag to grab a pen in front of your professor a little less risky.
During sex, use lots o’ water-based lubrication to decrease chances of tearing from friction. Invest in good, lubed-up condoms, too — I like Skyn and Trojans the best — and don’t use a condom if it’s expired – this means the material has worn thin and there is an increased chance of breakage. Some positions also might be more friction-inducing than others; for example, most breakages I’ve had have been in doggy position. But that shouldn’t stop you from getting creative with how you get down. So make sure those condoms are nice and lubed up, or find another birth control method that works for you.
Condom breakages and pregnancy scares can be terrifying, my sexy readers. And it is frustrating that the onus falls entirely on women to deal with these matters — male birth control, WYA?!! — but it doesn’t need to be as scary as it often feels. Plan B is your friend and she’ll always be there for you, even when your condom isn’t.
(03/21/19 9:59am)
This Friday night in Hepburn Zoo, as I watched the full cast of womyn and femmes dressed in red and black perform My Revolution Begins in the Body, the opening monologue of this year’s Beyond the Vagina (Monologues), I found myself remembering a cab ride I took through Delhi one Saturday night in September.
Beyond the Vagina (Monologues) is a collection of performance pieces in the tradition of Eve Ensler’s groundbreaking 1994 feminist theater piece “The Vagina Monologues.” In September I was on my way home with my friend Maya, driving through the chaotic streets of Delhi and talking about the performance by Indian dancer and theater artist Maya Krishna Rao we’d just watched called “Loose Woman.”
The two performances were, of course, quite different. Rao wore rope sandals and makeup that was dramatic, bordering on grotesque, as she stomped and gestured in the kathakali style (a form of traditional Indian dance historically performed by men) while delivering her monologue. I’m sure I missed ninety-nine percent of the meaning she was trying to convey, given my limited understanding of Hindi, Indian culture and dance, but I was nonetheless captivated by Rao’s commanding strength and charisma for the entire two-hour performance.
Beyond the Vagina (Monologues) was in English, performed by my classmates and mostly devoid of dancing — with the notable exception of Caleb Green’s beautiful original choreography to Andrea Gibson’s “Your Life” – but the entire performance still viscerally reminded me of Rao’s “Loose Woman.” Both performances illustrate the palpable, undeniable power of a woman unapologetically taking up space, power that’s recognizable in a way that can transcend the particulars of language and culture.
Empowering female and non-binary identifying individuals wasn’t the only goal of the Monologues. Breaking the silence was another. Co-directors and producers Stella Boye-Doe and Steph Miller say that they hope the show starts conversations that continue on campus. “It’s about breaking down stigma, starting to talk about things that are taboo right now,” said Miller.
Described in the program as having “a new eye for inclusivity and intersectionality,” Beyond the Vagina (Monologues) builds on the 1996 “Vagina Monologues” by “recogniz[ing] the extent to which our global conversations of womanhood, femme, gender, sexuality and identity have changed and grown.” Boye-Doe and Miller spent winter term selecting the monologues and pieces that would speak to a contemporary, diverse feminism.
After only about three weeks of rehearsals, the company put on a show that covered a range of subjects, from sex and pleasure, to assault and trauma, to gender identity. In addition to three original monologues written and performed in this year’s show, there were also sketches and monologues from Ensler’s original script, as well as past performances of Beyond the Vagina (Monologues).
The range of topics was matched only by the range of tones struck by the performers over the course of the night, and sometimes in a single scene. A monologue called “MeToo is a movement, not a moment,” adapted from a TED Talk given by the movement’s founder Tarana Burke, made me tear up. Immediately afterwards, two women armed with dark red lollipops came on stage for “Reclaiming Cunt,” poetically reminding the audience of the power of a woman in command of her own sexuality. A funny song about what a scary time it must be to be a man was followed by a group of women talking about their vaginas, gracefully moving between humor, relatability and exasperation. After one woman helps another find her clitoris in “Clit” with perfect comedic timing, sex positivity and a little help from a mirror, a large portion of the company implored the audience to embrace their flaws and imperfect humanity — their “ugly” — and remember that “you are magnificent,” in the final monologue, “Moving Towards Ugly.”
