<p>Although I don’t agree with what happened. Especially the professor’s response. I really think it’s a big deal about nothing. The kids were warned and had a chance to leave if they felt uncomfortable. </p>
<p>And many campuses in the U.S. have “sex week” where lectures and demonstrations are given throughout the classrooms on campus. Yale is famous for theirs. But I know Northeastern has one as well as others. I believe there’s been chatter about the sex weeks on CC before.</p>
<p>Shouldn’t a university have some standards of intellectual appropriateness for college-level instruction? What exactly was being “taught” by this demonstration?</p>
<p>I took Human Sexuality in the 70s, and we watched a film of a woman and man reaching orgasm in a clinical setting - no faces shown, heart monitors attached, camera inside a glass tube placed in the woman’s vagina, a hand that entered the frame and measured the man’s p*nis enlargement, etc. It was all very clinical and informative. Watching live sex acts seems anti-intellectual and inappropriate for a college setting.</p>
<p>There are lots of useful things to know that are not taught in the college setting, like how to repair your toilet. Why would academia deem it important for students to know how to properly use a dildo, but not a toilet plunger?</p>
<p>^great post, I completely agree. The article seemed to imply that the couple thought the video that was shown was silly and wanted to provide better “infomation” to the students by way of a live demonstration. But without the types of scientific measuring equipment in place as was present in the film you watched, how on earth did she PROVE she had an orgasm? Think Meg Ryan…</p>
<p>Well, I’ve been curious about this since news broke, as my S is a freshman at Northwestern. We Skype every Thursday, so I’ll get his perspective on it this evening, as I’m certain it’s caused a buzz around campus.</p>
<p>I read the professor’s statement, and I think others here should do the same. His explanation of what was supposed to be demonstrated by the demonstration is something that 1) hasn’t been mentioned by any witnesses, or by any other news story, and 2) is something that is, uhm, not necessarily observable in a large group setting. His statement also reeks of scorn for those who don’t see things his way. </p>
<p>At least one response in the Northwestern paper asks how we know for sure that the woman was a willing participant, and asks how the professor ensured her safety and consent in the demonstration. The letter writer also points out that the male speaker was paid, but that we don’t know if any of the women he brought with were compensated.</p>
<p>I dont know how “willing” this woman could be if she was not told ahead of time. This is abusive, no two ways about it. That he didnt tell her, or stop it, is outrageous. It is not right to take advantage of women.</p>
<p>^So because the demonstrator was a woman with a male partner, that makes her incapable of giving spontaneous informed consent? She must be “told ahead of time” to be considered “willing”?</p>
<p>Yes I think in this context I would not consider her willing. I would not consider it rape per se, but I would want this guy fired. It wasnt right.</p>
<p>Faith Kroll, the woman who stripped, was laying down on a towel when she was penetrated. When she arrived, she thought she just would be answering students’ questions and showing off sex toys they brought, including whips, paddles and a clown wig.</p>
<p>An “absurd, clinical” video and subsequent discussion about various aspects of female orgasm led Faith and her partner Jim Marcus, 45, to prove to the class that female orgasm is real.</p>
<p>Faith said she was not coerced in any way and students were repeatedly warned it was going to get graphic.</p>
<p>“One of the students asked what my specific fetish was and mine is being in front of people, having the attention and being used,” she said. “The students seemed really intrigued.”</p>
<p>I don’t know if all live sex shows are illegal. </p>
<p>If I invite a few friends over to my house to watch me have sex, is that illegal? I doubt it. </p>
<p>If I invite a few friends over to my house and charge them $20 each to watch me have sex, is that illegal? I suspect it is, but I’m not sure. </p>
<p>A volunteer (paid or unpaid) allows medical students to practice pelvic exams as part of medical training- I’m pretty sure that is legal. </p>
<p>If a volunteer (paid or unpaid) allows medical students to observe her have sex with a partner, is that illegal? What if they are college students in a class of sexuality?</p>
<p>I don’t know. I wish someone with legal knowledge could clarify this.</p>
<p>Watching live sex acts seems anti-intellectual and inappropriate for a college setting.</p>
<p>What happened was the instructor provided an avenue for the couple to indulge their fetish- in a way that was more stimulating to them than if they had simply joined a sex club.
Disgusting & not appropriate.</p>
<p>Ordinary, yes, Monty Python had a sketch like that in the movie “The meaning of life”, where John Cleese is the headmaster of a boy’s school and has sex with his wife in a ‘sex ed’ class…what made it funny was he was clinically describing what he was doing <em>lol</em>.</p>
<p>I don’t think this was illegal, first of all, the age of sexual consent varies, but with adult scenes the minimum age is generally 18. Many adult businesses have 21 or over, but many of them serve alchohol and don’t want the bother, or don’t want to have to try and determine if a kid is 17 or 18…and since this was part of a class, it is unlikely that you could charge someone for this. </p>
<p>It sounds like the woman in the class and her partner are a couple into bd/sm or d/s (dominance and submission), and she gets a thrill out of having sex in front of a crowd while being told to do it, there is nothing abusive about it if she consents and despite what people think, in those kinds of relationships the ‘sub’ has the right to opt out of something they don’t want to do or can’t do, it is one of the safety rules people into that follow. One of the problems bd/sm people run into is that there are ideologically based ideas about it, that someone can’t consent to this, it has to be abuse, and so forth, and it is because they don’t understand or want to understand. One of the reasons for classes on such things is to help people understand that even if they aren’t into it, things they aren’t into aren’t necessarily ‘bad’. One of the things a university is supposed to do is open kids up to different things, to understanding what they don’t know about. </p>
<p>That said, I am not sure I think having live sex like that was a great thing to do in a class, I think it is a bit over the line, for a number of reasons. I understand it was spontaneous but I think that one is a bit too much, there are ways to do such things without going that far. I don’t think it is that big a deal, it isn’t like this was done in a class where kids were forced to participate, or it was done in the commons or something like that. What worries me about this is that the morality police, who are so intent in trying to put discussions of sex and sexuality back to where it once was (i.e half truths whispered between people, lies accepted as fact) will use this to prove that everything has gone to hell in a handbasket. I am not surprised Bailley didn’t think of that, he strikes me as being someone whose sense of boundaries and such seemed to have drifted off from what I have read about him.</p>
<p>At least the president of NU has had sense enough to speak out against it. What surprizes me is that parents paying over 50,000 in tuition have not reported it to the police department. They still have no formal complaints. Guess the president wants to keep his job though.</p>
<p>What made the Monty Python skit funny was that the class of teenaged boys were utterly bored by the demonstration. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, but that doesn’t mean that the only route is live demonstrations. I’m still waiting to hear what, exactly, was the educational point of the demo. I’ve heard that it was memorable (well, duh! ) and that the students were very interested (double duh ). What did they get out of this educationally? It still sounds to me like the motivation was the demonstrators using the audience for their own pleasure.</p>
<p>Wonder if this will help their admissions ratings and yield??</p>
<p>As for Dr. Laura (ick- and whose degree is in physiology, so I hope her class was in the appropriate department), why didn’t she simply post her own nude/topless photos? They are all over the web aready anyway…</p>
) and that the students were very interested (double duh