This article is the last of a four part series about University of Maryland’s Sex Week. While the other pieces certainly took on a more hard approach, discussing what role Christian students and groups on campus should play in Sex Week is up for conversation and debate.
Tuesday’s events, “Asking for it: Finding your words for better, sexier communication in the bedroom” and “Toy Talk for Grown Folks: Why You Should Care What You Buy,” certainly received much attention.
Two events were put on by Christian groups on campus, however. Following the presentation on sex toys, there was “The Love Revolution: Is there meaning in sex and love?” The event was sponsored by the Catholic Terps. And on Thursday night, Episcopal Campus Ministry sponsored “With Groanings That Cannot be Uttered: Can Sex be a Spiritual Practice?” The event was facilitated by Rev. Otis Gaddis III.
A Catholic group was also listed as a participant in the kick off fair:
Our University Health Center has collaborated with many campus units and student groups to provide diverse opportunities for new information and development. Our kick-off health fair will include Maryland Hillel, University Student Judiciary, The Help Center, the Catholic Student Center, LGBT Equity Center, The Vagina Monologues, UMD Feminists, the Pride Alliance, Multicultural Involvement and Community Advocacy, Student Government, Resident Life among many more campus partners.
In some ways it is indeed refreshing to see that religious groups were involved in creating a truly diverse Sex Week, while adding a spiritual component and opportunity to students during the week’s events, which for the most part were otherwise scandalous and explicit. And it is worth commending such groups like the Catholic Terps, the Catholic Student Center and Episcopal Campus Ministry.
But it is also worth asking as to if religious groups should be appearing alongside such groups, particularly The Vagina Monologues and UMD Feminists.
Other than the offerings of the two aforementioned events as well as legitimate health events and mediation a couple of times, for the most part Sex Week offered events to students that are not only not so beneficial to one’s health, but also against what students of faith believe in.
The guest author who wrote to the student newspaper to express displeasure about Sex Week did not state her religion, but her faith does come up in her conclusion:
It stands against my religion, many other religions represented on the campus and many students’ basic moral codes. This university blatantly neglected us when planning this week. If Sex Week returns to our campus in the future, I sincerely hope there are serious reforms made.
One might say that the university did not “blatantly neglect…” students of faith like the guest author, as religious and spiritual events were showcased. However, it does seem to be that Sex Week was much more so about better communication, and by that, we mean learning dirty talk in the bedroom.
Religious groups on campus should try to reach out to students on campus to provide their side of the argument for sexuality. It is a side that needs to be heard in the debate. Should Sex Week have been the venue for that though? By participating in Sex Week, were such religious groups going along with the other events? Were they giving the university a pass?
If we say that the guest author is a Christian, then what is she and other Christians supposed to do on campus during Sex Week? As she expresses in her column, she believes that Sex Week was shoved in her face. To have two events that such students might be interested in, and only a few that do not offend these students, their religion and their morals does not do enough. This is the kind of reform the guest author is likely speaking of.
The idea as to if Christians are in this world but not of it can certainly apply with University of Maryland’s Sex Week. And if Christians truly are not of this world, and do not subscribe to this world’s idea of sexuality, specifically the Sex Week’s idea of it, then it may be for the best that Christians resist Sex Week. Regardless, the kind of event the university chose to put on and sponsor, and actively advertise, shows us what kind of world we truly are living in.
Comment by Matt on October 30, 2013 at 2:37 pm
“I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.” ~ Pope Francis
Comment by SexyCatholics on October 31, 2013 at 8:36 pm
I’ve read your four part piece and to be honest, it comes off as a bit preachy. I understand that this is a Catholic blog, but your entire view is to say that if you’re a good Catholic, that you should be able to decide what happens on a public campus. You cite students who claim that their beliefs aren’t respected because this happens. What about the students who don’t follow the same moral code? Do they not have the same rights to have access to these things in an open forum?
You shame those who believe in sexual activity and yet, claim to have an open mind. Why not just not go to these events? No one is forcing a Catholic student or a “moral student” (way to circumvent the idea of secular morality, by the way) to go to these events. They’re open to those who want to. So why can’t people?
You claim that the University is sanctioning these events and thus promoting sex. News flash, honey. the world is a secular place. If a University brings a controversial speaker to speak on campus (say Ann Coulter), is the University sanctioning her politics? I’d think not. If a University has an open week of events promoting openness in sexuality and judgement free dialogue, are they promoting everyone go and have sex like rabbits? Clearly, they do, according to your article.
Shame on you and your closed minded shaming. Shame on you.
Comment by Rebecca Downs on October 31, 2013 at 11:35 pm
This is not necessarily a Catholic blog, but I do predominantly write from a Catholic standpoint as I am the one Catholic blogger. I am sorry that you find this series to be preachy. I will say that I do take a passionate view, but it is something that I believe passionately in.
People often make assumptions about my personal life and the sexual activity that I have or have not engaged in. They’re usually wrong with such assumptions, but they’d be wrong to call me a prude or a hypocrite because I’d like to think that I have learned from, enjoyed and suffered from my experiences in a way in which I can offer advice to others so that they may not make the same mistakes I have, or be cautious in the ways I have.
So I don’t shame those who engage in sexual activity, but I am not afraid to call out sexual immorality or sexuality that cannot be considered for one’s wellbeing and regardless, should not be promoted by a university. I also don’t know where exactly I claimed to have an open mind.
My problem is with the university. I think that in a sense they are promoting a culture of anything goes with sex, which their role should not be. And while the University of Maryland will do what it wants to do, I think I have a right to call them out for it.