Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

GMU, William & Mary Teach “The New Whore Order”

By Greg L | 5 February 2008 | Virginia Politics | 52 Comments

While Virginia’s colleges are lobbying against proposed restrictions on the enrollment of illegal aliens in their publicly-supported institutions, some of them do seem to have the needed resources for hosting the “Sex Workers’ Art Show”.  It’s nice to see them focus on their goals of providing a quality education for our children.

What in the world are the trustees at the College of William and Mary and George Mason University thinking? The “new whore order”? You’ve got to be kidding me here.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

52 Comments

  1. RHarrison said on 5 Feb 2008 at 12:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    The University has decided not to allow any part of this show be filmed or photographed. The University is concerned that a minor might accidentally see the footage if it should end up on-line.

    I’m sure the University is not worried about parents seeing what the University is spending their tuition dollars on and then questioning the wisdom of their investments.

    On the other hand, perhaps the University administration knows events like this are a waste of money with no educational value, but lack the guts to stand up to their politically-correct teachers. So, we have bible-groups being marginalized on campuses while “Sex Worker Art Shows” are encouraged.

    My son doesn’t go to college for 15 more years. What will they be “teaching” then?

    http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/williamsburg/dp-news_wmsexcamera_0201feb01,0,2651683.story

  2. Ducky said on 5 Feb 2008 at 12:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I know, most if not all public colleges and universities in VA already prohibit illegal aliens from attending.

    I’m not sure what this law is intended to accomplish.

  3. anonymous coward said on 5 Feb 2008 at 1:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, people in college aren’t legally considered to be “children” unless under the age of 18. I think my college-aged son could handle this without being traumatized. Heck, I am sure he’s been boffing his girlfiend so it’s not like he is without a clue.

  4. RHarrison said on 5 Feb 2008 at 1:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr/Ms Coward:

    The issue is not if students can handle this, but rather is this a good use of University funds. At the same time universities are asking Congress for more money for science and engineering departments, they are spending money to “teach” students about pornography. I’m not suggesting universities should ban these types of activities; rather, universities should not spend tuition dollars on it.

    Free speech doesn’t mean you have to buy every type of speech out there. Show some judgment. Universities should be investing more on real education and less in entertainment disguised as education.

  5. 999 said on 5 Feb 2008 at 1:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    anonymous coward said on 5 Feb 2008 at 1:14 pm:
    Greg, people in college aren’t legally considered to be “children” unless under the age of 18. I think my college-aged son could handle this without being traumatized. Heck, I am sure he’s been boffing his girlfiend so it’s not like he is without a clue.

    That’s not the point. What is this kind of trash doing being presented in places of higher learning. It seems to be more appropriate for 14th street in the District.

  6. JSmith said on 5 Feb 2008 at 1:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Harrison,

    Can you please quantify the amount of money the University itself “spent” on this event that could have otherwise gone toward “teaching” our students?

    Even if that money is not directly transferable to “teaching” … how much was it?

    I do not approve of the event, but an attack on the university as a whole and its work in producing top notch students is a bit over the top.

  7. anonymous coward said on 5 Feb 2008 at 1:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    R,

    You’re absolutely right. The university SHOULD impose a pass/fail moral test on proposed artistic exhibitions. Also, there are several books in the library (especially one called “The Origin of Species”) that I also consider to be an inappropriate waste of tuition dollars since I find Darwin’s theory offensive.

    A.Coward.

  8. Jay said on 5 Feb 2008 at 1:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    Freedom of expression belongs on a college campus since it’s obviously being taken down in far too many other places. Have a problem? Don’t attend the school. . . Not the first time an issue of sexual expression has rankled a few Virginny puritans. . .

  9. anonymous coward said on 5 Feb 2008 at 1:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Will the women in the show be allowed to show their ankles and wrists? Will their heads be covered? If so, I am fine with that. Otherwise, Death to All Infidels!

  10. josh said on 5 Feb 2008 at 2:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    I honestly dont see an issue with this, college students have done far worse than watching a “sex art show”. Granted it’s in an institution of learning but this is a new era and learning takes different tracks than it used to. If there is some educational value to it, then I’m for it.

  11. Ducky said on 5 Feb 2008 at 2:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    I support educational values as well, especially when naked chicks are involved!

  12. TDB said on 5 Feb 2008 at 2:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Freedom of expression belongs on a college campus since it’s obviously being taken down in far too many other places. Have a problem? Don’t attend the school. . . Not the first time an issue of sexual expression has rankled a few Virginny puritans. . .
    ————————————————————-
    As long as it’s not an expression of Christianity?! Right!

