Goucher is not exactly known to be the biggest party school, especially when it comes to on campus parties. But there is one party that is almost always guaranteed to not get shut down – Heubeck parties. Heubeck parties, Goucher sponsored parties with a DJ held in the Heubeck multipurpose room, typically occur at least two times a semester. They are typically held after an on campus event, in this instance, the fashion show, and are typically planned and sponsored by a specific on campus organization. I chose the Heubeck party as a site to observe some form of sex in a public setting because I have always been fascinated by Heubeck parties and the various interpretations that are available from them that contribute to various meanings of sex.
I have been to my fair share of Heubeck parties over the past three years at Goucher and after using this past weekend’s party as an observation site, I learned a lot by looking at the party through a different lens and perspective. First, I think it’s important to consider the type of crowd that the Heubeck parties attract. Typically, the crowd attracts underage students who don’t necessarily have the option to go out off campus. This party was thrown by Umoja: the Black Student Union, which attracted students that are either affiliated with the organization or are friends with people who are affiliated.
The party was not as crowded as it sometimes get, which actually made it more interesting to observe because there was much more space and everything that occurred was much more public and visible. Drinking typically occurs before these parties and it is usually pretty evident based on individuals’ behaviors. The crowd consisted of a fair amount more females than there were males.
Although the parties are intended to be dancing parties, I decided to observe the party through themes that have been discussed in class this semester. The main theme I was hoping to understand through these observations was, “the desire of sex”. I was particularly interested in the different ways one would initiate a dance with another. If I were to further this research, I would be interested in finding out how one chooses who they want to dance with and who they don’t want to dance with. The process of initiating a dance reminds me of the process of asking to “play” and the process of consent found in Newmahr’s (2011) book.
Newmahr identifies three specific ways in which a bottom could receive more invitations to play. Bottoms who are contributive to the enjoyment of play, specifically for the tops, bottoms who have a higher pain tolerance, whom are therefore more creative, and bottoms who are more edgy or extreme, whom tend to have a higher social status, are all implications for being likely to receive more invitations to play (p. 100). Because Newmahr’s book lays down distinctive ways in which one could receive more invitations to play, it made me consider if there were such distinctions when asking someone to dance.
Although there are significantly less risks to dancing at a Heubeck party than there are with engaging in SM, I observed that there is still a level of consent that occurs when trying to dance with someone. The process of consent is not as defined in this context and it typically occurs within a three to eight second window. The initiating a dance at these parties has generally become limited to an individual inviting themselves to stand behind someone already dancing or to grab them and pull them closer so that their bodies are touching. The mutual consent results in both parties continuing to dance and if there is no consent, the person in the front will typically walk away.
This process brings up two interesting points that are found in Newmahr’s book. One, the book made me consider the people at the party as tops and bottoms, or in this case, “fronts” and “backs”. Two, the initiating a dance has become limited to one party almost assuming that the other party would like to dance or “play”, if we analyze the process through Newmahr. Consent occurs almost completely after already engaging in some type of physical touching between two parties. This idea not only challenges all levels of consent that Newmahr highlights in her book, but it also challenged me to think of how this process at the Heubeck parties communicates desire. I observed each individual as a sexual actor and assumed everybody was there to participate as a sexual actor.
Watching a “back” initiate a dance challenged me to believe that the process of consent is limited and undefined because of the assumption that everybody desires the same thing and that individuals are at the Heubeck party because they want to dance. Their presence almost communicates the desire to engage in dancing and it assumes that that is what each individual desired. It is important to understand that I viewed dancing as a form of “play” and while Newmahr identifies SM as nonsexual, I viewed the behaviors within this party with a strictly sexual lens.
By observing dancing at these parties through a sexual lens, it further communicated forms of desire and caused me to not only observe the desire to dance, but the desire to engage in sexual activity as well. Some of the body movements and physical touching and gestures made it fairly easy for me to view the movements as communicating the desire of sex. It was interesting to observe the party through this lens because it created a larger assumption that because this was a college party with college students, that all college students desire sex. This concept is discussed in Currier’s (2013) article about strategic ambiguity. The article identifies that “the social-sexual scene is based on both actual hookups (“sometimes it happens”) and the perceived potential and desire (“everyone is out there to hook up”), and this potential is a constant undercurrent in the social interactions on college campuses” (p. 712). So, were all individuals that were at the party there for the same reason?
I enjoyed observing the Heubeck party for this assignment because it really made me consider the topic of sex on college campuses. It made me further analyze the desires of college students and more specifically, the desire of sex. It also made me consider my own reasons for attending Heubeck parties in the past and it made me analyze my own concepts of desire. Although I came to the conclusion that I have not attended Heubeck parties as a sexual actor, I began to analyze the circumstances within the assumption that college campuses create a space in which the assumption is that “everybody’s doing it”. Because I realized that not everybody will be viewing Heubeck parties with a sociological lens, and that not everybody will be standing on the side analyzing what types of desires “twerking” is communicating, I realized how easy it is to assume, in a space such as a college campus.
I was extremely fascinated observing the event and realized that I, too, was quick to identify everybody in the party as a sexual being and therefore analyzed their behaviors as communicating desires. The party made me curious as to what occurred after the party and the individuals’ next move. I realized that I was making predictions and assumptions about certain individuals and what they would be doing after, based on their “performance” at the Heubeck party. Although I was tempted to, I did not follow anybody after the party to see if I was right (lol). I learned a lot by observing this party and about the types of desires that are assumed to be communicated within certain spaces, such as college campuses. I stood and watched as the party ended and the lights came on, as each sexual actor exited the multipurpose room as “The Bad Touch” played in my head.
-Jeannie Goodell
Sources:
Currier, Danielle M. 2013. “Strategic Ambiguity: Protecting Emphasized Femininity and Hegemonic Masculinity in the Hookup Culture.” Gender and Society 27:704-27.
Newmahr, Staci. 2011. Playing on the Edge: Sadomasochism, Risk, and Intimacy. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Exploring the Social Foundations of Sex and Sexuality 