College students on spring break notoriously scram from campus this time of year to places warm in temperature and hot in activity. Televised scenes from Florida, Texas and Mexican resorts and beaches aren’t always the most wholesome. The “Girls Gone Wild” videos come to mind.
But if you’re looking for the good times on the cheap, our very own College of William and Mary is doing its part to keep your costs down in this sour economic climate — and using parents’ tuition money to do so. After all, why spend $1,275 in the classroom, for legitimate co-curricular or extra-curricular and fulfilling activities, or scholarly exhibits, when you can bring in child porn?
Naive to think tuition money should actually go to academics? What do they expect at W&M? After all, it has made the news for all the wrong reasons in recent years, as host of the infamous ”Sex Workers’ Art Show” (here), an exhibition that includes performances by strippers and prostitutes.
That show is about to make a return campus engagement. But now the College is complementing that smut with something called ”The Century Project” which may sound academic or historic, but don’t be misled.
Starting today, “The Century Project” will be on display for one week in W&M’s Muscarelle Art Museum, although “art” would be a generous term. Created by a former Newsweek and Life photographer, Frank Cordelle, and invited to the College this year by a senior who herself posed nude for Mr. Cordelle when she was 17, “The Century Project” displays photographs of naked women from birth to age 94 (hence “century”).
Many of the photographed women have been through traumatic situations including breast cancer, rape, abuse and anorexia, and pose naked for this project to somehow mentally “conquer” their past and to promote a “healthy alternative to the way in which women are represented in the media.”
Now that’s an ironic touch. The media is dominated by colleagues of Mr. Cordelle who share his liberal mindset, whether news media or entertainment media. So who exactly is he blaming? Besides, it’s people like Mr. Cordelle who ridicule as “backward” media and entertainment that portray women as wholesome and in traditional roles.
But Mr. Cordelle has a dual agenda, because the most disturbing aspect of “The Centruy Project” are the photographs of girls from birth to age 17, which are blatant child pornography. He rationalizes that the pictures of naked minors are not overtly sexual and thus are legal, claiming, “the entire female life cycle . . . doesn’t begin at age 18″ and admits that his photographs are “a valuable tool for sociopolitical purposes.”
Huh? Here’s another irony: Aren’t liberals supposed to be “for the children”? How is this anything but exploitative and damaging to children? Which is the brazen side here and why should parents unknowingly have their money used for an admitted political purpose? Of course it’s difficult to attack such a cryptic political purpose, no matter how bizarre or exploitative. So we’d like to know what exactly about female minors imparts a political statement that he needs to display naked photos of them? What is W&M and its administration trying to say — or sanction?
First, removing the Cross from Wrenn Chapel and whitewashing history and faith, then turning the campus over to the porn industry, and now to child porn. Maybe Key West isn’t the worst option this spring break after all.
[...] that there is universal approval at William & Mary over “The Century Project.” A student group organized to object to the exhibit and to promote mainstream ways to empower [...]
Indeed, things are just as crazy at William and Mary as they seem to be from the outside. That is one reason I left the faculty there two months ago (and I found a University where both my anti-sexual assault and anti-pornography work is valued by my superiors). What is happening at William and Mary — rolling out the red carpet for the porn industry just as they cut funding for sexual assault prevention — is so scandalous that it is almost unspeakable. But allow me to speak. THIS IS AWFUL AND HAS TO STOP! Research shows clear, causal connections between pornography and violence against women. Pictures like those in this art exhibit have been shown to lead to sexual coercion by men. A College begging for money from the state should not be throwing thousands of dollars at a photographer who gets little girls to take their clothes off and have their picture taken for people to look at all over North America (and the internet too). Colleges that pay Mr. Cordelle to sling his porn pics on the walls of campus must suffer consequences. And then of course, this will all be followed up by the 4th year in a row that W&M hosts a strip show on campus, marketing the great benefits of the porn industry to students. Just what the campus needs is another stripper in a G-string and nothing else gyrating her pelvis in the middle of the Student Union. At least Duke had their stripper scandal off campus. No, not William and Mary. They prefer right in the middle of campus and lets help pay for it. Legislators, alumni, and anyone who can help pressure William and Mary to stop funding the pornography industry: PLEASE HELP.
I’m leading the student charge against Cordelle and his filth at W&M. Please know that there is a large portion of the student body, alumni, and community that is greatly opposed to the promotion of child pornography on campus. I am saddenned that our legal definitions of pornography and obscenity do not protect our children from men like Cordelle. These children are being exploited by Cordelle and their parents for Cordelle’s personal profit. My Student Activities fees are paying this man. That’s right…the money my family and I worked hard to save is now lining the pockets of a child pornographer, a man who makes his living taking pictures of naked little girls. Over 500 women will be raped during the time The Century Project is on display at W&M…the school should have put Cordelle’s paycheck towards rape prevention if they are concerned about empowering women. The causal link between porn and rape cannot be ignored. As a future educator, I know that our children are America’s most valuable asset…we must stop allowing people to exploit them for personal gain. If you’d like to help, please contact me at brfries@gmail.com.