  13. Krutis said on 5 Feb 2008 at 2:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Big whoopdy-doo! Some parents say it’s better if the kids drink at home, so why isn’t it better to have college kids see this show at school rather than at some shady joint?

  14. JMU Duke said on 5 Feb 2008 at 3:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    I guess you guys would be okay if they would host a show that offered suggestions for missionary sex, for procreation purposes only, while ducking the dinosaurs that were among us just 6,000 years ago right?

    I suppose the right to freedom of expression only goes so far as your personal tastes do Greg.

  15. anonymous coward said on 5 Feb 2008 at 3:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    I learned about dinosaurs in school. Hot, naked dinosaurs.
    A. Coward

  16. josh said on 5 Feb 2008 at 5:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    by the time kids get to be 17-18 years old and in college they’ve pretty much seen it all, I’m sure the sex show is not going to spook them much. I like the post about the “hot, naked dinosaurs”, where were they when I was going to school :)

  17. Batson D. Belfrey said on 5 Feb 2008 at 5:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Even if that money is not directly transferable to “teaching” … how much was it?” JSmith

    Does “how much” matter? If you are walking down the street, and I punch you in the face and then steal your wallet, does it matter that there was $1, $100, or $1000? Wrong is wrong.

  18. Batson D. Belfrey said on 5 Feb 2008 at 5:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Krutis said on 5 Feb 2008 at 2:57 pm:
    Big whoopdy-doo! Some parents say it’s better if the kids drink at home, so why isn’t it better to have college kids see this show at school rather than at some shady joint?”

    Er…Ah…WHAT? So, let’s have the kids smoke dope in the dorms on the school’s/parents dime too. How about Heroin? Better they learn how to shoot-up in school, then in some alley somewhere, right? Open a campus S&M club too, so they can learn deviant sexual behavior in a “proper educational environment”.

    You commie liberal heathens make me want to puke.

  19. Anonymous said on 5 Feb 2008 at 5:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ducky said on 5 Feb 2008 at 2:30 pm:
    I support educational values as well, especially when naked chicks are involved!

    Leave the chick alone and and stay with the naked ducks.

  20. Anonymous said on 5 Feb 2008 at 5:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Krutis said on 5 Feb 2008 at 2:57 pm:
    Big whoopdy-doo! Some parents say it’s better if the kids drink at home, so why isn’t it better to have college kids see this show at school rather than at some shady joint?

    Why not see the show (while they drink at home?)

  21. Anonymous said on 5 Feb 2008 at 5:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    anonymous coward said on 5 Feb 2008 at 3:45 pm:
    I learned about dinosaurs in school. Hot, naked dinosaurs.

    Big whoopdy-doo!

  22. Krutis said on 5 Feb 2008 at 5:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous 5:53 pm - Good idea! Then parents and “children” can have an at-home evening. No generation gap!

  23. dolph said on 5 Feb 2008 at 5:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    I guess it is no worse than going to see the Hot Nuts.

  24. Fair and Balanced said on 5 Feb 2008 at 7:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    This whole debate is silly, if anyone is disturbed by the show, they won’t see it.

    Honestly, I am far more disturbed by underage drinking at frat parties than some “sex” show which only a handful of people will attend.

  25. es_la_ley said on 5 Feb 2008 at 7:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Leave the chick alone and and stay with the naked ducks.”

    Ahh! A PEEP-show! :-)

  26. Me said on 5 Feb 2008 at 8:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    Batson D. Belfry said: You commie liberal heathens make me want to puke.

    I say: Now you’re calling Josh a commie liberal heathen? But he hates illegal immigrants. Now that’s funny.

  27. Pat Herve said on 5 Feb 2008 at 8:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why should it bother any of us? — Why should someone else be my moral compass?

    I would choose not to see the show, just like I chose not to see this show - http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/csj/991008/madonna.html

    If we just choose not to support things that we do not agree with, at some point it will go away. Creating a protest will only give something like this support.

  28. dolph said on 5 Feb 2008 at 8:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Who is a liberal commie heathen now? Is there something missing here?

  29. James Young said on 5 Feb 2008 at 9:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    I can’t speak for others, Pat, but it bothers ME because it’s being paid for with MY tax dollars. I wouldn’t censor it, but I certainly shouldn’t be forced to subsidize it.

