moonbattery logo

Feb 13 2013

Sex Week at University of Chicago

Obama’s ham-fisted nationalization of the student loan industry indicates that the federal government will take an ever larger role in financing the preposterously bloated expense of college. This should prevent institutions of higher learning from having to cut back on essential scholarship like Sex Week:

The prestigious University of Chicago is in the midst of hosting a comprehensive sex week that includes controversial events such as a course on sex education for kids, a play entitled “Genitalia the Musical,” and “Anal 101.”

According to the event’s official webpage, “Sex Ed for Kids” will be run by the Secular Alliance from 5-6pm Sunday and will offer college students advice on how to “teach kids” about sex and “learn yourself.”

“How do we talk about sex and its related concepts of choice, gender, and desire to our kindergarteners?” asks the event’s description posted on

That’s right, kindergarteners.

Minutes of the SGFC [Student Government Finance Committee] Dec. 4, 2012, meeting – which have since been deleted by SGCF website but were saved by Campus Reform – indicate that the body allocated $5,048 in student fees for the “educational” event.

Remember this next time a Democrat quacks about “investing in education.”

The event’s webpage encourages students to attend in order to answer burning questions such as “what are the finer points of penetration, oral, or anal sex?” …

A Feb. 13 session, titled “Great Oral Sex: with Tea Time & Sex Chats,” promises a “discussion on going down on men and women” — including “techniques” — all over tea.

A Feb. 15 session, entitled “Anal 101,” is advertised as a course on the “logistics and pleasures of anal sex.”

For a how-to session on bondage, aspiring scholars are encouraged to “bring your own rope, if you can!”

The university is also flying in Axel Braun, the director of more than 400 pornographic films, in from Los Angeles for a Sunday Q-and-A. The school will show one of his films, “Star Wars XXX: A Porn Parody.”

Other miscellaneous events include a cold reading of porn scripts by college improv groups and a live demonstration and tutorial on how to take naked pictures. It wraps-up on Sunday evening with fried food and a game of Twister on what the college website calls “the hugest Twister Board ever.”

The event’s website brags their sex week will go “far beyond typical sex education.”

No matter how far they push the envelope, the self-styled hip will always feel compelled to prove their devotion to degeneracy by pushing it even further. Sneered-at squares will continue to pick up the tab.

Serving the role of literature.

On a tip from Comrade J. Hat tip: The Right Scoop.

22 Responses to “Sex Week at University of Chicago”

  1. Dr. 9 says:

    “To conquer a nation without the use of military force, you must first control the minds of their young…” — Karl Marx

  2. StanInTexas says:

    I guess pedophilia is OK with Liberals when they are the ones doing it.

  3. Steve says:

    Absolutely vile. As far as I know it’s illegal to expose children to sexual deviant material. And now they are ordaning these liberal college punks to go out and teach children about sex. I can’t even imagine the rage a parent must feel about having one of their children indoctrinated by one of these filth bags.

  4. Mr Evilwrench says:

    You know, I begin to think the perverts would be better served not demanding acceptance of their perversions. Some people just seem to have a compulsion to step over the line a bit, kind of like the adrenaline junkies, and when the pushback stops, they have to move on to the next level to get that fix.

    I think it’ll be bestiality next, but I see the groundwork being laid for pedophilia. Oh, there’s always incest, too. Torture, snuff films, cannibalism. I could see a live (so to speak) show where someone is tortured to death, then cooked up for the audience, meanwhile various forms of sex are engaged in. It’s my nature! How dare you question that! The camel’s nose is under the tent, folks. The sickos feel empowered.

  5. JNN says:

    I have always said this was the goal of the Tolerence Movement. I think this article needs to be shoved down the throat of every idiot who plays the victim card.

  6. Comrade J says:

    Something to note ladies and gentlemen:

    “will offer college students advice on how to “teach kids” about sex and “learn yourself”

    – why target specifically kindergarteners? Do all the students who have kids have only kindergarteners?

    – how many college students have their own children specifically of the kindergarten age?