More could be said about each component piece that comprised this year’s Beyond the Vagina (Monologues). But Maya’s words in the cab that night after watching Rao dance in September best capture the feeling I walked out of Hep Zoo with on Friday: “That made me feel like I don’t at all want to be a woman who is quiet.”
(03/21/19 9:54am)
Editor’s note: Throughout the semester you’ll be reading articles from Middlebury students of different identities and experiences on all things sex and relationships.
Helloooooo again, sex kittens! I have a topic to talk to y’all about this week that is very near and dear to my heart and that I am 100 percent certain needed to be canceled, like, yesterday. What could a sex-positive Sex Panther possibly have a vendetta against in the world of all things sexy?! Foreplay, of course.
Yeah. You read that right. Screw foreplay.
I mean it. Not the actions we associate with foreplay, of course, but the word. Besides rolling a little creepily off the tongue, the idea of foreplay really delegitimizes a lot of fun, feel-good sex. It reinforces that penis-in-vagina (PIV) sex is the be-all-end-all act constituting sex when that is just SO NOT TRUE. Besides feeding into repressive systems of power that go into dictating what gets to (culturally) count as “real” sex, foreplay as a concept naturally reinforces, on some level, the idea that a (cis) penis going in a (cis) vagina is the only natural or acceptable culmination of sexual activity. Foreplay as a concept is heteronormative. It is cisnormative. It is patriarchal, and it is officially canceled because it automatically places everything outside of PIV sex outside the realm of actual sex.
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]Foreplay as a concept is heteronormative. It is cisnormative. It is patriarchal, and it is officially canceled.[/pullquote]
I say screw that — in whatever way that means to you. Because there are SO many more ways to have sex than just PIV, and there is SO much more pleasure to be found once you start to break down those internalized notions about the “right” way to screw. Sex isn’t a checklist, and it sure ain’t a baseball game. So throw out the bases, because the only agenda you should be holding yourself to is the one you and your partner(s) make together.
I guess my issue here is really with how we define sex. Our restrictive definition of sex (missionary, PIV, etc.) automatically means we have to create an extra category just to fit all the other — arguably more fun and exciting — stuff (like oral sex and sex with toys). In the European middle ages, the handy label of “sodomy” did the trick of covering the “other” category. No, really. Basically, any act that was not procreative, missionary, PIV, and religiously ordained could and often did fall under the category of “sodomy” as a sexual sin. This repressive culture of sex has carried over to today, when what we call foreplay is presented as non-essential and even frivolous.
Frivolous? How dare they?! Getting my titties tickled creates sensations of pleasure just as much as touching my clit or being penetrated. Why let this antiquated hierarchy of pleasure based on legitimacy and respectability — and ourselves — keep us from inhabiting our own bodies and owning our own pleasure? This is my problem with foreplay. There’s no room to say “I don’t actually want anything in my pussy at the moment, but I will cum for you if you pinch my tits and talk dirty to me, babe,” with no other alternative than orgasm. If that’s not what you want if you don’t want to (be) penetrate(d) but want to have sex, there is a massive social consciousness that says, ‘Actually, no, that doesn’t count as sex,’ even though it TOTALLY DOES.
I am not arguing against taking time to turn each other on, to explore the softness and hardness and curviness of each other’s bodies, to finger or fellate, to break out the nipple clamps and blindfolds. Please, by all means keep doing that. Just stop calling it foreplay.
Instead, why can’t we broaden our definition of what sex means? Why can’t we eradicate PIV intercourse as the pièce de résistance and honor the pleasure our bodies feel from all the other wonderful methods of stimulation available to us? That’s not to say we should shun PIV intercourse altogether by any means. What I am saying is that we need to see it as simply an option on an extensive menu of sex. Prioritize pleasure, not the penis.
As a queer person who is not too titillated by penis, I challenge you to tell me that the sex I’m having with my partner(s) at any given time isn’t sex just because there’s no penis involved. Because to me, that’s laughable. To me, the sex and pleasure I pursue is infinitely better. It ignores the naturalized progression of sex and instead empowers everyone involved to ask for what they want and to savor every sensation without feeling like there’s some end-goal to get to. Call it what you will, but recognize that everything outside the realm of PIV intercourse is also sex.
