<p>Romanigypsyeyes… All I’m saying is that it wasn’t a necessary thing. If you read the article, it said that this demonstration wasn’t even supposed to happen. It was just a Q&A session with people with fetishes, so these kids didn’t even know what they were getting into.</p>
<p>It’s just stupid. Saying it’s all about learning doesn’t make it any less stupid. If that excuse works, then you could make anything seem academically rigorous instead of stupid. “Yeah, we held a booger-eating contest in our snot class, it was all in the interest of science.”</p>
<p>I bet there were a lot of hands in pockets during that demonstration!</p>
<p>The performer wanted to put on a show. The people voluntarily stayed to watch it. I don’t even know why there’s any discussion on this at all.</p>
<p>LAW </p>
<p>end of discussion</p>
<p>Come on guys. It was optional. I don’t see the big deal. It probably won’t happen again anyway.</p>
<p>I think it sounds a little unnecessary and maybe it was a little bit out of line, but in the end the students knew what they were getting into…</p>
<p>But it’s not an issue of whether it was being forced on anybody or whether it involves consenting adults. The question is: was this academically appropriate or valuable? I think it definitely wasn’t. Charlie Sheen is welcome to be a nut case, but I’m free to say whether or not I think it’s good for him to be a nut case.</p>
<p>I don’t see the big deal. So yeah, some people found it squeamish/morally objectionable. So? Why are people trying to force their righteous morals on what others <em>should</em> or <em>should not</em> do? It’s their time and their money.</p>
<p>
Yes…Exactly!!</p>
<p>I’m just surprised that they paid this guy. I mean having sex (or using a sex toy) with your fiance isn’t exactly in any job description I’ve heard.</p>