    – Since there is not a big percentage, whose kindergarten children will college students are supposed to be educating on “Great Oral Sex..going down on men and women” and “Anal 101”?

    Meanwhile Bambi, who’s from Chicago, is pushing homosexuality on Boy Scouts…

  7. Mickey Shea says:

    Burn the universities.

  8. Clingtomyguns says:

    Ten years after the disasterous Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down Texas’ anti-sodomy law, and reversing its own Bowers v. Hardwick precedent, Justice Scalia forewarned us and his misguided foolish bretheren in the majority of the Court in his dissent of what was to come, and we can clearly see it has all happened:

    “The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” Bowers,–the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, “furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,” ante, at 18 (emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,” ante, at 17. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.
    Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653.


    One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).

    One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts–and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple’s Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion–after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence–the Court says that the present case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court’s opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.

  9. KHarn says:

    Durring the “sexual revolution”, we were told that it would NEVER go this far. Why can’t the REGRESSIVE PERVERTS alow children to be CHILDREN?

  10. Sam Adams says:

    A Feb. 13 session, titled “Great Oral Sex: with Tea Time & Sex Chats,” promises a “discussion on going down on men and women” — including “techniques” — all over tea.

    Never have I been so grateful that I don’t drink tea.


    BTW, majors in hard sciences and engineering don’t have time for this crap.

  11. Flu-Bird says:

    And its JOHN Q. PUBLIC who foots the bill for this crap

  12. Ghost of FA Hayek says:

    The event’s website brags their sex week will go “far beyond typical sex education.”
    Keep in mind the fact that they will not be forever part of this exclusive college sex club (for lack of a better term) This “education” will extend beyond their college years when these men will return to their unsuspecting, unwilling high school sweethearts armed with rope, handcuffs, and a leather whip.
    And they claim there is a REPUBLICAN war on women.

  13. Flu-Bird says:


  14. Son of Taz says:

    Now everyone go to this page and fill it out the survey fully. Use fake email addresses but include the domain each time. Do this multiple times and let’s flood their idiotic survey.

    Stupid pervs.

  15. Jodie says:

    The University of Chicago is probably just gearing up for Obama’s presidential report card. Teaching sex to kindergarteners is sure to get them an A+.

  16. Jester says:

    You just can’t make this stuff up, folks. The Onion is going to go out of business soon.

  17. UCJord says:

    For those saying that these are guys being pervs that will attack their women–you *did* notice that almost all of the Sex Week team is female, right? One of the points of the week is to show how men and women both have opinions and desires about everything and that both should be recognized.

    Also, Son of Taz, that’s a registration form, not a survey…there’s a difference. You’re welcome to spam them, but the team is pretty much done with that form. It would be really great laugh for them, though!

  18. UCCass says:

    You guys do realize that the Sex ed for kids is a talk for Adults about talking to kids and answering question that little kids ask about gender, desire and sex with out over-sharing or lying right? And the full description mentions kindergartners AND teens. As in pondering the differences needed in approach based on age.

    Kinda like the training sessions that a lot of teachers already have to take so that they know how to deal with LGBTQ kids and teens. Please get your facts straight before having a coronary.

  19. Sam Adams says:

    UC, let me put it straight. A school teacher has zero business talking to kindergarten kids about sex. To presume that a school teacher should give guidance to parents about sex is ridiculous. Am I going to consult this same school teacher about whether to put a 5.3 liter engine into my next pickup? Am I going to discuss balancing my check book with this same school teacher.

    For those who haven’t been paying attention, get your kids out of public schools. The potential for harm far outweighs the potential for good.

  20. Peter Pissflaps says:

    The government school system has long since been an asylum for perverts. Those who aren’t paying attention by now are doomed to learn it the hard way.

  21. Clint Beastwood says:

    It’s articles like this that reaffirm my decision to join the military instead of go to college when I turned 18.

    Been dodging liberal hippie doucher bullets ever since.

  22. Ghost of FA Hayek says:

    You guys do realize that the Sex ed for kids is a talk for Adults about talking to kids
    Is this talk before or after the rear entry and bondage session ?

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy