<p>o’reily is doing a segment on brown… it will prob be toward the end. It is an expose on the 2 annual sex parties brown has sponsered by gay alliance. They are called Sex power god and satr*****… no alcohol is allowed at the parties, but kids drink to major excess before hand. this is a clothing optional party and usually ends in pseudo orgy behavior (lots of “hooking up” in public on dance floor with 3 and 4 somes… public sex in the corners of the room and cameras projecting the action onto the wall)… about 25% of the campus attends during thier time at brown. Most ppl claim they dont go each year. THIS party is in the large building ON THE MAIN GREEN. Brown sanctions this. I am a brown student who has never gone to this “party”… but I am sure familar with it. Keep in mind, that staff and teachers are not in attendence… so brown really has no idea what goes on. I doubt o reilly got access, so it will be interesting to see what he has to say. CHECK It out-- it is the seedy side brown does NOT want the public to know about. The U has already sent out internal memos warning kids about it (after the fact) this year. </p>
<p>Streaking was very popular in the 70s; but running naked probably does not compare to sex parties. I wonder if Charlotte Simmons was invited? Well, at least Brown put its collective foot down to stop alcohol use.</p>
<p>I don’t know where this “surprised” reaction comes from
We use sex to sell everything from toothpaste to shoes- you can buy thong underwear for preschoolers- underwear commericals are soft porn and the radio/television shows have to continually push the envelope for “forbidden” material to raise their ratings.
I don’t have cable- but what I have seen just flipping through the channels reality tv, makes me raise my eyebrows and flip it off.</p>
<p>I recently saw a movie that had been recommended by several on CC Love Actually- it was cute- but when my 15 year old daughter said she had seen it at a slumber party last year ( along with Mulan II) I scanned through my recall of it and remembered quite a few “sexual scenes”- when I expressed shock- she reminded me that violence was a lot more common and more disturbing. I agreed.
I would rather that Love Actually be seen by young teens- than another movie that was even more popular Mr & Mrs Smith- that I am sure had its share of sex- but compounded by the male lead kicking his wife in the face when she was down on the floor- bothers me a heck of a lot more than sexual innuendo in an R rated movie or even adult students having a wild party on a college campus.</p>
<p>Most college students are adults right? over 18?
If I didn’t do a good job raising my child, I don’t expect an institution, however expensive, to redo the job for me, once they are out of my house.
If I did do a good job- or at least a * good enough* job- I don’t worry.
I trust their judgement and I have been proud of their behavior.</p>
<p>i had a friend that went to sex power god. i wasn’t very shocked by o’reilly’s “expose.” seemed just like a lot of sensationalization. I think that parents in general aren’t willing to accept that their kids are capable of expressing themselves sexually. While I don’t agree with this being a university sanctioned event, I think it would have just as much attendence off campus as on.</p>
<p>I would however question the appropriateness of someone attending a dance party like this- who felt the need to arrive in such an altered state that they required medical intervention.</p>
<p>Since alcohol is not served at the party- it sounds like many students felt that consuming “mass quantities of alcohol/drugs” was desirable before hand. Apparently door checks were not made to students who were at risk for becoming ill- checking tickets was the only screening.
It doesn’t bother me that students are trying to entertain themselves, even if the envelope is pushed- however if they were attempting to get into a bar in Providence and they were obviously under the influence of something they would be turned away- likewise during the party if they were obviously unable to function normally, they should be escorted either supervised to their dorm room, or to a “holding area” that is staffed and paid for by organizers, until they see if it is safe for the student to be released.</p>
<p>My daughters school has a pretty wild party at the end of the year. Renn Fayre- but students are trained and work in shifts to insure that any one who needs medical care- or assitance- gets it.</p>
<p>i saw a clip of o’reilly’s segment online. he didn’t condemn it, and it certainly wasn’t an “expose’” but he did question the possibility that school funds had been used to partially fund sex power god, a party that produced the most alcohol-related incidents in brown’s history.</p>
<p>Isn’t this what a liberal education is all about? I don’t understand the outrage;)</p>
<p>We should be happy that kids who perhaps a year ago, as seniors in high-school, were often doing not much more than double-dating are now dating by the dozens. That’s a “higher education” by any standard. Why were they given a good “sex education” if they are never going to take the opportunity to use it.</p>
<p>What outrage? I am a Brown alum. Son will be applying RD.</p>
<p>I can think of better uses for school money, but I would not lose any sleep over this. My son has had many years of his parents teaching him their own values. He’s eighteen now and old enough to make his own judgments (though I may still throw in my occasional $.02)</p>
<p>Brown did NOT pay for the event. O’Reilly lied. The event was paid for by ticket sales. Brown gives the QA money, as it does all student groups, but none of it was used for the event. A lot of what brown_diversity said was also untrue, I posted in the Brown forum about this if you’re curious.</p>