SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading
« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Monday, October 19, 2009, 10:29 AM

In a Washington Post article, “Colleges Speaking Up to Protect Shy ‘Sexiles‘”, we are informed that “In an era of coed dorms and slackening rules about “overnight guests,” a new constituency has emerged on college campuses: the roommate inconvenienced by sex.” The article reports on how the issue is being handled by colleges in the D.C. For the most part colleges “have mostly tiptoed around the issue of roommate sex, reminding students in general terms of the need for common civility.”

It seems as though “sexile rights” has become a hot issues on college campuses since Tufts University has banned sexual activity in dorm rooms when a roommate is present.

Tufts officials said the change was prompted by persistent complaints from students, numbering perhaps a dozen over the past two to three years.

In response, administrators helpfully added a new item to a list of host responsibilities for students with overnight guests: “You may not engage in sexual activity while your roommate is present in the room.” Dorm sex should never “deprive your roommate(s) of privacy, study, or sleep time.”

Here’s how the Post summarizes Tufts’ policy: “Tufts might be the first college in the nation to make explicit what other schools have only hinted at: It is not cool to have sex in front of your roommate.”

Not cool! Well, that’s one way to put it, although one might think that in an era of “nonjudgmentalness” what counts as “cool” might be in the eye of the beholder. Subjecting your roommate to the Jonas Brother through your dorm room’s stereo speakers is not cool. For that matter, it is a brute fact woven into the fabric of the universe (and not mere opinion) that even having the Jonas Brothers on your iPod is not “cool.” But I doubt that Tufts or any other college or university is going to ban the Jonas Brothers. So, it is not entirely clear to me why lack of coolness should be banned in the case of one instance (sex in front of roommates) and not the other (listening to the Jonas Brothers).

Of course, the mere suggestion that colleges reconsider all this co-ed dorms stuff would meet with howls of protest. That would most definitely not be cool.

Speaking for myself, I’m opposed to co-ed dorms and in favor of strictly enforced visitation procedures, and for a strictly enforced ban on the Jonas Brothers. Which, I suppose, raises my coolness quotient in one instance but lowers it in the other. So it’s a wash.

Oh, in case you were wondering, “Among local colleges, Georgetown University has come closest to positing a bill of rights for sexiles. The school advises students that “cohabitation, which is defined as overnight visits with a sexual partner, is incompatible both with the Catholic character of the University and with the rights of the roommates.”

7 Comments

    Ars Artium
    October 19th, 2009 | 11:28 am

    A respectful inquiry: What are your reasons for being “in favor of co-ed dorms”? The students are not, after all, brothers and sisters.

    SDG
    October 19th, 2009 | 12:47 pm

    “Not cool” does have a range of meanings, including something like “unacceptable” or “not to be tolerated,” presumably the sense intended by the Post (and presumably not the sense in which Mr. Pavlischek considers having the Jonas Bros on one’s iPod “not cool”).

    SMatthewStolte
    October 19th, 2009 | 1:41 pm

    SDG is correct. I first heard it used in phrases like, “Hey man, that ain’t cool,” or “Dude! Not cool,” which not only indicates that something is unacceptable but that it’s rather surprising anyone would think otherwise.

    Anthony Mator
    October 19th, 2009 | 2:03 pm

    Thank God I never had to live in a dorm at a secular university. I would absolutely not tolerate this animal behavior in a roommate. There’s simply no excuse for it. The same basic instinct that prompts us to mate with the opposite sex also prompts us to do so privately rather than in the bed next to the roommate studying physics.

    Kevin J Jones
    October 19th, 2009 | 6:18 pm

    In the mid-1990s, The University of Colorado at Boulder overturned a policy barring members of the opposite sex from staying overnight in a dorm room.

    They did so on the grounds that this rule unjustly favored homosexuals, who could have their sex partners spend the night, while heterosexuals could not.

    Parents probably never heard about the policy change, while students were too concerned about exploiting the change or looking uncool by opposing it.

    This is how revolutions in mores happen. As Juvenal wrote: nemo repente fuit turpissimus, no one ever became the foulest all at once.

    KEITH PAVLISCHEK
    October 19th, 2009 | 8:18 pm

    Whoops. I mangled that pretty badly.

    What I mean to say was that “I am “opposed” to co-ed dorms and in favor of strictly enforced visitation procedures *and*….”

    My fault entirely but I’ve asked FT to make the correction.

    D Kennedy
    October 20th, 2009 | 12:34 am

    As long as the “new” First Things wants to simutaneously run “blogs,” and yet edit(?) or delete commentary, it becomes an absurd game for the reader to try to figure out what might have passed during the string of comments, to have been subsequently deleted in the blog commentary. It appears to me to be a recurring problem, but the fault may be mine.

    I simply don’t have the patience to email the webmaster, as opposed to posting here. So I mention this here as a matter of my own convenience – as a longtime and regular subscriber; some blog commentaries seem to me to be incomprehensible because commentary appears to have been allowed, then deleted, making the string of comments scattered at times.

=