Human nature will make it more likely that people will remember the "titillating sex in front of a crowd with a fucksaw" story as opposed to the "understanding human sexuality, a live demonstration" story.

Word on the street is that Morty Schapiro, the disapproving president, is at Northwestern after his part in an affair that broke up a marriage encouraged a hasty retreat from his post at Williams College. So good of him to take the time to scold...

@3, just chiming in to admire your use of the phrase "on the street" relating to anything to do with either Northwestern or Williams.

The religious right hears a story like this, beats off furiously thinking about it, follows that by crying their shameful feelings to Jeebus, and finally proceeds to decry the teaching of sex to sexual beings.

@4: Admittedly, my street is a boulevard paved with Nantucket quahog shells and the skulls of recalcitrant butlers.

Just a reminder that J. Michael Bailey is the author of the ridiculous and sensationalist "The Man Who Would Be Queen." Homophobic, transphobic, highly anecdotal (even though his subtitle is "The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism"). There were some serious questions about his ethics in terms of not informing his subjects he would be writing about them. He's a proponent of Blanchard's odd little male homosexual/autogynephilia theory on FTM transfolks. He support's Zucker's reconditioning therapy for trans children. He doesn't believe men can be bisexual. He has some pretty rigid (and arguably misogynistic) ideas of what constitutes femininity and masculinity.

I'm sure his classes are memorable but the guy is no ally.

@6 excellent, excellent.

Oops, make that MTF transfolks. Blanchard et. al. don't seem to pay much attention to FTMs.

In addition to attacking transwomen, claiming that they either fit into his paradigm or they're lying, he also is out there claiming that bisexual men are all lying and are all really gay. All of them. He's very much into simplistic all or nothing declarations that don't really match human nature and then accusing anyone who disagrees with his conclusions of lying.

I suspect his primarily purpose in all of this and the sex demo is nothing more than seeking cheap publicity.

I have no trouble at all with university students getting educated, nor watching live sex demonstrations. Especially in a human sexuality class. (I will say that the sensationalism of this particular demo sure implies more of a "wow, wicked, look at how pervy some people are" than a "wow, cool, look at how sex-positive we are.")

See, in Bailey's book he speaks with glee of how he has a trans woman take off all her clothes for his students. Objectifying? I'd say. There are excerpts of the book online; feel free to tell me if you don't get a prurient and judgmental tone from them.

Seeing his name attached to something like this just sets off serious alarm bells for me. I'd be concerned that the result of this could be that other genuinely sex-positive educators will experience a chilling effect.

@5 - "finally proceeds to decry the teaching of sex to sexual beings." I think this - and lots of other supporters - completely ignore the pro-sex-ed, sex-positive, kinky and otherwise people that disagree with this particular demonstration.

As I said on the previous thread about this, what is the educational value of this? I support safe bdsm demonstrations, cunnilingus how-to's, all kinds of graphic, live sexual acts as an addendum to human sexuality classes. I don't see how this - a woman being roughly penetrated by an uncommon, expensive toy - was helpful to attitudes or knowledge about sexuality. So now they can say they saw it. (haha) But what does that teach?

At what point in the curriculum was this introduced? Before or after they learned the majority of women can't orgasm from vaginal penetration alone? Before or after they learned about negotiation and safe words? Was there a discussion about after-care?

I just think this particular act was not really beneficial or educational, and I think the casual dismissal of other opinions as "sex-negative" or "hysterical" is totally not in keeping with actual, real sex-positivity.

On the one hand, I don't really give a shit what students watched at an optional presentation. On the other hand, Bailey really skeeves me out. He's sort of toeing that ethical line that Kinsey crossed when he had his own research assistants fuck their research participants.

@14: And I think you're pearl-clutching, as minipearl put it in 11. Have you taken his class? Have you studied his curriculum? Did you take part in the hour-long discussion after the demonstration? Have you talked to any of the people who *were* there? Or are you just projecting your own sexual insecurities onto a situation you know next to nothing about? How do you know "this particular act was not really beneficial or educational"? You don't. You just plain DO NOT. You're not asking for more information, you're just passing judgment. And that's why I'm dismissing your opinion, because it is ignorant and uninformed.

Maybe this demonstration at the very least taught them that some women LIKE to be "roughly penetrated by an uncommon, expensive toy". Who are you to judge the merits of that, since you're clearly uncomfortable with it yourself?

Northwestern student here. I still don't understand why this is a big deal.

What a lot of the story misses is that this class is in the psych department. Most people seem to think it was a sex ed class, but a big part of human sex is exploring and analyzing non-normative behavior (however normal it actually is to break the norms). This fit in pretty well.

@3: Whatever, Morty is awesome. His relationship with the students is way more solid and respectful than any previous president, and he's doing a lot for the future of the university. I think his public reaction to the fucksaw debacle was a sort of damage control; people are condemning the university for allowing the demonstration, so the administration has to deflect blame. Bailey gets thrown under the bus, but if it gets some uptight, midwestern parents (i.e. the parents of most NU undergrads) to let their kids come to Northwestern, then I think it was the right choice overall.

