Sex in Class !!!!!!! Nooooooo!!!!!

<p>“This idea keeps popping up on this thread, i.e., that our society is closed-minded about sex. I feel, and have always felt, quite the opposite - that no one really cares what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes”</p>

<p>Bay, I wish that was true, people love to portray themselves as libertarian and not caring, and I wish that was true across the board. Yes, if you happen to live in certain parts of this country, it probably isn’t a problem,but that is not universally true, I wish it was. Want some examples of things that happen?</p>

<p>-Parents can and have kids taken away from them because the couple was into alternate sexual practices, usually S/m, simply because evidence came out that the couple was involved, and they often have a battle getting the kids back, lose jobs and so forth, and this doesn’t just happen in the bible belt. There was a case here in NYC where a grad student was arrested for s/m sex and the head of the sex crimes unit prosecuted, even though there was strong evidence the bottom consented, primarily because she had the idea that S/m was inherently illegal because no one could consent to that kind of activity (and the schmuck judge agreed, he suppressed the e-mail evidence as irrelevent, fortunately an appeal panel found he had screwed up, and the da’s office refused to reprosecute, saying there was no evidence it was abuse)</p>

<p>-Crossdressers have lost jobs because of their private activity, and the courts generally rule it is okay to fire someone for that.</p>

<p>-In 35 states someone can be fired for being gay or denied equal rights.</p>

<p>-Congress and dear old billy bob put into law a measure called DOMA, that basically said it didn’t matter what states said, the federal government refused to recognize same sex marriages or give any rights to same sex couples</p>

<p>-In about 8 states it is illegal to sell or purchase sex toys in the state</p>

<p>-Up util not many years ago, states had sodomy laws that basically made illegal any form of sex other then ‘traditional sex’, and people could be charged under this, though not surprisingly it was generally used against gays. The Supreme Court invalidated this (though the 4 uber conservative judges said that society had the right to define with law moral behavior, even if it happened in people’s bedrooms…sound like ‘live and let live’ that a supreme court justice could argue this?) And many in the GOP are pushing to try and get the supreme court decision overturned, and some of the usual suspect states are trying to get sodomy laws back on the books and then challenge it in court…</p>

<p>-Books that feature gay characters or anything other then ‘traditional’ values are some of the most banned books in libraries.</p>

<p>-Then of course we had the famouse Janet Jackson superbowl fiasco, that ended up with a huge fine for CBS by the FCC because some uptight types complained. In a society without the sex hangup, it is doubtful that anyone would care (and most didn’t, I will grant you that).</p>

<p>-Women who breastfeed still face tremendous issues when doing so in public, they get all kinds of complaints, people call it inappropriate, etc, and usually they say it is because it is indecent. Why? A women’s breast was meant to feed a baby, after all, and if a woman is using it in that context it is about a function, a very beautiful one, but because so many equate breast=sexual attraction, etc, they are uncomfortable about it (whereas in scandinavia, for example, where attitudes about sex are more relaxed, people would laugh at us).</p>

<p>While I don’t think Bailey’s stunt was a good thing or educational (it wasn’t IMO), I also think there is a valid point about sex in this country, when you have forces out there the way we do that want to turn back the clock, and others who let them do it, there is definitely a puritanical streak in this country, despite all the sexual images, and everything else, we still are squeamish about it, in a live and let live society things I mention above wouldn’t happen (worse, many of the same people stamping out ‘indecent’ sexuality support things like young girl beauty pageants, go figure). We have sexual images all over the place, granted, but do we really talk about sex, understand it, think it is no big deal? For many people, I would say no (again, not because of Bailey, but because of the way things happen here).</p>

<p>Musicprnt, I do believe a lot of what you have claimed is heavily based on where you live (and I am glad I don’t live in one of them!). I also believe you have many valid points.</p>

<p>Now, how about all those people who are so uptight about sex–I am sure having a live demonstration of a man penetrating a woman with a ****-saw is going to add fuel to their fire! I don’t think it is going to help those kinds of people to be more accepting of alternative lifestyles.</p>