There actually isn’t much of a opposition to the Century Project.
There is absolutely nothing pornographic about any of these pictures, unless one has been so poisoned by media messages that one is incapable of separating nudity and sex.
There isn’t any good evidence that simple nudity causes rape or sexual violence and the connection between non-violent porn and rape is tenuous at best.
Get some facts.
In response to Katie A’ comments:
1. The statement that “there actually isn’t much of an opposition” is bold and patently false. Don’t let the fact that it isn’t terribly visible right now fool you. The opposition is definitely there.
2. Many children have recently been charged with “sexting,” or sending naked pictures of themselves to other children via cell phone. These people are getting charged with child pornography. Somehow Frank Cordelle is allowed to take pictures of naked little girls for personal profit and get praised, when he should be in jail instead.
3. I would direct your attention to just a few of the numerous studies that show a relationship between pornography and sexual violence. Carr and VanDeusen (2004) identified a link between male pornograpy consumption and sexual coercion/violence. In 2007, Vega and Malamuth found that pornography consumption was a good predictor of male sexual aggression. Finally, Zillman (1986) showed a link between extended porn consumption and the tendency to commit rape.
In short, get some facts.
Brian, Brian, Brian,
1. Where is the opposition from people on campus? I must have missed it while you were alone standing outside of the Muscarelle. If an opposition isn’t visible, there isn’t any power behind it.
2. And I don’t think those people (who are actually sexually mature teenagers, for the most part, by the way) should be charged with child pornography for sending pictures of themselves. What’s your point? Besides the fact that none of the pictures in the Century Project are at all pornographic, Frank Cordelle doesn’t only take pictures of nude minors – he also photographs adult women. Stop making it sound like the Century Project is all about pictures of minors. Your insistence on focusing on that part says more about you than it does about the Project.
3. You really need to stop throwing out the same tired old studies that John Fauxbert gave you. He has been debunked numerous times. Besides the fact that NEITHER OF THESE SHOWS IS PORNOGRAPHIC, those studies don’t say what you think they do.
I’ll go ahead and teach you some things.
A. Carr and VanDeusen (2004)- Carr & VanDeusen readily admit in their study that the fact that they didn’t separate violent and non-violent pornography is a weakness in their study. In addition, they state that the generalizability of their study is limited due to small sample size and lack of diversity in their study. This means that this study can’t be used to show a single thing about non-violent pornography and sexual coercion/violence.
B. Vega and Malamuth (2007) – They say that pornography is only a useful predictor for sexual aggression in those who are already at high risk for sexual aggression. In their study, they say, “for men who had low risk for committing sexual aggression based on these factors, there was little increased risk even if the man was a heavy pornography consumer.” This means that it isn’t all that useful in predicting sexual aggression in the general population and furthermore indicates that it isn’t causal. You do know that correlation doesn’t imply causation, don’t you?
C. Zillman (1986) – While this research does conclude that even non-violent pornography is associated with a higher risk of sexual aggression, this conclusion goes against a lot of other research, including some that Fauxbert sites (see below). Furthermore, this man is a right-wing moralist, and so comes to his research with an anti-sexual freedom agenda. Much of what he concludes as the effects of viewing porn aren’t inherently bad things. Mostly, they are things that are seen as bad by moralizing right-wingers who want to push their strict morality on everyone else. For example, viewing porn increased the belief that “promiscuity” (an undefined word) is natural in both men and women. As a matter of fact, this may very well be true. And why is this a bad thing? It seems like it would lead to lower levels of slut-shaming and less of a double-standard for sexuality between men and women. Viewing porn also decreases the belief that marriage is TEH BEST THING EVAR (paraphrasing here). This isn’t an inherently bad thin, and although Zillman claims that the nuclear family is oh-so necessary, the fact that the nuclear family isn’t the way societies are organized in much of the world indicates otherwise. Finally, viewing pornography leads to an interest in more “exotic” expressions of sexuality –something that many people might find desirable. Finally, one of the awful things that supposedly comes from viewing porn is acceptance of pre-marital sexuality. This is basically the same thing as saying it increases acceptance of pre-marital sex. I say: Good. Fewer people will be shamed for having sexuality. This man’s moralizing conclusions about pornography bring the rest of his conclusions into question.
Finally, one of the studies that Fauxbert loves to site, Malamuth, Addison & Koss (2000), concludes, “The current findings do suggest that for the majority of American men, pornography exposure (even at the highest levels assessed here) is not associated with high levels of sexual aggression”. Yeah…he really does need to stop citing that one.
Next time, read the research Fauxbert gives you before you go copying and pasting what he told you to say.
All this is pretty irrelevant anyway, since neither of the shows mentioned in this post fit the category of “pornography” and the Century Project isn’t even sexual in nature. Even the Sex Workers’ Art Show, which is sexual, is neither violent nor dehumanizing (the entire point is to humanize these people), so no studies about that sort of pornography can apply.
I’ve read a lot of research about pornography, etc. I’m fine with my fact level.
Go get some more facts.