  30. JimmyV said on 5 Feb 2008 at 9:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg,
    You talk about this being bad for the education of our “children”. Are these the same “children” this Republican Administration is sending off to die for no reason? If our “children” can fight in a war they surely can make the decision to not see this play if they so desire. You need to give our “children” a little more credit.

  31. Patty said on 5 Feb 2008 at 9:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well if convenience stores like 7-11 have to cover up magazines like Playboy and Penthouse to keep minors from seeing them, wouldn’t that same standard apply to these colleges? Afterall, the majority of students are minors. I wonder if there is a local law about this?

  32. Area 51 said on 5 Feb 2008 at 9:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    One of the points being missed here is that this is the same school where the President of the College ordered the cross be removed from the Wren Chapel because it “may offend” a student. Yet he allows this stuff. Give me a break. Need to fire the president.

  33. Krutis said on 5 Feb 2008 at 10:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Patty 9:45 - Aren’t most college freshmen 18? I know many parents want to keep them “children” till they are 30. However, at 18 they can join the military and vote (but not have a beer - logic, where art thou?)

  34. Patty said on 5 Feb 2008 at 10:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    When I went to school 18 was considered majority for lots of things but now 18 year olds can’t get alcohol. I don’t think they can get cigarettes but maybe I’m wrong about that. But I thought you had to be 21 to go to a strip joint.

  35. 999 said on 5 Feb 2008 at 11:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    es_la_ley said on 5 Feb 2008 at 7:04 pm:
    “Leave the chick alone and and stay with the naked ducks.”

    Ahh! A PEEP-show!

    GOOD ONE!

  36. JimmyV said on 6 Feb 2008 at 6:34 am:
    Flag comment

    Yes Patty you are right, you are wrong about that. 18 will get you cigarettes, get you into a strip club and it allows you to die or get your limbs blown off in a far away country where we should not be.

  37. dolph said on 6 Feb 2008 at 7:44 am:
    Flag comment

    College students are young adults. Shows such as this one are not part of instruction. I believe it would fall under free expression and entertainment. No one says every bit of entertainment seen at college has to also pass the good taste test. If you do not want your ‘young adult’ offspring to be exposed to shows like this, leash them and send them to Liberty or Oral Roberts University.

  38. Patty said on 6 Feb 2008 at 12:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jimmy V,

    Maybe you better check. I worked in Springfield not too far from a topless bar, etc. My co-worker told me that a person had to be 21 to enter.

  39. anonymous coward said on 6 Feb 2008 at 4:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Any hot topless dinosaurs in there?

  40. anonymous coward said on 6 Feb 2008 at 4:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    How about topless cougars?

  41. JimmyV said on 6 Feb 2008 at 4:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Patty,
    If you go to Vixens it is 18 to Party 21 to drink. And trust me Vixens is much more than a topless bar. If you ever go I recommend the Shower Room!

  42. es_la_ley said on 6 Feb 2008 at 7:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Any hot topless dinosaurs in there?”

    Like a triceratopless?

  43. Michael said on 6 Feb 2008 at 9:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    This is the classic “morality” issue between religious people and non-religious people, and even between religious people of different faiths and beliefs.

    Who defines morals?

    1. The individual
    2. A group of angry people who don’t like what they see?
    3. A group of angry people, who choose not to do or participate in themselves, but allow individuals to make their own moral choices.
    4. A group of angry people who choose not to do or participate themselves, but also wants to make sure no-one else gets to choose for themselves either
    5 A group of angry people who express hatred, anger and malice to anyone who does not follow their own particular brand of moral man-made doctrine, derived from some highly debatable meaning of text that does not explicitly define morality for all people, all issues, all forms of sexuality, all forms of sex and all forms of “acceptable” sex and “all forms of “unacceptable sex”, all forms of “acceptable nudity” and all forms of “unacceptable nudity”.
    6. A group of angry people who deny their prime religious directive to love all individuals, to respect all individuals and to let all individuals make their own choices of morality according to their own interpretation of the difference between the religious doctrine of man and the “word” of God.
    7. A group of angry people who want to pre-empt God’s punishment for not following God’s word, by taking the punishment action themselves as if they, and they alone understand what God meant by “morality”.
    8. A group of angry people who don’t understand that “punishment” if any is Gods right alone to give.

    I understand as I have said many times before there are two types of Religious people.

    1. Religious people who are angry and motivated by their anger and hatred for others to oppress others historically in all manners of violation of their man-made religious “doctrines” as if they are the sole under stander of what the man-made doctrine is even if it’s not Gods “doctrine”… These religious people are known as “obligation keepers”, follow church made rituals, have inconsistent doctrine in history, are often wrong in their doctrine, never in agreement on doctrine, and are focused on obeying laws whether or not they understand God’s “only” single law, “believe in me”, all else is forgiven.

