February 12, 2006

debauchery: yeah or neah?

Demapples is talking about Debauchery, a party people go to and pay each other fake money for various kinds of sex acts and then, at the end of the night, who ever has the most fake money wins prizes.

Read the conversation here. A blogger reccomends boycotting the party.

So, what do you think of debauchery?

Factors that may be relevant:

  • is it like "prostitution" somehow, as somone on Demapples says? does this make it a bad thing?
  • are things truly consensual? what does that mean?
  • is there coersion?
  • are there effects of size, race, class and gender that make this party theme inappropriate?
  • does it even sound like fun?
  • are your friends going?
  • should harvard have allowed the party to go on?
  • can people decide what "decency" is, or are there other factors along which we can debate the party?


emily0 said...

I used to go to Debauchery parties - ironically, they bore the same name, I believe. If you go, you are already planning for (potential) Fun...
+ They're fun. Usually all the furniture gets saran-wrapped and there are Safe Sex Enforcers patrolling the 'sex rooms'.
+ The sex rooms are amusing, like when my dyke friends shoved a straight man off his girlfriend because he was doing such a disastrous job with cunnilingus that they couldn't take it anymore and "cut in". With her startled permission, of course.
+Everyone gets laid that evening. Even I used to get laid. Seeing people engaged in unabashed fuckery, and attending same party with the intention thereof, seems to inspire people.
+Prostitution? Hardly. Isn't there usually monopoly money used and the only incentive is to win some medium prize at best?
+Usually there's an explicit code - you can refuse moneys offered for anything over a chaste kiss. A chaste kiss is non-refusable the first time someone asks.

Anyway, I didn't read the drama yet on the website, but I will.

wannatakethisoutside said...

"I live in Winthrop House, directly above where the party was thrown. I was there for about an hour and a half, and witnessed nothing debaucherous, much less morally problematic, coercive or sexually threatening. I can understand how the abstract principles of the dance could have lead to that, but so far as I could tell they simply didn't.

Again, this is not an attempt to defeat the underlying points as made above, but simple to point out the problem of theory and reality. Why is it that the party was actually quite tame? Why is it that the only nudity that I saw was first-year men with their shirts off?

Not all sound theoretical points are sound observations of reality. I would argue that that is because theoretical points act as if set laws determine human interaction, ignore individual agency and often describe only one overlay of dynamics..."

from Andrew Golis at Cambridge Common.

What does this mean?
Harvard students have changed.

It sounds like a party full of open, visible safe sex would be more fun.

The "cutting in" story is way funnier