On the plus side, Bailey needed to be put under some more scrutiny anyway. Until this story came out and people were talking about him outside of the university, none of my undergraduate friends were aware of his sketchy research into MTF transsexuals and bisexual men.

Way to castigate me for assuming and then make a whole lot of assumptions yourself, Chase.

I'm basing my opinions from the articles I've read about it, the rebuttals made by people in support, and statements from people who were there. I don't know anything, but I have an opinion, just as you do. My being present or not being present doesn't prevent me from a discussion on the merits of the demonstration.

Why are you so hostile?

And am I not asking for more information? If you have it, do share. I would like to know the content of the post-discussion.

As for my non-existent discomfort with fucksaws, rough fucking, or public scenes, oh puh-leaze. I have seen and done things that make that look absolutely tame. Gleefully, orgasmicaly, and frequently.

And if what they learned is that some women like fucksaws, great. That is not, in my opinion, educational. What would be educational is, as I already stated, discussion on safe use of toys, negotiation skills, and after-care. If you care to actually read what I have written, rather than lose your cool because we disagree, you might get that I am absolutely pro-sex ed, supportive of kind education, live sex demonstrations and the like. I just don't think, based on the information I have read, that this was a good example of any of those.

*kink education. Ooops.

Secretagent (@18), discussing what would or wouldn't be educational needs supporting evidence. The things you mention are better as part of a workshop on how to do sex -- which I assume that class was not. As others have said, the very reactions to that presentation, showing the sex-negativity still frequent in American society, is educational.

Any of the topics you propose could also be claimed by some outraged citizen not to be 'educational'. 'That's not why I sent my daughter to college!' they'd roar.

Yes. And some study ancient Thai poetry. Others study Khoi-San languages. Others study a small parasite that lives inside a beetle in the Hindu Kush. Others study the irregularities in the cycle of a vaguely detectable pulsar in the smaller Magellanic cloud. And even do seminars about these topics. And you're telling me that studying fucksaw use, safety, the reasons of the people who are attracted to them, plus the feelings and interests of people who would be capable of using them in public and successfully -- you're really telling me you can see no interest whatsoever in that? None? Zero? Nada? Zilch?

Oh well. All you have to do is start your on course on sexuality. Who knows... I'm sure there are things Prof. Bailey also didn't include in his course because he thought they weren't "educational." I'm sure there would be a place for more syllabi on such a controversial topic.

@20, I'm fine with people "studying fucksaw use, safety, the reasons of the people who are attracted to them," but I fail to see the educational benefit in a live demonstration. And if it was essential and educational, why wasn't it mandatory? "Today we will be studying a small parasite that lives inside a beetle in the Hindu Kush, but you don't have to stay if you're offended."

I don't understand why people are getting their sex positive panties in a bunch just because they can't do whatever they want in a private university in a buttoned-up suburb where the residents absorb the property taxes for the very building where this act occurred. It's like living with your parents: you don't fuck on the dining room table.

They didn't fuck on the dining room table. They fucked in a private room containing only consenting adults, just like every other legal, "appropriate" sex act taking place in that town.

Bailey himself has a very astute assessment of the criticism leveled against him:

“Saying that the demonstration ‘crossed the line,’ ‘went too far,’ ‘was inappropriate,’ or ‘was troubling’ convey disapproval but do not illuminate reasoning. If I were grading the arguments I have seen against what occurred, most would earn an ‘F.’ Offense and anger are not arguments.”

I realize that they didn't fuck on the dining room table. But they did perform a sex act in a facility of a private institution that is basically paid for by the people in the town who are now being told they're sex negative for not being cool with this.

To Bailey, I would counter "Saying that the demonstration was educational" does not illuminate reasoning. I would grade him on his own scale. Plus I'd call him a major douche based on some of the other stuff I've read about his teaching style.

Ankylosaur - I really don't think that all reactions to this are sex-negative, though many of them are. Yes, you're right, my examples were more workshop-y. I was trying to come up with other live-sex demonstrations that I thought would be more valuable than this. I think the sex-negativity of our culture is amply, regularly demonstrated, as are examples of this kind of sex already widespread in porn. I don't think it was something new, just now live, and while I can appreciate the ability to talk to the performers, I still think it was mainly appealing to prurient interests. This opinion is compounded by what I've read about his research.

I think a good part of my annoyance stems from my knowledge that many people have inaccurate views of sexuality and orgasm, and don't possess a solid foundation of understanding from which to branch to this. I would hope that demonstrations or discussion of that would be paramount to, or at least previous to, this.

I also think that any kind of demonstration of kink needs to include a discussion of negotiation, safe practices, safe words and after-care. I think it is irresponsible not to. I don't know that they didn't - I'm just saying I hope they did. The fact that it was last-minute points to me that he didn't have a plan, or an intention to link to topics like that. There was no guide to the discussion. Free discussion in itself is valuable, but I think educators have a responsibility to have a point. To promote healthy sexuality, not just sex without context.

