<p>Northwestern’s not the only school that has a Dance Marathon…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you seriously not believe there’s a moral taboo against sex?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but it’s one of the largest student-run philanthropies in the country and it’s a pretty strong tradition for the school, much like the Rock and other NU-specific traditions. FAP is just trying to turn the conversation towards more positive elements.</p>
<p>I feel that I have commented enough about this incident. However, I just wanted to note that when I saw the thread title, I thought this was something else entirely… Conjured up graphic incidents from my middle and high schools. So in a way, this wasn’t as bad as I expected. Or was it? Hm…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, though this may not be the best thread for that acronym.</p>
<p>Or maybe it is :/</p>
<p>I am FindAPlace and have been living with the acronym. I didn’t know when I chose the screen name that people on the Parents Forum often abbreviate the names, nor did I know what FAP meant until I looked it up. It’s no big deal since it’s only a screen name and not my IRL initials.</p>
<p>In any event, I think Northwestern is going to get a lot more positive and lucrative mileage from such esteemed faculty as this year’s Nobel Prize Winner in Economics, Prof. Dale Mortenson.</p>
<p>Of course NU isn’t the only school with a Dance Marathon, although this is one the longest running and most consistently successful events of this kind. I loved Morty Schapiro’s appearance today at the marathon, when he said this is the Northwestern of which everyone is proud, and noted how inspired he is by NU students. Me too! One hour to go! <a href=“http://www.nudm.org%5B/url%5D”>www.nudm.org</a> for live video.</p>
<p>I do have to point out that fraternities have been ejected from the NU campus for offenses far less than this one. It would be interesting to discuss (in a general basis, not specific to NU) what the faculty can do versus what the students can do. For example, could a human sexuality professor invite a stripper to talk (OK, that seems appropriate) … invite her to demonstrate a dance? When a fraternity does so, that’s a no-no.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure there must be some people who are morally opposed to sex, but certainly they will die out within one generation if they hold true to their moral beliefs.</p>
<p>To the contrary, our current mainstream culture is all about having sex. I’d think you have to be living under a rock (or trying to come up with a weak excuse to stage a live sex show) to think otherwise.</p>
<p>For those intereseted in reading a little more on Dance Marathon right here on CC, check out post #532 in the Parent Cafe in “The Bragging Thread”. It’s impressive.</p>
<p>Next year they will get really serious about raising money:</p>
<p>“Come One, Come All
Northwestern’s First Annual
Orgasm Marathon”</p>
<p>Here’s the context:
The after-class events are totally optional and perhaps even meant to be funny and casual. The fact that many students have another class right after this one and therefore will never be able to stay shows that the after-class events are not necessarily meant to be extension of the original classes. Students apparently love these “bonuses” and it’s funny how people outside have such negative reaction. If I were in that class, I would probably attend; I didn’t know that toy before! 
That should answer those that question the pedegogical value of them.</p>
<p>There are still moral taboos with sexuality and I think without meaning to Bay illustrated that, when they said that moral objections to sexuality would lead to them dying out. That is basically the old standard, that sex is about procreation alone, that somehow sex for what it brings is wrong, that it always has to be about procreation, and that is the a moral taboo, and a big one that still undergirds a lot of what goes on. The RC’s ban on artificial birth control stems from this, that ultimately a sex act has to lead to procreation, and that leads to a variety of sexual situations, including sex before marriage, still having a strong taboo component to it. </p>
<p>And actually, I think that the fact that sex has been so oversold, where it is used to sell everything from beer to cars to whatever, or is so prevalent, is a sign of those taboos. Why? Because those kinds of images are not sex, they are effective because taboos when used in such a way make you remember something. If sex was no big deal, if someone is truly comfortable with sexuality, then using sex to sell wouldn’t be very effective (an analogy to what I am driving at is we tend to remember obnoxious ads more then any others). The way sex is used in everything from videos to commercials and so forth is at a childish level, it is like a group of pre-pubescent boys who have gotten a hold of someone’s playboy and ooh’ing and aahing, primarily because it is taboo. </p>
<p>The moral taboos against sexuality underline a lot of the hangups people have. One of the reasons people cheat in marriages is because of not getting their needs met sexually, they are afraid to talk about trying different things because they are afraid of the spouse’s reaction to it…interviews with sex workers will tell you that a lot of the men (and the occasional women) come to them because it is a place they can have those needs fulfilled. Other then money issues, one of the biggest issues marital counselors tend to see are about sexual issues, and sexual self help books wouldn’t be such big sellers if people were a lot more self confidence about the range of sexuality. </p>
<p>And my feeling is that though ‘sex is out there’, it is cheap and screwed up the way it is because sex still holds too many taboos, the sexualization of things to me is the underlying conflicts and taboos forcing something out sideways. It is only within the last generation or two that many religious groups have figured out that sex is not just about procreation, that it is something basic to a couple having a meaningful relationship. As I pointed out in another post, we wouldn’t have a 60% adultery rate I suspect if people were more comfortable talking about their needs and desires. </p>