From this point of view, the concept of foreplay just doesn’t make sense. Everything we do is sex and everything we do is foreplay and everything we do can be both at the same time. So don’t tell me that eating someone out, or mutual masturbation, or fingering, or frottage don’t count as sex. Don’t tell me they’re just foreplay. Those sources of pleasure are just as intense, just as important and just as valid as PIV intercourse. It means that sex is still something accessible to everyone; folx of different genders and sexual orientations, folx with disabilities or traumas, folx with STIs or folx for whom placing a penis in an orifice simply isn’t a viable or safe option. So this is my manifesto against foreplay. Only my partner(s) and I get to determine what counts as sex for us, and we don’t believe in foreplay.
(03/14/19 10:00am)
We would like to commend the Map Project created by It Happens Here (IHH) as a crucial step toward increased awareness of sexual assault and harassment on our campus. While the number of incidents represented on the map may come as no surprise to some students, the map is nonetheless an important call to rally the Middlebury community against rape culture. It also demonstrates a clear need for additional preventative measures to protect students from assault and harassment.
The concept for the Map Project is simple: an aerial view of Middlebury’s campus populated with a series of red dots, each one representing an instance of sexual assault or sexual harassment that has occurred on campus. To populate the map, students anonymously submitted data about instances of assault and harassment to IHH through a go-link posted last fall. By offering anonymity, IHH empowered survivors to share their experiences without losing their privacy or having to endure the process of formally reporting traumatic experiences.
The largest concentrations of red dots on the map appear in notoriously problematic buildings on campus, including Battell and Atwater Halls A and B, where athletic teams often host open parties. Since many parties on Middlebury’s campus are closed, Atwater parties are often the default social space for first-years who don’t have alternatives on weekend nights. It seems likely that the combination of an upperclassman living space and first-year partygoers contributes to a predatory sexual environment. Notably, the space with the second-largest number of red dots is Battell, a first-year dorm. This suggests that the online training intended to teach incoming students about consent and discourage them from committing sexual assault and harassment is not as successful as it ought to be in protecting first-years from assault and harassment by their peers.
Outside of residential and party spaces, even academic locations like Twilight and Axinn contain red dots, revealing just how pervasive sexual assault and harassment is at the college. If students are unable to occupy the spaces on campus that are explicitly devoted to education without fearing assault or harassment, then Middlebury is failing to fulfill its most basic purpose: to be an environment conducive to learning.
Currently, the majority of on-campus resources available to assault survivors are student-led, such as SPECS, MiddSafe, the SGA’s Sexual and Relationship Respect Committee (SRR) and IHH. While we commend these organizations for their work, we also recognize a clear need for additional administrative support to more effectively address the issue of campus-wide sexual misconduct.
We ask that the administration take the Map Project as evidence that the Green Dot sexual assault prevention program is limited in what it can accomplish. Although Green Dot’s bystander awareness training initiatives are an important first step, its organizers would likely be the first to admit that it does not change the culture at the heart of sexual assault and harassment. And the fact that the vast majority of the map’s dots appear in social spaces suggests that even when bystanders are present near instances of sexual assault, they do not reliably intervene. A real social shift needs to occur in order for cases of sexual assault and harassment to approach zero. Students may not always know which of their friends have sexually assaulted or harassed others, but many know which of their friends behave “badly” at parties or demonstrate unhealthy attitudes about sex and relationships behind closed doors. Those students are the ones most in need of productive conversations with their friends about consent and respect. Bystander intervention can help in potentially dangerous situations, but difficult conversations among friends — and the absolute social unacceptability of harassment and assault — will be required to end the minimization of consent and trivialization of assault and harassment that contribute to rape culture.
We recommend that the college implement a new anti-sexual assault training program that requires students to learn the nuances of sexual harassment and assault in-person rather than online. The current electronic educational program students undergo prior to their first year is too easy for a student to click through without internalizing its message.
As a more immediate measure, we also think the new program could place a greater emphasis on the punitive consequences of committing assault. Perhaps if more students understood and feared the disciplinary repercussions of sexual violations, the overall number of incidents would decrease, at least in the short term.
