<p>And actually, O'Reiley isnt being hypocritical, he's not disgusted by the fact that the party was so sexually charged, he's disgusted that the school gave us a space to have it.</p>
<p>Btw, did anyone else find this report disturbingly homophobic? In particular, "The core group who organized the party were homosexuals, and that just set the tone for everyone else." Is his statement poorly worded and he simply meant that the organizers intended the party to be so lewd, or is he actually implying that it was because the party was organized by homosexuals?</p>
<p>i agree. it was so blatantly intolerant. i really felt that his attitute towards the party's homsexual organization discredited everything else he said. i honesltly think it was just an attack on the liberal air at brown.</p>
<p>Let me go quickly through brown_diversity's idiotic tirade and point out what isn't true, then give my opinion on the issue:</p>
<p>"brown has sponsered by gay alliance."
Not gay alliance, actually Queer Alliance. Small mistake, but exposes his/her failure to do any actual research.</p>
<p>"this is a clothing optional party"
It's not clothing optional, people wear very little but they turn away naked people.</p>
<p>"cameras projecting the action onto the wall"
Completely untrue. Just not true at all. Wow.</p>
<p>"The U has already sent out internal memos warning kids about it (after the fact) this year."
They had no warnings or anything to do with SexPowerGod, but rather in regards to underage drinking.</p>
<p>I know all this because I went, this year and last year. Its a very sexual party and actually more goes on then they showed on video on the show, but if you don't want to go, then don't freaking go and leave the people who DO want to go alone. Plenty of people chose not to attend. The University has nothing to do with the party besides allowing it to occur in one of the campus buildings, which it really can't help. Its not like they can deny use of buildings to one group because people like to get sexual during that party. The University does nothing to fund the event, tickets are sold and it more than pays for itself. Get a life and get over it. Most schools have "lingerie parties" (where only girls dress sexily, mind you, which is even worse) or "Dress to get screwed parties."</p>
<p>Additionally, the professor Lawless deal has NOTHING to do with the University as a whole, and brown_diversity is an idiot for saying so. In fact, the University has begun to take disciplinary action against her. Our reputation is rising, not tanking as he/she so stupidly, stupidly, stupidly said.</p>
<p>Point of note: the video can now be found by going onto foxnews.com and clicking on "Student Sex Parties?" under Most Watched on the right hand side.</p>
<p>Actually, he is partly true in that video images have been projected of the action on the wall in the past. And, in past years, people have been given numbers when the walk in to display on themselves, and if you were interested in somebody, you could shadily have it projected on the screen....."253 meet me over here."</p>
<p>the main point here: each one of us has the right to have and express his opinion. brown_diversity has done that, and so have all the rest of you.
I knew about SPG before sending my ED app to Brown-> I had the chance to choose and I did. it's obvious no one is going to force me to go to the event if I don't want to.
my opinion: that's the beauty of studying[living] among free-spirited ppl like Brown students: no one is condemning you for your deeds[ ok...I'm not including here crime or things like that]. another reason for which I chose Brown :D</p>
<p>And people ended up being naked, yes, and a lot of people drank too much beforehand, which is their fault - but all in all I think it was a ridiculous party and everyone who went had a great time - at least we know how to party at Brown</p>
<p>So......you seem to have a memory that is intact. How'd you ever get FOX on your case? Very funny indeed. I mean with parties like that your apps are sure to soar!!</p>
<p>imo: everyone is overreacting. But sincerely I would be awfully mad if I would be recorded. it's my right to go to such a party. if it were for me I would consider illegal all recordings without one's permission. well...except when national security is in danger. :p</p>
<p>To the person who said they'd have to take Brown off their list if there were a lot of homosexuals there -- please do. There are are a lot of gay, lesbian, bisexual, questioning, transgendered, etc people at Brown. The student body and the administration are generally accepting of these people and of the Queer Alliance.</p>
<p>If you do not want to interact with gay people, Brown is not the place for you. Then again, at all colleges, there will be people of different sexual orientations. I'm not going to tell you what to think, but I'll warn you that if you consider homosexuality to be wrong, then you're going to find yourself in the minority on most college campuses.</p>
<p>About the Fox special -- they definitely blew it out of proportion. Yes, there was a crazy party, yes, it was hosted in a University building, and yes, there were a lot of people drunk and a small number of people using hard drugs. This happens at every University. So what? I know his main point was that University money and University space shouldn't go to this type of party, but I admire Brown's adminstration for allowing all types of festivities on campus while simultaneously looking out for student safety. I was also disturbed by the homophobic spin -- it doesn't matter what kind of sex people are having at this party. What matters is whether they're being safe.</p>
<p>I agree with the sex orientation point: I don't think you'll find a college that prohibits such things.... except for the religious affiliated ones... :rolleyes:</p>