The Dartmouth's Oct. 20 news article, "On pro bono basis, local teaches the art of oral sex," engenders several possible interpretive frameworks. On one hand, a reader can approach the article as a triumph of discursive community: At Dartmouth, we not only instruct in the classics, but every woman on campus has access to "two-hour tutorials on the art of performing fellatio." I'll just slip the mention of this into one of my tours tomorrow morning, and do a response poll on prospective students and parents. Conceivably, one might applaud such liberation and herald a shattered silence of bedroom practices, contributing to a positivist approach to sexual relationships on campus. Alternatively, the article could be dismissed without much consideration as an idiosyncratic campus presence at the beneficence of a colorful local character. Brenda Griffin's "community service" may be intriguingly newsworthy not only for the informal public context that shapes her discipline, but also the pragmatic approach that the employee of Stinson's Village Store on Allen Street brings to her forums. I fear however, that the function of the article's newsworthiness imparts a much different lasting message: it resonates an image of sexual solicitation.
Griffin's students explicitly and narrowly occupy the space of heterosexual women performing for the evaluation of heterosexual men. According to the article, Griffin does not possess any knowledge to impart to men who want to provide their female, or for that matter, male partners with pleasure: "Griffin said that she could not claim to know more about performing fellatio than a man himself. She also steers clear of teaching classes on cunnilingus ... because she wouldn't know how to instruct her students."
It is worth considering whether or not Griffin's self-described program is cloaked in language aimed at attracting women who have never performed oral sex: "What to expect" for a "new technique" hardly attempts to capture the spirits of women who want to refine their skills. Even if this language does not purport itself to the inexperienced, it most certainly concentrates on providing instruction for women who consider themselves inadequate in the practice. The Dartmouth writes, "Griffin gives the courses because she has noticed that many females, particularly young women and recent divorcees, lack confidence regarding their oral sex skills."
The article records that Sigma Delta sorority has invited Griffin to provide instruction as part of their house programming. Why would an institution aimed at nurturing relationships amongst and between women sponsor an event aimed at the gratification of male pleasure? I recognize that discrete individuals are empowered by the strength of reciprocal relationships formed outside of their immediate group memberships and that these external binary relationships contribute to the overall health of the group at large. I cannot understand, however, how an instructional program geared ultimately toward a male assessment of adequacy accelerates a program whereby women recapture their own agency for self-definition within the means of institutional construction.
Hillary Swanson '05, who I assume to be a member of Sigma Delta, comments in the article that "the sight of Griffin armed with dildos and instructional handouts was a bit overwhelming. It was one of the most uncomfortable things I have ever experienced in my life." Perhaps, the reason for this discomfort speaks to a misguided approach for nurturing an appreciation of concomitant sexual relationships -- ones in which male partners are not "completely silent, making it difficult to discern the best method to use." Obviously, if men and women are going to be equal participants in sex, women ought not to be predisposed to an image whereby they have to doubt themselves from the start and expect aptitude to be defined not as a product of reciprocal exchange, but ultimately at the elevated discretion and judgment of the men they aim to please.
