<p>Mtnmomma-</p>
<p>There is always the possibility of mental illness in anything, John Wayne Gacy used to perform for children as a clown, and was a pedophile and serial murderer of young boys…does that mean all clowns performing for children are pedophiles? Many otherwise mentally healthy people do over the top things and aren’t mentally ill per se…could the couple be mentally ill? Yeah, but I suspect the odds of that are about the same as it would be with anything.</p>
<p>There is such a thing as bad publicity… And this prof does not have a good track record with bad publicity. It is possible there can be serious fallout within the Psychology Dept at NU. This is from the Daily Northwestern:</p>
<p>ETHICS CHARGES: </p>
<p>Robin Mathy, who has published four books and more than 50 peer-reviewed articles on human sexuality, notified The Daily Thursday evening of her intentions to bring charges against both Bailey and NU’s psychology department. In an interview later Thursday, she alleged Bailey defied the governing body’s ethical guidelines by potentially exposing minors to a public sex act and knowingly inflicting psychological damage on students.</p>
<p>“I really predict this is going to result in the deaccreditation of the psychology department,” Mathy said. “The APA can’t just tolerate someone who engages in this prurient behavior.”</p>
<p>She added that Bailey’s public exhibition “speaks to a voyeuristic excitement” and is not a legitimate form of sexual education.</p>
<p>While Bailey is not an APA member, the psychology department is accredited by the APA and will be held accountable for the incident, Mathy said.</p>
<p>That’s not new news NYerr.</p>
<p>And, Mathy has gone this route before with Bailey back in 2008.</p>
<p>[</a>" + artTitle.replace(“-”,“”) + " - " + “The Daily Northwestern” + " - " + “Campus” + "](<a href=“http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/2.13894/debate-resumes-on-methods-of-psych-professor-s-research-1.1921649]”>http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/2.13894/debate-resumes-on-methods-of-psych-professor-s-research-1.1921649)</p>
<p>Yes, Mathy has gone this route before, and it seems this professor enjoys the controversy ( perhaps as much as the woman involved enjoys public sex). Didn’t see it posted here, but haven’t ready every single post, some are just too long winded. Perhaps if it just took me 3 minutes…</p>
<p>“in the case of this young lady there is probable cause to think she may have some psychological issues–The professor has a responsibility to ensure she doesn’t.”</p>
<p>I can’t agree with that. In an abnormal psychology class – to say nothing about psychiatry courses in medical school – it is standard operating procedure to have people with mental illnesses come to class and be interviewed, etc. Unless we’re talking about psychosis so severe that the speaker can’t understand what’s going on, adults with mental illness are morally and legally capable of consenting to reveal themselves before an audience. I’ve not only been a speaker in an abnormal psychology class, I’ve gone on the national news to talk about my mental illness. No one had a responsibility to protect me from my own decision-making on that front. I was an adult.</p>
<p>Maybe the professor was wrong to allow this demonstration. But if so, it wasn’t because the actors may have had mental illness. They’re still competent adults.</p>
<p>I haven’t read anything that suggests that the professor interviewed the participants afterwards to talk about the possible genesis of their fetish, their role in their community, etc. That would seem more germane to a psychology class than simply watching the demonstration with no analysis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are they then asked to perform a live sex act in front of the class?</p>
<p>Not one article or report on the NU incident has indicated that anyone asked the couple to demonstrate. The couple offered.</p>
<p>^^oops, Do they then “volunteer” to perform live sex acts?</p>
<p>Thanks for cleaning that one up 07!</p>
<p>No, but they might do things like engage in a dialogue with the voices in their head with everyone watching. In my case, I described being so terrified of harmless things that I was unable to leave my house, and being suicidal, and relying on psychiatric medication to be able to function, which I still do. I know plenty of people who’d rather release a sex tape than admit all of that to a room full of strangers.</p>
<p>You said that professor had a responsibility to determine if the presenters had any mental illness. Why? Because people with mental illness can’t make good judgments? Or because the vast majority of adults would find it deeply embarrassing and humiliating to be in a live sex show? The vast majority of adults would find what I did in front of a class deeply embarrassing and humiliating, too. (In fact, there are a lot more sexual exhibitionists in this world than there are people with mental illness willing to discuss their problems frankly.) But I was proud of what I did, and my judgment is the only one that matters. I think that’s true of these performers, too. I question the professor’s choice, but not theirs.</p>
<p>Come on Hanna–there is clearly a difference between what you did (which is truly educational for the students) vs the live sex act. I’ll bet you didn’t have to attempt suicide in front of the class in order for them to understand the pain you were in.</p>
<p>Not one article or report on the NU incident has indicated that anyone asked the couple to demonstrate. The couple offered.</p>
<p>So after the couple stated that they got their jollies by bringing themselves off in public- no one asked them to demonstrate, but they did it anyway?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Coprophilia (from Greek κόπρος, k</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve heard stories of men arriving in emergency rooms, needing to have hamsters extracted from one of their internal cavities. I’d be seriously tempted to attend a lecture/presentation that thoroughly explains how one manages to get the hamster in there in the first place. Sounds more dangerous than power tools!</p>
<p>^
Urban legend. Not true, I believe. Poor Richard Gere, the subject of a longstanding slanderous story on that subject 20 or 30 years ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My thoughts exactly, although you expressed them much better than I could have. I have found that these adults, usually, are people who never raised children, or who haven’t yet had the opportunity to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not urban legend. While I personally never directly took care of a patient with this affliction in the times I covered the ER, at least one person I worked alongside had direct experience with such a case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My lay understanding of a “paraphilia” is being aroused by factors considered non-standard by mainstream society.</p>
<p>Exhibitionism is listed in DSM-IV as a potential paraphilia. Since every account I have read stated that the women asked to be allowed to show the students what a “real” orgasm looked like, she does not outwardly present the distress of the inability to control the interest as having a negative impact on her. One article said that when asked she said she’d gladly do it again.</p>
<p>Someone asked: Where is the line? Society’s “lines” are constitutional laws. Each adult carries their personal line with them. If something legal is over their line, the adult leaves, shuts their eyes, doesn’t buy a ticket etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. But IMO, the standards of “what should a class at a leading university offer” aren’t just “what’s legal.” Watching paint dry is legal, too, but I’m not particularly interested in paying $50K/year to have that be a class activity. I think it’s reasonable to expect that there is reasonable pedagogical value in classes / class activities (otherwise, call them extracurriculars). Having the fetish-couple talk about their particular likes may have pedagogical value in the context of a human sexuality class. Having them perform / demonstrate doesn’t, IMO. So far, this class has been taught for nearly 20 years and there has been no need to demonstrate more “mainstream” sex practices, because the professor has accurately ascertained that there is no need to show a couple practicing “vanilla” sex acts in order to adequately teach the subject matter (any more than the anatomy teacher needs to have someone demonstrate urination in order to adequately teach the anatomy of the urinary tract).</p>
<p>“So where is the line Hanna?”</p>
<p>You are conflating two issues which I am keeping separate. One is whether a sex show is appropriate or educational in an undergrad psychology class. I say generally, no.</p>
<p>The second issue is whether professors hosting in-class demonstrations have an obligation, as you claimed, to investigate whether the performers have any mental illness. The only reason there would be such an obligation is because people with mental illness can’t be trusted to make such decisions on their own behalf. That, I say, is bunk. And it’s equally bunk whether the person with mental illness is describing her panic attacks or putting on a sex show.</p>