Much of my opinion on how it should be done is based off of the numerous sex ed classes, workshops and discussions I have personally attended. I'd never just show a play-piercing in an educational setting, as much as I enjoy it. I'd show and discuss the prep work, the medical information, the emotional and physical aftercare. Discuss implications, reasons behind such play, and potential downfalls. And also free discussion about it.

@23: It was a class paid for by private tuition. Did you read the article at the top? From a parent of one of the students in that class? From one of the people who was paying for the demonstration?

And it's a private institution, so I don't where you're getting the idea that it's paid for by property taxes (citation please), but even if it were, those imaginary taxpayers would also be paying for dormitories in which consenting adults would be engaging in all manner of sexual acts which these projections of your own mind might find offensive, and these would equally be None of Their Damn Business.

Across multiple threads, posts, and comments we've now heard from at least three people who know or have been students of the professor, none of whom has had any complaint about the matter. Until someone who was actually present for the demonstration gives a reason for why *they* thought it was inappropriate and thus gives us something to actually discuss, I'll kindly thank everyone else to butt out. Saying how *you* would have handled things in *your* class is fine. Saying how the professor "should" have handled things is nothing but sex-negative busybody bullshit.

And so it is written.

Why the fuck wasn't this class offered at my university? le sigh

@17, a totally fair point...and to be fair, I just missed Morty's tenure as an Eph. You'd be the better judge. (But for better or for worse, I just couldn't help biting into that juicy gossip & hypocrisy sandwich.)

@25: I think 23 might be an Evanston resident. They are notorious for hating on Northwestern for not paying property taxes because of a contract that was signed back when the university was founded. Never mind that every one of the 16,000+ grads and undergrads each pay $50,000 a year and that the university increases the property values and quality of life in Evanston, THEY DON'T PAY TAXES. What a bunch of freeloaders. Oh yeah, and also the upper-middle class nerds who go to Northwestern are clearly the rowdiest drunks ever.

@29: Hey, it's cool! I do think that is quite the juicy tidbit. I've never actually heard it before. Speaking as a hardcore NU supporter, we all think he just got a promotion. :P

Did you know that a group from Northwestern won Williams trivia last year and stole the contest? We have your president AND your trivia!

@30: As an Evanstonian, I tell you to get the fuck out.
We are perfectly aware of the business Northwestern's students bring in, not to mention the pretty architecture and parkland on campus, and nobody I know hates Northwestern over the property tax issue. Our city gets along just fine with the university.

@23 and 30, I don't own any property in Evanston. I'm just aware that they pay high property taxes to cover the University. I don't have a personal issue with that. My point is that I am not at all surprised that a lot of people think they should get some say in what goes on at Northwestern. Not saying I think they should govern what is taught or how it is taught or who teaches it. Just not surprised that they consider it to be their business, not surprised that people seem pissed that they're being told it's not their business.

This issue is exhausting because it's inspired a knee jerk reaction on either side of the debate. There's the "sex negative" banner where one group collects, screaming "OH MY GOD WHAT IS A FUCK SAW AND WHY DID MY GROWN UP BABY HAVE TO SEE THAT FILTH," and the "sex positive" group that's screaming "IT WAS CONSENSUAL SO FUCK OFF." I'm afraid I don't fit into either of those categories, though I've been swiftly filed into both in every place across the internet I've joined the debate. Then quickly told to shut up and sit down.

Based on the professor's background, I don't think his motives were to educate his students. Something about allowing this unscheduled sex act to occur in his classroom, something that was not part of his syllabus or lesson plan, then to be unable to back it up with an educational purpose, makes me uncomfortable. Pair that with what I've read about this professor, and I'm even more uncomfortable. I also remember being wildly supportive of some controversial professors I've had in the past, and now that I'm in my thirties, I wonder if it was well deserved support or blind faith.

Anyway, what's done is done. I just don't think it was done at the right place or the right time. I'm all for live sex acts in rooms filled with consenting adults. I'm even all for live sex acts on college campuses in rooms full of consenting students--as long as it's part of a curriculum, and the students and professor can at least verbalize the learning objective. I haven't heard that from either.

@31: While I know that many, if not most, Evanston residents get along well with the university, my experience has not been altogether positive, and I think for a lot of students, we let our negative experiences with some color our impression of Evanston as a whole. Maybe the property tax thing has been blown out of proportion, but we the students hear about it a lot as a source of town/gown tension. I've gotten several e-mails from the dean warning or reprimanding students over their relatively tame partying behavior, including one with an angry letter from an Evanston resident pasted in. And then there was the so-called "brothel law" controversy, which has riled up students and residents alike. Just this morning, a real estate agent was showing my house to a group of five or six boys, and my neighbor got out onto her front porch and started yelling at them.

@32: Northwestern doesn't pay property taxes. That doesn't give residents of Evanston the right to determine the curriculum.

And since you don't own property in Evanston, did not take the class, and were not present at the demonstration, and since everyone involved was a consenting adult and it cannot be shown that any harm was done, it really doesn't matter what you think - to borrow a legal term, you have no standing. In other words, it's absolutely none of your business what happened in there.