<p>It’s hard for me to be objective about anything Prof. Bailey says or does. I do find it sad, though, that this peculiar demonstration seems to evoked 100 times as much outrage as his long and repulsive history of promoting pseudo-scientific stereotypes about gay men and lesbians, and pathologizing trans people based on similarly nonsensical theories. And denying that bisexuality exists. All in a manner that’s clearly and deliberately intended to offend LGBT people and thereby get publicity for himself. He is a creepy human being and a self-important bigot who has done an enormous amount of harm to vulnerable communities (not just my opinion but that of many others), not to mention filling the heads of ignorant college students with ridiculous misinformation. And never mind all the alleged misconduct (supposedly sleeping with a couple of the trans “research subjects” he then proceeded to vilify in his book), as a result of which the only thing that happened to him was losing his department chairmanship. It was his presence at Northwestern (together with their Holocaust-denying professor) that made me extremely glad that my son decided not to apply there three years ago. I would have been apoplectic. </p>
<p>By comparison, this was (relatively) insignificant.</p>
<p>Bay-
Abstinence is the 100% only way to protect from getting pregnant if it is vaginal sex, if pregnancy was the issue then they could promote in theory other kinds of sex,since those don’t lead to pregnancy either.</p>
<p>But the agenda on abstinence only has little to do with pregnancy and everything about promoting an anti sex agenda until they get married. Those who promote abstinence only are very sex negative, they promote the idea, for example, that if you teach courses on sex that it encourages people to have sex before marriage, and in the course they also teach ‘facts’ like condoms break 50% of the time, aren’t effective in preventing STD’s (they are), it is basically religious morality taught as public policy…and the results tell the story, abstinence only is a failure. Texas, whose sexual education is totally abstinence only, has the third highest rate of teen pregnancy and the 1st highest rate of multiple pregnancies, for example. The kids who are in abstinence only programs end up having sex as teens at the same rate, if delayed a bit, and often end up doing things that are both ridiculous and dangerous, like not using birth control of any kind, or having anal or oral sex because that isn’t really ‘sex’, all of which would make a sex educator cringe. Most sex educators promote abstinence plus, they encourage the kids to remain celibate, but also teach them about the reality of std’s and pregnancy and birth control so if they do have sex, they know what they are facing. Kids having anal sex are putting themselves in harms way, and oral sex has its own problems, and doing those to ‘keep pure’ without using protection is like playing russian roulette with 3 bullets in the gun. </p>
<p>The reason people promote fallacies like Abstinence only sex ed for teenagers is because they themselves view sex with all kinds of issues, if they were more knowledgeable about sex and sexuality, they would realize why abstinence only isn’t going to work (hint, sexuality is not like not eating a dove bar, the pull is a lot more).</p>
<p>Sopranomom, there was an article at Jezebel a couple of days ago about Bailey’s history; I’m sure you could easily find it.</p>
<p>These two trans-oriented websites have extensive coverage of the various Bailey controversies (in more detail than anyone could possibly ever want!), with many links:</p>
<p>It’s really not that complicated…some dimwit professor Oks a demonstration where a lady has an orgasm by use of a power tool sex toy, and actually has a fetish for having sex in public. This is wrong…period. Doesn’t matter that it was after class or optional. A total lack of judgment…and really quite pointless. The guy should be fired IMO…but of course, that is unfortunately not possible. As usual, the CC crowd will spin this every way possible when a simple “it was wrong” is all that is needed.</p>
<p>It’s actually amusing what some professors can and will do in the name of “education”.</p>
<p>^ I don’t know…I read a lot of it may have been wrong, or he lacked good judgment…or no big deal because it was after class, ect. I say, what he did was wrong…period.</p>
<p>An earlier poster recommended googling “reciprocating saw injuries”. I did and found a story of a Maryland couple’s accident: attaching a plastic phallus to a saw. The blade cut through the toy and severly injured the woman. She was airlifted to a medical center for treatment. So, I see a new educational component to this prof’s demonstration. The students have some creative ne ideas to try. Ideas that may kill them or their partners.</p>
<p>If what DonnaL said is correct, then I am leaning closer to the argument that Bailey may have intentionally manipulated the situation to turn it into a publicity stunt. If that is the case, then he really is an embarassment to NU. I have no problem with professors who have extreme views, as long as they are transparent about their views and motives and maintain integrity as an instructor. </p>
<p>Does anyone know if NU’s faculty senate has weighed in on this matter?</p>
<p>Where is the contradiction? He lacked good judgment. What he did was wrong…period. </p>
<p>How big a deal is the point of debate here. You could think it was wrong like speeding is wrong. Or you could think it was wrong like a fatal hit-and-run is wrong.</p>
<p>I think it was somewhere in between, but frankly I don’t think it merits the publicity it received…or the attention it has received here on CC. But of course, as pointed out, sex sells. People like to click on a thread with a title like “Sex in class!!!”.</p>
<p>“Does anyone know if NU’s faculty senate has weighed in on this matter?”</p>
<p>They’re all taking personal days to retrofit mixmasters, tire pumps, electric fans, hair dryers, radio-controlled airplanes, mopeds, electric shavers, and anything else they can find with moving parts.</p>
<p>… truth be told, schmaltz, I was trying to think of a play on the “weighed in” line in post 249 when I got to your post #252. I find it interesting that the thread started about this in the NU forum are much more… um… demure (for lack of a better word).</p>
<p>Declared with a certain and unwavering religious fervor, not unlike that of religious leaders in some parts of the world that condemn women to death by stoning for their “wrong” deeds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would seem to me that the trans community is even more out of sync with mainstream America than this controversial professor.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s a matter of offending the people attending that is the issue. It’s a matter of using school floorspace, furniture, electricity, lighting, and towels in a manner that is wasteful, superfluous, and ridiculous…who among them did not have first-hand (ahem) experience with an orgasm? You don’t see faculty at Wisconsin wasting resources on beer-drinking classes, do you? Or the profs at Yale keeping students late to go over the finer points of being pretentious?</p>
<p>If the demo did not violate any laws, then it really does not matter to me if a private enterprise wants to sponsor live sex acts on its campus. I think what upsets people is that NU’s doing so degrades the esteem we wish to hold about our country’s finest universities, which we like to think are bastions of intellectualism and higher learning. So far, I haven’t read anything that rationalizes the intellectual value of the live demo, only comments like, “well I learned something new, so it must be worth teaching at NU.” That is dumb.</p>