5 Graduation Requirements

Unofficial student traditions, passed from person to person by word of mouth, are part of the idiosyncratic experiences at every college or university. Here at Duke, there exists the so called, “Five Graduation Requirements” that are passed around which reflects aspects of Duke culture and social life. These unofficial Requirements are, in no particular order: 1) Climb Baldwin Auditorium 2) Explore the Service Tunnels under East Campus 3) Drive backwards around the Chapel Traffic Circle three times 4) Have sex in the library stacks 5) Have sex in the Sarah P. Duke Rose Gardens. Although varied in nature, the element they all contain is risk, thrill, or a departure from “normal” behavior. The knowledge of these requirements is widely known throughout the Duke student body, and especially within certain student networks and organizations. What is interesting is that these the specifics of the requirements change with time and across different Duke groups. From talking with alumni from 1972, either the Requirements did not exist at all or was not as widely known at the time, suggesting that Duke’s (and the general population’s) attitude towards public sex has changed. With the advent of Facebook.com, and the power to create and maintain social networks, the requirements have gotten even more attention as well as being more widely distributed to other people. There exist several Facebook.com groups dedicated to fulfilling Requirements, as well as serving (in jest or no) as a place to find people with which to complete the Requirements. One alumnus posted, “I did 4 of the 5 while at Duke from 1998 – 2002. Sadly, I did not do the lamest (drive 3 times backwards around the loop). Technically, in my day that wasn’t a requirement – having sex on the 50 yard line of Wallace Wade was…” (Facebook.com, Society For Completion of the 5 Grad Requirements). I learned of the requirements in 2005, and the fact that one requirement could be discarded and another added shows the volatile nature of these traditions and also the passing of these traditions by word of mouth. I also gathered that competition of the sexual parts of the Requirements was not necessarily related to the hook-up culture as one would initially think, since the majority of the people (that I know) who have had sex in the Gardens or Stacks did it with their girlfriend/boyfriend of the time. One male said it was because, “Hooking up at a party is sketchy enough, but asking a girl to fuck you in the library, instead of your room, is a good way to ruin your chances of getting laid that night”. But it would be unreasonable to assume that these acts of public sex do not occur within the context of the hook up culture. These traditions are constantly evolving, as seen with one group calling it self the SIX Graduation Requirements, which added ringing of the bell in Bell Tower, after it was built. However, the primacy of public sex in these requirements (2 out of 5, and it used to be 3 out of 5) shows that public sex is an acceptable (if not tolerated), or even thrilling and fun aspect of the Duke experience. It remains to be seen if the majority of these students are seeking a thrill or just how seriously these traditions are taken by the Duke student body.

Public Sex

Public sex entails either a sexual act or intercourse done in a public environment or engaging in a sexual act or intercourse with the intent of people seeing the performance. Mostly, people engage in public sex because the risk of getting caught causes a rush of adrenaline that adds to the arousal surrounding the sexual act. According to the book Who’s Been Sleeping in Your Head by British psychoanalyst Brett Kahr, having sex in a public setting is a common fantasy. In fact, an Elle-MSNBC.com survey shows that 22 percent of Americans had performed or received a sexual act in public during the preceding year. Whether on college campuses or New York City streets, the long-standing practice of public sex has found its forum on internet blogs and websites that urge people to document their own tales and sightings of people having sex in public.
While public sex is one of the most common fantasies, it seems it appeals more to certain demographics. New York magazine recently explored the popularity of public sex in New York City versus less populated or more conservative cities. One interviewee noted that most of the city’s inhabitants are “young, liberal, horny, relatively well off and frequently drunk,” calling this the “recipe for public sex” and a possible explanation for the frequency of public sex in NYC (nymag.com). While this logic certainly seems to extend to the college student demographic, the notion of public sex as a rite of passage would also explain the tendency for younger people to have sex in public. However, to assume that public sex is an act limited to the drunk and the daring ignores the other reasons why people engage in public sex. The excitement that comes with either the risk of getting caught or getting away with the act, having a public audience for a private act, or giving into the moment regardless of the local are often anecdotal reasons explaining why people have sex in public - no matter the demographic.
On the spectrum of good sex versus bad sex, public sex would fall under the category as bad sex for the lewdness of the act could offend bystanders who classify it as indecent exposure. However, the interpretation of public sex as a form of “bad sex” largely relies on the cultural attitudes and personal perception towards the act and the people involved. For example, Amsterdam police recently proposed the idea to allow sex in all Dutch parks, including the most popular public park in Amsterdam, Vondelpark. While owners of dogs let off the leash could potentially be fined, sex will be tolerated as long as it does not take place near children’s playgrounds, condoms are cleared away, and it takes place during the evening or nighttime. The Amsterdam police believe that this will allow the gay population that participates in “cruising,” or searching for sexual partners in public areas, more protection from gay bashers (nisnews.com). While it is difficult to imagine that the same idea would be popular with the general public in cities across America, it seems that public sex is tolerated for the simple fact that there is not a large-scale movement against the act. While it may be considered “bad sex,” it does not hamper people’s attraction to or participation in public sex.