Katie, Katie, Katie,
I’m not responding to all of your points right now, but I will touch on a few.
First, resorting to belittling a man who is a subject-matter expert in the field of sexual violence/assault research by making a pun on his name is quite immature.
Second, I speak for myself and don’t copy/paste from Foubert or say what he tells me to.
Third, automatically discounting a man’s research because he is a “right-wing moralist” shows how short-sighted your argument is.
More counter-points will follow later.
In the interest in shedding some light on this discussion amidst the heat and confusion that a little bit of knowledge Katie A suffers from, here are a few points for those still reading this blog.
1. To state that if an opposition isn’t visible means there is no power behind it — when one person is protesting publicly — is an insult to Rosa Parks.
2. The argument is made that “sexually mature teenagers” should not be charged for “sending pictures of themselves.” Many of these cases involve sending pictures of penises, vaginas, and wider shots of nudity of minors. Many have been sent of the individual who sent the picture. Others have been sent of the ex-partner of the individual sending the picture in revenge. Where prosecutors determine that these violate the law, they file charges. The pictures where prosecutors are now filing charges are actually quite similar to those that Frank Cordelle is being paid to display at William and Mary. Some of us believe that he should be charged as well. We hope a law will be passed to make this possible.
3. Often the one making accusations is the one guilty of that behavior him or in this case herself. Katie A has attempted to cherry-pick statements from studies and put her interpretation on them. These interpretations are flawed. For example, she states that for the majority of men, porn exposure is not associated with high levels of sexual aggression. True. And thank goodness! If it were, most men in our society would be raping people — clearly they are not. The key word shere are “majority” and “high.” The problem is that porn exposure is CAUSALLY linked to sexually aggressive attitudes in 16 experimental studies and CAUSALLY linked to sexually aggressive behavior in 33 experimental studies. This includes “nonviolent” pornography.
4. The defenders of The Century Project will find any number of reasons to say that taking pictures of nude girls is perfectly natural and posting them publicly is a great idea. On that point, we have a philosophical point to debate. When it comes to research on pornography — and using the definition of pornography that researchers use that includes the kind of pictures Mr. Cordelle uses in The Century Project — there are at least 49 experimental studies that all come to the exact same conclusion: pornography is harmful to men’s attitudes and to their behavior. On that point, there is no room for argument or interpretation. When you have one experimental study with a .01 confidence level, there is only a 1% probability that you are wrong. When you have 49 studies, the odds that you are wrong with results is so small, it would take more zeros than you’d care to see for me to put it on this screen.
5. This whole exhibit is being followed up by the other most outlandish event imaginable — the Sex Worker’s Art Show. Just when things couldn’t get much worse, now the porn industry is coming to town and coming in with wrathful vengeance. And William and Mary is paying for that too. 49 studies say they should be doing other things with their scarce resources.
John D. Foubert, Ph.D.
Author, The Men’s Program: A Peer Education Guide to Rape Prevention
hey Dr. Foubert
if there are so many “causal” studies, why don’t you ever cite any?
Admin’s note: I edited the above comment to “Dr. Foubert” as the reader omitted his title and left uncapitalized his name.
William & Mary’s perverse interest in things sexual is one of the reasons I stopped coming to Williamsburg. Maybe they can sell enough sex to compensate for the loss of tourism dollars.
I can say that I and my children were the victim of porn. My ex-husband became so addicted to porn and then acted out on it, losing his professional career and losing us as a family. Pornography is addictive, and like any drug, it takes more and more salacious content to satisfy the user. They believe they are sophisticated, but actually are captive to it. It occupies them constantly. And then they begin to act out on it.
1. John Foubert makes statements.
2. John Foubert’s research and statements are shown to be false.
3. John Foubert ignores no. 2 and goes back to no. 1.
4. Repeat nos. 1 to 3 ad nauseam.
For good or ill, we’re not done with this yet. For now, for various reasons, I’ll have nothing to say about the main article here.
[...] of the Williamsburg Tea Party, seems that something good finally happened at William & Mary, as a reported 300-400 people attended on campus, a stone’s throw from where Patrick Henry [...]
Dr. Rapoport,
What part of the research I have cited and statements I have made have been shown to be false? You and your porn photographer Mr. Cordelle keep implying that I don’t know what I’m talking about, yet you make these simplistic arguments and just say I’m wrong without offering proof, as you have done in this message. Taking and displaying nude pictures of children as Mr. Cordelle does is dispicable. Publishing them, as you do is amoral and harms our society. Start by reading Malamuth, Addison & Koss, 2000. We can get to more studies later if you’d like. First, I’d like to see where you can prove that any of my research and statements are false. I’ll be waiting.
John Foubert, Author, The Men’s Program: A Peer Education Guide to Rape Prevention
[...] The Daily Press takes a look at Senator Tommy Norment’s (R-3, Williamsburg) arrangement with William & Mary, Liberty University does its part for representative democracy, ObamaCare isn’t popular in [...]
[...] (At least we in Virginia wait until students get to William & Mary to learn about “errotic ….”) [...]