No Offense Taken
By Christopher Talamo, Staff Columnist
Published on Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Despite trying to figure out what students on this campus find offensive for over three years, I am not one step closer to predicting controversy than the day I first stepped foot here. Now, I find myself baffled by those who are offended by Dartmouth’s “sex culture,” and by those who are offended at the former people’s offense. It seems like everyone has a say about when, where, why and how everyone else should be able to discuss sex.
Advocating for the sexually timid is columnist Roger Lott ’14. In his column last Thursday “Explicit Signals,” Lott tackles the various public expressions of sexuality on campus, ranging from some lewd pumpkins outside of Dartmouth Hall to the Sexperts’ newsletter “The Humpday Gazette.” He argues that for people (like himself) who had a “traditional” upbringing, these ideas and terms are offensive. Somehow, although I did not decide to adopt these values from my upbringing (and, Lott, those values were certainly presented), I should now be subject to them again because Lott did decide to embrace them. I guess my values aren’t exactly a high priority to Lott.
On the other side of the debate lie figures who would trumpet their First Amendment rights to say whatever they damn well please. Their argument is nicely summarized by an online commentator, who writes in response to Lott’s column: “perhaps the best response is to delete the blitz and not read the Humpday Gazette” — in other words, if you don’t like it, don’t watch it. Some attention should be paid to the apparent violation of causality implicit in these statements. If Lott hadn’t even read the Gazette in the first place, well then we wouldn’t really be having this conversation; if the assertion is modified to only apply to future Gazettes that Lott reads, that doesn’t really do anything to address Lott’s grievances or respond to his sense of offense.
More importantly, though, those who would seek Lott to stick his head in the sand support, at their core, the same argument as Lott’s. They essentially want to force Lott to ignore these blitzes, just as Lott wants to compel the Sexperts to just stop sending them. It’s all about compelling other individuals to adhere to certain behaviors using individual rights as an excuse. The only real question in this debate is who is going to lose.
Frankly, people who are afraid of open sexual discourse (or any other “offensive” discourse) on campus have no right to hide from it. Lott’s argument is founded on the idea that because he or anyone with a “traditional upbringing” finds something offensive, that offense is meritorious enough to end a discussion. This makes no attempt to confront any real harm that “offensive” discourse is having. Again, the head-in-the-sand response is no different from Lott’s argument — it is a knee-jerk reaction that addresses none of the issues in question.
So what should have happened? If Lott believes that the lewd pumpkins did anything more damaging to society than offend his sensibilities, I invite him to make his case. If this is just a matter of personal discomfort — welcome to college. If you ever lose that feeling of discomfort, you’re not doing it right.
Now if this was just a case of culture shock with a freshman, I might not care, but this fallacy of offensiveness is not an argument. Just consider most recently when Mayuka Kowaguchi ’11 and The Orchid Project sent small mirrors to women on campus with a note exhorting them to use the mirrors to examine their genitals. Or perhaps the seasonal anger at the distribution of condoms before College weekends. The response to the controversy (pre-empted response, in Kowaguchi’s case) is the same: if you don’t like what you see, don’t look at it.
Offense is the refuge of those who are either unwilling or unable to make an argument. While we’re here at Dartmouth, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard for discourse and not resort to slippery slope arguments about how every public indecency is one step towards the degradation of society as a whole. If we focus on improving the substance of our arguments, we may find that college uproars are more civilized.
This column calls Roger Lott “sexually timid,” there is no evidence in anything that Roger Lott wrote to suggest that he is sexually timid. He wrote that the College’s Follies de Sexe compulsory training is a worthless, tasteless, waste of his time and money. He doesn’t believe that he and others should be forced to attend it, take part in it and indirectly pay for it. What part of that are you having trouble understanding? Roger further states that he personally doesn’t appreciate having to find piles of sexpert dog doo left in his emails, carved into pumpkins placed at Dartmouth Hall, open-air sex carnivals and constant blanket accusations of the student body as “ubiquitous, sexual assault criminals.” There is something wrong with this picture, not with Roger. Unfortunately people can get used to anything and the administration and students at Dartmouth just take whatever is dished out to them for the most part, just like any trained parrot. They expect the same crap distributed by the same people day after day and year after year and they make sure not to say anything about it. This encourages those in the crap distribution business to do more of it, to push it, that’s the goal, to keep pushing it on others as long and as hard as they can until they get some resistance. Some of these people have turned into human spam and pop-up ads all for their own agenda, entertainment and your annoyance. I see that the College is now offering to pay for student dates, I guess the next thing for the sexperts will be campus hookers paid with their College funded budget. I wonder if anyone would be “offended” or “timid” about being offered sex with officially sanctioned pre-paid prostitutes?
By Anonymous on Nov 3 | 5:05 am
What is offense, really? I don’t mean to get all philosophical, but I think we all need to look at ourselves and determine what truly upsets us. Like I said in the comment section of Lott’s article, we must have thicker skin. Yes, there are problems in this world that need to be addressed, but the opinion pieces in the D have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills. Yes, we were given vagina-mirrors with a vague anti-religious message. But why worry about it? Yes, there were lewd pumpkins on campus, but why does that make one angry enough to write an essay? I am in agreement with you, Talamo. I don’t want people to simply ignore everything that upsets them, or censor anyone’s freedom of speech. HOWEVER, I want EVERYONE to pause for a few minutes and ask themselves: “Does this object/message really disturb me? Does it shake the basic foundations of my soul to the extent that I must argue against it in a public forum? If the answer is ‘no’, then let it go. All I’m saying is that this campus needs to choose its battles carefully. Don’t just lash out at everything that you disagree with. Sleep on it, give it some thought, and realize that not every event that occurs on this campus or in this world is directed at you, intended for you, or out to get you.
By Victoria Oosterhout on Nov 3 | 9:36 am
Mr. Talamo, I believe you’re quoting me (with regards to “Perhaps the best response is to delete the blitz or ignore it.”). I’m not forcing Mr. Lott to not read these blitzes, but I do believe there’s something to be said about actively seeking out material you know is going to offend you, and then saying it should never have been written. I say “active” because it was a conscious choice to open up and read the Humpday Gazette. This is comparable to, say, reading the Dartmouth Review, finding an opinion I disagree with, and then arguing that the Review should be banned – especially if I know in advance I’ll probably disagree with what is said in the Review (I am ONLY using the Review as an example because it is delivered to every dorm and is made readily available, much like the newsletter was blitzed out to campus). Just because a publication is available doesn’t mean I MUST read it.
I do believe, however, that Mr. Lott has a more substantive point than simply pointing out that it was offensive. He writes, “The College should be ashamed of itself for funding and supporting groups that propagate these values”, which I take as an affront to the purpose of Sexperts (and similar initiatives) itself, rather than merely a question of his own personal sensibilities. Mr. Lott has brought attention to the merits (or lack thereof) of sexual education on campus, and in a way, what kind of values are being expressed, because silence about sexual discourse is itself a value.
By Angela Zhang on Nov 3 | 10:14 am
So what should have happened? If Lott believes that the lewd pumpkins did anything more damaging to society than offend his sensibilities, I invite him to make his case. If this is just a matter of personal discomfort — welcome to college. If you ever lose that feeling of discomfort, you’re not doing it right.
Hey guyz, so it’s cool if I just chill in my 9L ass naked? Great! Hope you guys like looking at my junk.
Why is it okay to just say ‘suck it up’ to people offended about this sex stuff and when people are offended about other things (hi Dartmouth Indian) there’s a national controversy? Right, they’re just uncomfortable and doing it wrong.
Don’t care.
By Double Standards on Nov 3 | 11:24 am