    2. Religious people who are not angry, love their fellow man, tolerate individual choice and interpretation of God’s word, allow God to determine the punishment, not man for “doctrine” violations, and who understand that religious history is fraught with oppression, cruelty, hatred, and violence (even killing), when God’s single command and law “believe in me, all else is forgiven, is not understood and followed with a life of kindness, tolerance, love and comfort for individual suffering, individual choice, and individual freedom to follow God’s word as understood only between that one individual and God.

    I object to anyone who tells me how to interrupt God’s definition of morality. In my humble opinion if God wanted us to be ashamed of who we are in our own private (and even public) revealing of the shape of our skin, he would have made all of us to be born with clothes, never hold hands, never kiss, never hug, never have any display of affection (in public or otherwise), never have sex and never enjoy the senses of the body we were given.

    In my opinion, it is ignorant man-made doctrine, to declare we must wear clothes to get into heaven AND NEVER HAVE OR ENJOY SEX IN ANY FORM.

    Are some religious people declaring God an ignorant engineer of the human body? He did not design it with clothes.
    He only cares about souls; everything else is petty hatred for the right of individuals to choose what God means in the scriptures.

  44. Dolph said on 7 Feb 2008 at 1:27 am:
    Flag comment

    Michael,

    I came close to agreeing with your for a change, but you slipped up there and told the reader what God thinks.

    You stated, “He only cares about souls.” I am not sure you can say what God thinks or what God cares about. You can BELIEVE what God thinks or knows but I don’t think you can indicate that you KNOW. I believe you mean well but you are presuming too much…..

    Not angry here…~~splash~~

  45. James Young said on 7 Feb 2008 at 1:44 am:
    Flag comment

    Thank you, Michael, for your wonderfully empty caricatures. So religious people with standards must be “angry,” and those self-loathing barely-religious-types without standards are wonderful? Fascinating.

  46. Dolph said on 7 Feb 2008 at 8:56 am:
    Flag comment

    JY,

    You certainly made a quantum leap there with your summation of what Michael was trying to say. I am curious to know why you would characterize those who aren’t Michael defines as not angry as ‘barely-religious and without standards?’

  47. Patty said on 7 Feb 2008 at 5:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    So Michael,

    I’m not sure what you are trying to say? Are you saying that it is okay to practice evil? Is it okay not to be held accountable for our actions?

  48. Patty said on 7 Feb 2008 at 9:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Michael,

    So I suppose if you saw a 6′2″ man pull a six year old behind some bushes and then start to sexually assault her, you would do nothing except pray for the man. You wouldn’t bother to come to that little girl’s rescue.

  49. Michael said on 7 Feb 2008 at 11:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have to go home. I wish the best and great happiness to anyone who reads this and benefits from it.

  50. silverfox said on 8 Feb 2008 at 7:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    after reading all the comments, may I direct us back to the entry by RHARRISON……WASN’T HIS QUESTION ABOUT THE COST AND NOT THE CONTENT? Personally, if universities/colleges want to make these kind of exhibits available, they can BUT a surcharge could be added. This way no ‘tuition’ or tax dollar is used which is a win-win, right?

  51. Dolph said on 9 Feb 2008 at 8:00 am:
    Flag comment

    Part of going to college is exposure to ideas. Some are going to be conventional ideas and others will be far more radical. A college or university should be pushing the envelope…perhaps until one’s comfort level is perhaps disturbed just a bit.

    If you go to a private college, there always the high roller donors who think they can control things. If you go to a public college/university, then there are always the taxpayers who think they can trumpet about their big buck tax support.

    While I might choose not to go Sex Workers Art Show, after seeing Annie Oakley on tv last night I have a higher opinion of the show. She is a well-spoken woman who was treated extremely shabbily by the host of the show. She was spoken over and interrupted every time she opened her mouth to explain. She definitely has more class and better manners than the host of the show.

    Interestingly enough, she did say, the show isn’t for everyone. Perhaps the workers of a multi-billion dollar a year industry need a little more than a cursory glance. Perhaps the point is to put a face on those who it might be easier to marginalize and dismiss.

  52. Bridget said on 13 Feb 2008 at 5:48 am:
    Flag comment

    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/12/william-and-mary-president-resigns-in-disgrace/

Comments are closed.


Views: 2055