<p>And because of those taboos, people often find themselves on the wrong end of the law. Some prosecutors believe that S/M is illegal, because the submissive can never consent, and people can lose children and jobs because the local law enforcement and legal system decides it isn’t ‘moral’, even though there is no evidence otherwise of unfitness. When states can ban the possession and sale of sex toys, that tells you there most certainly is taboos out there, hangups, whatever. </p>
<p>As I noted before, I don’t think the way this was done was particularly smart or necessary, it struck me as exhibitionism rather then informative. On the other hand, there needs to be attempts at educating people about sexuality so they can make decisions for themselves and get what they need…ironically, rather then destroying marriages, that would probably make them stronger.</p>
<p>I totally disagree that mainstream America still looks at sex outside of procreation as taboo. I also disagree that sex sells because of “taboos.” Sex sells because people like sex (and a good bargain and humor and beautiful people). Of course people should be educated about sex, just as they should be educated about their digestive system. But fart in my direction while I’m enjoying a meal and I will call you a disgusting pig. There is an appropriate time and place for everything.</p>
<p>Bay, I don’t disagree with non consensual viewing of others having sex, most ‘sexually liberated’ people would probably agree, but that was not my point (I was clear I thought this demonstration was idiotic). I was supporting the idea that classes in sexual education need to be done,for the very reasons that too many taboos exist and they do cause harm. If you don’t believe taboos exist, then explain to me how I believe 7 or 8 states have banned the sale of sex toys, or until the supreme court threw them out states had laws on the books banning certain forms of sexuality, gay and straight (you could be arrested for having oral sex with your spouse in your own bedroom, if the law had proof of you doing it)? Or that 60% of married people cheat (and even if that is too high, it is certainly probably near 50%), or why prostitutes do business with married people. Frankly, I agree with the moralists in one sense, that sex has been cheapened, though I don’t buy the idea of sex before marriage is wrong (I think sex only in marriage is more of s problem, but that is a different story). My point wasn’t that putting sex out in people’s faces was a way to break taboos, my point simply is that, in answer to some other responses like people should learn sex the old fashioned way or that college kids have enough sex, we need to have education, which I think bailey’s class didn’t do with the live demonstration, I thought it did the opposite, made it into a spectacle (and also gave ammunition to the neo puritans out there, the religious right and so forth, to try and shut down classes like this). </p>
<p>The fact that we have passing as sex education “abstinence only” tells you a lot as well, it tells you many people still cannot deal with sexuality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sex is a lot more like eating than like farting. The social taboo against having sex in public is as arbitrary as having a taboo about eating in public. It is just that we have long accepted public eating but not public sex. </p>
<p>I am not complaining. I’m just pointing out that social rules are arbitrary. I’m not convinced that there is anything inherently disgusting about public sex (or public farting). And I don’t think society would collapse if everyone suddenly agreed that it was okay to fart or have sex in public.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To me, it’s all about whether your bodily fluids are going back in you, or coming out of you.</p>
<p>Do not eject bodily fluids in my space, please. (Or bodily gasses.)</p>
<p>Sex and eating are always going to be big advertisers because, well, that’s survival and evolution right there. So long as you’re eating and having sex and looking good (sign of health), you’re on the right track, evolutionarily speaking. So I disagree that it’s a sign of a taboo that people are obsessed with it. They are obsessed with it because Life Itself is constantly whispering in their ears, “morebabiesmorebabiesmorebabiesmorebabies”.</p>
<p>I do think that we would have some public health issues if suddenly public defecation, urination, and ejaculation became the norm. Not to mention spitting, which some people actually do. (Please, people. Stop. It’s so gross.) Though society might not collapse… well actually, given what we’re currently paying for health care, any additional strain might just do it in.</p>
<p>I do think there’s something about the sexual relationship that is private. However, I will grant that that is in fact an arbitrary, cultural thing.</p>
<p>farting in public is sometimes unavoidable however hard one tries (not that I have ever done such a thing - cough). </p>
<p>This thread is making me begin to think I am a closet conservative. Which is almost as horrifying to me as the thread itself. (I know, I keep looking - like the proverbial train wreck rubbernecker)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just FYI, normal urine and ejaculate are sterile fluids. </p>
<p>Well, at least ‘sterile’ as in ‘no bugs’. Not ‘sterile’ as in infertile, of course :).</p>
<p>I would be opposed to public defecation, for public health reasons.</p>
<p>Urine is sterile if it comes out of a perfectly sterile orifice, but how often does that happen? In women, any fluid is likely to come into contact with the anus, or at least part of it, before ending up wherever it does.</p>
<p>Plus, urine is not perfectly sterile in all people, nor ejaculate. If she’s ejaculating through a catheter, fine.</p>
<p>Re: farting: I would think that farting in public is a lot harder to avoid than, oh, having sex with a power tool in public. Wouldn’t you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reason for teaching abstinence is because it is the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy. Sex with a power tool would therefore not violate the purpose of the “abstinence only” rule.</p>