Of course, emphasizing the consequences of committing sexual assault or harassment will be meaningless if the college does not make the process of reporting less difficult. Some students who report their experiences of sexual assault become so overwhelmed or distraught during the process that they simply leave Middlebury. While we know there are no easy ways of changing this system, we know that the more intimidating this system is, the more difficult it will be for students to come forward.
We also recommend that the administration explore the option of updating the college’s weekend programming to provide students with additional options other than drinking. Middlebury’s isolated location means that weekend activities for students are quite limited, oftentimes encouraging a party culture based on binge drinking. Programs like the free Friday film are a good start, and we think additional programming on Friday and Saturday nights could give students alternatives to drinking heavily and heading to Atwater.
We would also like first-years to have more opportunities to host their own parties rather than constantly being shuffled into upperclassman environments. First-year students should have more room to party among themselves to properly acclimate to college rather than immediately jumping into older, potentially more dangerous settings.
The college has often prided itself on its relatively low number of sexual assault and harassment reports as documented in its annual safety reports. But these statistics are misleading — the majority of sexual assaults on this campus go entirely unreported, which means that even IHH’s Map Project is not a complete tally of on-campus sexual misconduct. We hope that IHH’s map has revealed the extent of on-campus misconduct to the Middlebury community, and that meaningful institutional and cultural progress follow as a result.
(03/14/19 9:58am)
Editor’s note: Throughout the semester you’ll be reading articles from Middlebury students of different identities and experiences on all things sex and relationships.
I have a confession, sex kittens. I, the one and only Sex Panther, knower of all things sex, did not purchase my first sex toy until I reached the ripe old age of 20. I know. I KNOW. Commence the boo-ing and throwing of rotten vegetables.
But I also feel like my own experience is not too out of the ordinary; I grew up in a conservative household (surprise, Mom, I’m a sex columnist now!) and felt disconnected from my body. I didn’t like to look at myself naked; I would run from my closet to my shower to avoid catching a glimpse of my prepubescent nakedness in the mirror. The culture was very much one of shame, of “don’t ask don’t tell” and of pushing down any hints of sexuality until you are of Proper Dating Age, and even then sex was supposed to wait till marriage.
When that little glimmer of sexual awakening first began, I was afraid of my own body. I felt dirty touching myself. Throughout high school, I felt this immense shame and disgust for my own body every time I masturbated. It took a lot of self-motivated body-positive, sex-positive education on social platforms that I didn’t have access to at home.
I was dead-set on procuring a vibrator. There were so many options to choose from, though, I didn’t know where to start. Rabbits, bullets, dildos, the intimidating holy grail magic wand, eggs, clitoral and g-spot vibrators abounded. But I finally had a single room and was tired of being too nervous to flick my clit while living with a roommate. So biting the bullet (pun intended) and buying my first silicone vibe from an Amazon account I created specifically for the purpose felt exhilarating. And terrifying. And really, really, really good.
Buying my first sex toy opened up my eyes to a world free of shame and full of pleasure. I originally hid it in my drawer. But then I thought, “fork it, why should I be ashamed of a piece of hot pink silicone that vibrates in my ‘vag’?” Keeping your sex toys out on the desk can be a great conversation starter. I refuse to actively hide my growing collection of sex toys as if it is something to be ashamed of; leaving them on my bedside table not only reminded myself of how sensual I could be in my own body but also as a reminder to my hookups that if they didn’t get the job done, I could do it myself.
Because when I started embracing my sex toys as part of the toolkit I used to maintain my own health, everything changed. Of course, not everyone who has sex may be able to or want to use sex toys as part of their experience, and that is perfectly fine too! And people who don’t have sex may have more expert knowledge than you or I could ever know. That’s what is so great about sex toys-- they give you the agency to say how fast, how slow, how hard or soft or any number of variables in between fit your comfort and pleasure levels. Exploring on my own, I discovered things I liked, things I didn’t like and some things that felt weird but not like, weird weird, maybe a good weird, ya know? And that is vital knowledge to have of your own embodied desires if you plan on having sex with yourself especially, but also with others. Toys helped me gain the confidence and vocabulary to demand the best for myself and to stop accepting terrible hookups and start accepting mind-blowing sex with myself completely on my own terms. Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll take a quick study break with some (non-silicone) lube and my favorite vibrator. Writing is exhausting.
Xoxo,
Sex Panther