Marriage & Long-Term Relationships at Duke

At Duke, it would seem that the closest we ever get to married undergraduates is through the 30 minutes when we might catch an episode of MTV's "Engaged and Underaged." The visibility of marriage at Duke is extremely low. No one I talked to was significantly connected to anyone who was married at Duke, and rarely had people even known of someone who was married at Duke. As a more realistically visible 'significant' relationship we might think of long-term, monogamous relationships. The majority of people that I talked to about marriage and long-term relationships at Duke did not believe that Duke offered a truly unique perspective on either of these topics.

Elizabeth, a senior who has been in a long-term relationship since sophomore year of high school, said she could never imagine marrying as an undergraduate. While she plans to be married about a year and a half out of college, she said, "I think when people get married in college it must be motivated by something other than love because why can't you just wait? Especially at a school like Duke, you are both successful, and you are both going places, so why can't you just hold on until you graduate. I've known since I've been at school that I'm going to marry my boyfriend, but I'm not rushing now. There is a time and a place for that and I just don't feel that it is in college." It seemed, for many Duke students that marriage is something that would never even enter into the realm of day-to-day discussions; students view it as being 'so far away.' 

Marc, who was in a long-term relationship prior to Duke and has since entered into another long-term relationship said, "if I were to think about married couples at Duke, I would say that there would have had to have been extenuating circumstances that forced them into marriage, such as an unplanned pregnancy, or they come from a significantly different background than me and most Duke students (as in an extremely religious family where marriage is encouraged at this age,) or I would say they are non-traditional college students who are significantly older than the 'average' undergraduate. I think that couples at Duke place a high priority on their education first and foremost." 

The common definition of a long-term relationship was a committed relationship between two people who had been exclusively seeing each other for an extended period of time-- typically beyond six months. Many people felt that there was a lack of long-term relationships on campus, but that in general, they have a high visibility and are certainly not 'unheard of.' Potential reasons for a lack of long-term relationships acknowledged the potential difficulties in balancing friendships with a relationship and a potential lack of confidence in situations other than with your significant other.

Of the two people I interviewed extensively, both said a majority of their friends were not in long-term relationships, and they believed that there is a stigma attached to these long-term relationships at Duke. Elizabeth said that her being in a long-term relationship has definitely impacted the type of people she has remained friends with other course of her four years in college. "I have definitely been treated differently by guys simply because they know I'm in a long-term relationship. Not only am I 'unavailable,' but also I'm in a long-term relationship, which takes on a new meaning. Also, there are just some people you don't feel comfortable around because you are in a relationship and you aren't participating in the 'hook up culture'... they made me feel too serious and mature for college."

Marc entered Duke in a relationship of two years from high school. While he intended to stay in this relationship, he soon realized that the pressures and temptation that go along with a school that places such an emphasis on the hookup culture were overwhelming. He felt that the added pressure of it being a long-term relationship solidified that the costs outweighed the benefits. He said that there is definitely a stigma attached to long-term relationships because "by being in a long-term relationship you are missing out on the 'fun' aspects of the social scene at Duke, which usually involves the hookup culture. I especially think this is a product of my participation in Greek life, which definitely is at the forefront of the hookup culture."

