Poor Steven Sherman! The sociology lecturer’s awful upset that UNC-Greensboro Chancellor Patricia Sullivan is distancing herself from invited UNCG lecturer and porn star Tristan Taormino. (Sullivan recently admitted, contrary to earlier backpedaling, that UNCG officials knew of her porn work before they invited her.)

Most upsetting to Sherman is that he thought the self-proclaimed “anal-sex queen” really could have addressed a sore lack in UNCG’s students’ public-school educations. Sherman writes that public schools rarely if ever discuss “masturbation, homosexuality, and sado-masochism” (thanks to his favorite bugaboo, “puritanical fanatics”) and therefore “have to be addressed at the university level.” He concludes, “I think a speaker with Taormino’s history is well suited to do so. The only problem with her talk was that it was not publicized sufficiently.”

Strange that it wasn’t. It was after the fact when Mike Adams spoke (was that publicized?) on campus and happened across a copy of UNCG’s Carolinian newspaper. Adams wrote about it in his TownHall.com column, propelling UNCG officials into spin mode. It seems the event wasn’t publicized because UNCG officials expected the outcry that followed. Is that evidence of Sherman’s puritans? Possibly ? but not likely.

It’s more likely the fact that it exposed UNCG’s habit of “‘candy’ class” pandering to its students’ loins rather than trying to stimulate their intellects. The effects of this aspect are on display weekly in the Carolinian, just as it was in the issue that grabbed Adams’ attention.

This week’s issue, for example, along with Sherman’s letter carping about fanatics preventing children from learning about sado-masochism in public schools, also contains:

? A column beginning with the timeless debate over whether guys can actually lose their virginity since “there’s nothing to pop” and concluding, “Since two women having sex with each other lack a penis (unless they buy one, which is a separate issue) they are not having penetrative sex, and their act is considered unnatural or even ‘not counting.’ Two gay men can have penetration, but the normative ideal forces them into masculinized and feminized roles where one is giving and one is receiving.”

? A letter that begins “I love sex and, I admit, even love pornography, especially the ‘exotic homosexual’ kind” and that is written to address the propriety of using the word “F–k” in a newspaper headline

? a cartoon (indeed referencing Sherman’s puritans!) about America’s sexual “repression leading to oppression” and favoring a “European” approach to the issue

? a fellow whose “epiphany” is “Imagine how much less fun we would have if we were straight”

? hair-splitting over what constitutes porn stardom and the authoritative statement “If someone enjoys a particular fetish or activity, more then likely she has written a book on it after researching the subject out” (the writer exhibits the then/than confusion more “then” once)

? discussion of the events of Pride Week, which included a speaker who “described issues associated with transgendered people, transsexuals and sexual orientation,” people referred to as “suspiciously heterosexual men,” and a “drag show” (see below):