<p>Hanna: Excellent point. I can’t argue good logic. You’re right. </p>

<p>musicprnt: Bravo. I’m with you on absolutely everything you wrote.</p>

<p>I’ve decided my reasons for being soooo upset with what Bailey did is because of sexism. For centuries, women have been oppressed and sexually taken advantage of (and it is still happening to some degree here but in some other countries even moreso). Additionally, I think the show could be described as titillating to (many of )the men watching and embarrassing to the women. IMHO. I have seen facebook postings about this from friends of my son, and believe me, it wasn’t about the “education” they received that day!! </p>

<p>I think it’s no coincidence that the one live sex act was of this nature.</p>

<p>Mtnmomma-</p>

<p>It does matter where you live, of course, if you are in a sex negative place like the bible belt it is going to be a lot more oppressive in general then let’s say Chicago or the Bay area or NYC, etc. Austin Texas is very different then College Station, Texas, and so forth. Though even ‘liberal’ areas have their problems, there have been incidents in the NY area with issues like these, including some poor woman breastfeeding. an S/m group had a convention in a big hotel in St. Louis (they basically took over the whole place) several years ago, and religious right groups got the local police chief to basically shut the event down, even though it was a private event, and St. Louis is pretty cosmopolitan. </p>

<p>I also agree with you about Bailey, he is a swine, and I felt it was ridiculous, and you are right, it doesn’t help matters. I don’t think allowing them to do what they did helped anyone, and quite frankly to me it was the couple using the audience in a non consenting matter for their own enjoyment and I don’t agree with that, plus I don’t think it was needed.</p>

<p>d101-</p>

<p>I sort of understand where you are coming from, in effect what bailey did IMO was in a sense use the women’s exhibitionism to get his own jollies, in that sense I kind of agree. I don’t think the woman was forced to do this, I think that something like this is what she and her husband are into, but I think Bailey allowed it because he got his own twisted jollies from watching it.</p>

<p>glido-
The guy in question wasn’t paid as far as I know, usually with those classes the people appearing are volunteer outreach types.</p>

<p>“When one man pays another man to penetrate a woman with a powertool - that is sexist.”</p>

<p>Also racist…once you go Black and Decker…</p>

<p>To set some facts straight:</p>

<p>The couple involved was … a couple. Apparently engaged. They were not paid. This was not planned in advance by the prof. From The Daily Northwestern’s quoting of Bailey’s comments on the event:</p>

<p>“I recruited Ken MelvoinJBerg (Ken MB henceforth) because past speakers covering similar topics had not been very interesting—they had merely given powerpoint presentations, of which students get too many already. They were also unwilling to answer questions about their sex lives, which defeated the purpose of that particular presentation. I had met Ken and believe he is articulate, open, knowledgeable, entertaining, and yes, kinky. Sexual diversity is surely a reasonable thing to address in a human sexuality class. I certainly had no hesitation inviting Ken MB, and I asked him whether he could recruit others, as well, to give the presentation. (I especially thought it would be useful to have a woman as well as a man.)”</p>

<p>“On the afternoon of February 21st Ken MB and colleagues arrived while I was finishing my lecture, on sexual arousal. I was talking about the female gJspot and the phenomenon of female ejaculation, both of which are scientifically controversial. I finished the lecture and invited the guests onstage. On the way, Ken asked me whether it would be ok if one of the women with him demonstrated female ejaculation using equipment they had brought with them. I hesitated only briefly before saying “yes.” My hesitation concerned the likelihood that many people would find this inappropriate. My decision to say “yes” reflected my inability to come up with a legitimate reason why students should not be able to watch such a demonstration. After all, those still there had stayed for an optional demonstration/lecture about kinky sex and were told explicitly what they were about to see. The demonstration, which included a woman who enjoyed providing a sexually explicit demonstration using a machine, surely counts as kinky, and hence as relevant. Furthermore, earlier that day in my lecture I had talked about the attempts to silence sex research, and how this largely reflected sex negativity. I have had previous experiences with these silencing attempts myself. I did not wish, and I do not wish, to surrender to sex negativity and fear.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I just recently read this–apparently it was just about educating the students and helping them to be more successful in the real world.</p>

<p>

[quote]
This thread is sooo much more risqu</p>

<p>Because believe it or not most parents were doing it long before you were born. Many lived through the crazy 60’s and the sex revolution 70’s. We understood Ice Storm.</p>