With any stigmas attached to marriage and long-term relationships, many students I talked to seemed to think that there is a separation between college and 'the real world' (after college.) While these stigmas might exist as undergraduates,  many students believed that their life after college would not be subject to these stigmas and 'social constraints.' There seemed to be consensus that social interactions would not be as centered around hooking up, but more towards meeting new people and dating. 

Collective Sexuality Definition

Sexuality is both an ongoing discussion (societal discourse) about sex and a tool used to produce a result. We have defined a sex act as any action by one or more individuals, acting alone or together, leading toward a specific type of arousal. Sexuality encompasses both personal desire and personal perception of others’ desire. That is, sexuality is more than the sexual act; it includes perceptions of the sexual act. We disagree on whether the human sex drive is biological, but agree that the sex drive is influenced by society’s presentation of sex and sexuality. Whom or what one is attracted to may or may not be a choice, but the expression or repression of sexuality is a choice within certain confines; in the same vein, the outward manifestation of sexuality (Madonna’s music videos, wearing particular clothing, etc) are personal choices that are influenced by society’s presentation of sex and sexuality. While sexuality is everywhere in modern society, and permeates many aspects of our lives, it is also a taboo subject; sexuality is both expressed and repressed. Society places expressions of sexuality and sexual acts into a spectrum ranging from good sex to bad sex; however, since this spectrum is a social construction, it is open to being altered. As a tool used to describe perceptions of sexuality, language becomes a vehicle of empowerment or disempowerment, depending on where the expression of sexuality falls on the good/bad spectrum. How we understand a particular manifestation of sexuality affects the person at whom our opinions are aimed.

Sex Work

 

Although sex work has a long history, and obviously relates to the lacrosse incident, for the purposes of this essay I will focus on one topic relevant to Duke: the Sex Workers Art Tour Show. The Sex Workers Art Tour Show came to Duke in spring of 2008 as part of an effort to dispel the myths surrounding sex workers, and to humanize them in contrast to stereotypes of sex workers. The show included a variety of artistic performances by phone sex operators, strippers, prostitutes, etc. About half of the performances were readings about personal experiences as a sex worker; the rest were more graphic and included nudity and demonstrations of the individual’s profession. All the performances stopped short of actual sex on the stage.

           I attended the show out of curiosity; it intrigued me that sex would be placed so blatantly center-stage (literally) at an academic institution like Duke. What interested me most about this performance was the unashamed way it countered traditional readings of sex, and presented oppositional readings of the sex industry as unquestionably acceptable (like the article My Mother Liked to Fuck, it was “shameless”). Sex – even in art form – is not ‘supposed’ to appear on stage; ‘good’ sex is a private act, not something that happens at a university in front of an audience. The individuals in these performances were unapologetically confident even though they were far outside the boundaries of ‘good’ sex; they countered the common sense notions of sex by demonstrating the diametrically opposite notion with ease and poise. 

While some audience members were uncomfortable with the performances, most of them were obviously fascinated by this insight into the real lives of sex workers. At one point, a woman demonstrating S&M invited the audience to join in her performance by repeating phrases after her. To my surprise, most of the audience joined in enthusiastically; I had anticipated that most people would be too embarrassed to join any kind of public sexual demonstration.

The day after the event, the woman in charge of the show was featured on Fox News. The anchorwoman tore the show apart; it was presented not as art, but as public sex that defiled Duke. The anchorwoman went on to say that it was unwise for Duke to allow this show on campus so soon after sex work (in the form of strippers) was at the heart of the lacrosse scandal. This attitude ties in with the myths and realities of fraternity and sorority parties at Duke; hiring strippers to perform at Duke parties is apparently not unusual. However, these parties are usually covered up, while the Sex Workers show was highly public and publicized. Nonetheless, the parallels people drew in their minds between the two situations caused hostility toward the show; both were labeled ‘bad sex.’ The implication was that the show was immoral, indecent, and unacceptable, and was simply an extension of the lacrosse case. Half of the show – the half that consisted merely of readings of personal experiences in the sex industry – was not mentioned; it was the pole dancing and stripping on Page Auditorium’s stage that held people’s attention. Even though the point of the show was to present each individual as an individual, the media lumped all the performances together and labeled them ‘bad sex.’

