The fate of "Orgasm," my film submission for the housing lottery first pick competition, became clear when "some dude" posted "YOU SUCK" on its comments page. Richard Nixon won election in 1968 on the strength of a "silent majority" that supported Nixon's willingness to temporarily keep troops in Vietnam, much to the dismay of vocal protesters. But no shy group of Brown students, overpowered in the arena of public opinion, would come to the rescue of "Orgasm."
What was the voiced sentiment on a three minute exploration of the movements and fantasies of two strangers who share a couch in a doctor's waiting room? Though not usually as vulgar as that of the random commentator mentioned above - he or she also posted "YOU LOSE" below another entry - reactions included confusion ("I mean, it was nicely done, but what?"), contextual puzzlement ("This has nothing to do with housing..."), abstract praise ("I think they are trying to point out that they deserve housing because they are about the only people not freaking out about housing. Having you(r) attention focused on the important things warrants some reward, no?"), expectations of greater effort ("How can you bring yourself to vote for a video that in all likelihood was not even made for this contest?"), crude sexual remarks ("I would pork her in a second"), angry accusations ("I'm an mcm major, look what I have created - my 'important' art") and personal attacks ("This is f---ing awful, you don't deserve any house, you(r) ass should be out on the street, that was simply pathetic").
Those who wondered what my submission had to do with housing were probably victims of miscommunication. My comments explaining that I wanted first pick so that I may have a location to make more films like "Orgasm," on the ResCouncil website and the Daily Jolt, and later a banner directly under the film, were the only ways of understanding "Orgasm's" connection to housing.
The complaints about the high probability that I did not make this film for the housing competition were legitimate; though filming "Orgasm" was time-consuming, I shot it as an exercise in filmmaking.
Even the rare positive comments were frustrating. One that began, "You want something that isn't stale napoleon dynamite jokes or your usual 'oh man I hate my roomie'... vote for this," ended with an unsavory interpretation of the film's meaning, "It admits the truth: college students are no more than amateur softcore porn filmmakers at heart."
Most troubling, however, were the attacks that went beyond respectful criticism. Why was it that "Orgasm" as an entry in a housing competition drew such scathing and hateful attacks on its creator? What boundary did I overstep to (unintentionally) spur the belief that my "ass should be out on the street?" How did I incite so much rage in one viewer that after arguing on the Daily Jolt for a different voting system, he or she said, "That aside, I'm glad Orgasm lost. Pretentious ass"? And what prompted someone to believe that I was showcasing the movie as "my important 'art'?"
For all the sexual comfort Brown students claim (are we not proud of the popular FemSex and new ManSex discussion groups?), if my submission was still loosely connected to housing but not sexual, it would have generated little more than a passing glance. But I believe that it is not just sexuality that frightens some of us - it is the fear that our sexuality can be taken out of our control, that someone can manipulate our fundamental desirous instinct. A sixth-grader must suppress his growing erection at the school dance, or he will be ridiculed. A man must not orgasm too quickly during sex, lest his masculinity be diminished.
"Orgasm" is only potentially dangerous in this respect: Choosing to view an erotic film is a voluntary submission to one's cravings. People must knowingly and willingly surrender to sexual arousal. But I screened "Orgasm" for an audience anticipating tame comedy. I provided little warning of sexual content, and I aroused the viewer without his or her consent.
So did I violate an unwritten rule? Was manipulating the desire of the unsuspecting wrong? Only to a hypocrite. We accept television commercials that use scantily clad models to sell soft drinks, because we are accustomed to the practice. Moreover, we place televisions in our homes, thus condoning this use of sex in our most sacred space. How can we allow sexual manipulation where we live, but vilify me for doing the same in a housing lottery contest?
"Orgasm" did not deserve to win. But it nonetheless succeeded in identifying hypocritical sexual boundaries, and then worked, perhaps in vain, to destroy them.
Etan Green '08 voluntarily submits to his own cravings.