It is easier for me to understand the hostile reaction of the media, and the reluctance of audience members to join in the performance, than it is for me to understand how to change those reactions. My sense is that, by going to a show like this and placing ourselves in close proximity to sex workers, and especially by joining in their performance, we blur the boundary between ‘us’ and ‘them’; those who view sex in its common sense place – the bedroom, between a heterosexual couple – and those who challenge the good/bad sex spectrum. This challenge to common sense notions of sex was exhilarating for many in the audience and uncomfortable for others. Perhaps this is because innocence and morality are symbolically at stake here. If sex can be performed on stage, if the sex industry is placed in the spotlight, American ‘morality’ is supposedly threatened. This challenge to the division between the ‘us’ and ‘them’ constitutes a challenge to social hierarchies and moral imperatives.[1]

---

[1] Portions of this essay are excerpted from another essay I wrote in spring of 2008.

 

Updated Definition of Sexuality

Sexuality is both an ongoing discussion (societal discourse) about sex and a tool used to produce a result. We have defined a sex act as any action by one or more individuals, acting alone or together, leading toward a specific type of arousal. Sexuality encompasses both personal desire and personal perception of others’ desire. That is, sexuality is more than the sexual act; it includes perceptions of the sexual act. We disagree on whether the human sex drive is biological, but agree that the sex drive is influenced by society’s presentation of sex and sexuality. Whom or what one is attracted to may or may not be a choice, but the expression or repression of sexuality is a choice within certain confines; in the same vein, the outward manifestation of sexuality (Madonna’s music videos, wearing particular clothing, etc) are personal choices that are influenced by society’s presentation of sex and sexuality. While sexuality is everywhere in modern society, and permeates many aspects of our lives, it is also a taboo subject; sexuality is both expressed and repressed. Society places expressions of sexuality and sexual acts into a spectrum ranging from good sex to bad sex; however, since this spectrum is a social construction, it is open to being altered. As a tool used to describe perceptions of sexuality, language becomes a vehicle of empowerment or disempowerment, depending on where the expression of sexuality falls on the good/bad spectrum. How we understand a particular manifestation of sexuality affects the person at whom our opinions are aimed.

Collective Definition of Sexuality

Sexuality is the societal discourse and utilization, subject to a normalization process, linked to the act of sex, this act being any action by one or more individuals, acting alone or together, leading toward a specific type of arousal. That is to say, sexuality is both an ongoing discussion and a tool used to produce a result. The human sex drive may be natural in terms of an evolutionary drive to procreate (although this categorization is suspect since it excludes homosexual sex and cyber sex), but it can also be argued that the human sex drive is regulated and sustained by societal norms. Sexuality is contained within the individual, yet is also affected by society. Sexual orientation (whom one is attracted to) may not be a choice, but the expression or repression of sexuality is a choice; in the same vein, the outward manifestation of sexuality (Madonna’s music videos, wearing particular clothing, etc) are personal choices that are influenced by social norms. While sexuality is everywhere in modern society, and permeates many aspects of our lives, it is also a taboo subject; sexuality is both expressed and repressed. Society places expressions of sexuality and sexual acts into a spectrum ranging from good sex to bad sex; however, since this spectrum is a complete social construction, it is open to being altered. Sexuality has more to do with the perception of a sexual act than with the act itself; what matters most is how we understand a particular manifestation of sexuality, and how our understanding affects the person at whom our opinions are aimed. Language, as a tool used to describe these perceptions, becomes a vehicle of empowerment or disempowerment, depending on where the expression of sexuality falls on the good/bad spectrum.