“It is Probably Something I Will Remember the Rest of My Life;” Updates On the Northwestern University Sex Show Story
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
That is a quote from an AP article discussing the ongoing controversy I mentioned yesterday about a sex show conducted after class at Northwestern university. The funny thing is I am not sure if he means that in a positive or negative way:
“It is probably something I will remember the rest of my life,” said senior Justin Smith, 21, one of the students who stuck around voluntarily after class when students were told about what they were about to see.
“I can’t say that about my Econ 202 class and the material that I learned there,” Smith told The Chicago Tribune.
Nonetheless, I believed there was enough happening in this story to justify an update of my post yesterday. First, at one point as this controversy started to catch fire, one person from Northwestern University defended this conduct as follows:
“Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines,” said Alan K. Cubbage, vice president for University Relations. “The University supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge.”
But apparently the University President feels differently. The AP wrote, for instance:
Northwestern University president Morton Schapiro said he was “troubled and disappointed” Thursday after news surfaced that a professor concluded a discussion of bondage and other sexual fetishes in his human sexuality class by having a woman take off all her clothes, climb on stage and graphically demonstrate the use of a sex toy, the school has acknowledged.
In response, Shapiro said in a statement that there would be a “full investigation” into wrongdoing on the part of psychology professor John Michael Bailey. Although the incident took place during an optional session, “I feel it represented extremely poor judgment on the part of our faculty member.”
“I simply do not believe this was appropriate, necessary, or in keeping with Northwestern University’s academic mission,” Schapiro said. “Many members of the Northwestern community are disturbed by what took place on our campus. So am I.”
This is all apparently taken from his official statement, which you can read here.
Now, yesterday, I wrote following: “I myself have to say that 1) if there is informed consent before this happens, and 2) none of the University’s money is going to this, I don’t think I would care even if I had a child enrolled in that school.” Well, it turns out that the second part of that may have been violated. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that:
Ken Melvoin-Berg, who narrated the after-class lecture[,]…. said the school paid him between $300 to $500 for his appearance.
On the other hand this Tribune report seems to contradict that:
The university provides Bailey with extra funds to pay for costs associated with the after-class activities. Ken Melvoin-Berg, a speaker on kinky sex who brought the couple to class, said he expected to get paid $300 to $500. The couple who demonstrated the device were not paid, Melvoin-Berg said.
Of course there is an important reason why Melvoin-Berg would deny that they got paid even if they did: because if they were paid, it is much more likely to be seen in the law as prostitution. Here’s the Illinois statutory definition of the term:
Any person who performs, offers or agrees to perform any act of sexual penetration as defined in Section 12‑12 of this Code for any money, property, token, object, or article or anything of value, or any touching or fondling of the sex organs of one person by another person, for any money, property, token, object, or article or anything of value, for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification commits an act of prostitution.
So if either one of the couple who performed the sex act was paid to do it, then you would be very close to this being prostitution. Of course there are several remaining questions that must be answered before this can be described as prostitution. The hardest element to prove, here, is the element that the payment was done “for the purpose of sexual arousal.” Everyone involved could claim this was purely about academics. On the other hand, if you are wondering whether it would be correct to say that they were being paid to do this sex act (if they were paid, and I note again they denied this), the fact that the professor hesitated before giving the go ahead would seem to make it clear that they were being paid for the act:
Bailey’s act of debatable judgment happened in a flicker on that Monday afternoon in Ryan Auditorium. His popular human sexuality class had been dismissed, but about 100 of the 600 or so students stayed for an optional after-class session that the guest speakers had named Networking for Kinky People.
A few minutes into the discussion, the guests proposed a live demo on the big stage.
Bailey was surprised. He hesitated. But just a little while earlier he’d been thinking about the knee-jerk negativity so many people have about sex, about sex research.
As a man who believes everything is worth studying, he had to ponder why he was hesitating.
“I could not come up with a good reason,” he said Thursday, “and so I said OK.”
(Mmm, yes, I think you should have thought a little harder, professor.)
So if the couple was paid (which is denied so far), then they were proposing at that moment to change what they were paid for, the professor considered it, and then accepted the change. The professor later said, “I’m sure they came up with the idea right there,” but even if that is the case, it is not a defense.
If I was in law enforcement in the local area, I would be investigating this speaker’s group in order to determine if the couple gets a cut of the payment for the lecturer. Obviously I can’t say that they are definitely lying. But I find it very dubious to claim that these people would go out of their way to do a thing like that and see the non-participant get paid while they leave empty handed. It’s not impossible—the woman claimed to have a thing for public performance after all—but it’s hard to believe the couple wouldn’t say, “hey, we are doing the work, here…” and expect to be paid.
Finally, this entire presentation was a sexual harassment minefield. You have to understand that much of what is ordinarily protected speech can still get a company in trouble for sexual harassment. This law review article by Eugene Volokh lays out many of the otherwise protected activities that can trigger sexual harassment liability. I am not saying I approve of this situation. I think Volokh’s article makes it clear that the law goes too far in invading the right of free expression. But it is the law as it is, as opposed to how we would want it to be. And the fact it is voluntary is relevant, but not determinative. I believe there are many libertarian-leaning types who frequent this blog who might feel something to the effect that what consenting adults do is their business. That may be your ideal, but as of this moment it is not reality.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
they should have had a tip jar
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/4/2011 @ 6:54 amI doubt that the spectacle caused any harm to any in the audience, (college kids being the sexual acrobats that they are,) but how did it “further the advancement of knowledge?” And how can an academic make that claim with a straight face?
gp (72be5d) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:15 amOh, dear. We’re back to Contracts 101.
A court wouldn’t view this as a renegotiation of the contract, since there was no request for additional consideration for an additional service. In essence, it’s like any other contract situation where the contractor (landscaper, plumber, etc.) throws in a freebie after the terms are agreed and set. And if it was a freebie, then there’s no statutory prostitution problem.
But it appears moot anyway, since it appears they weren’t paid at all.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:30 amThe NU professor, in the interview I linked late last evening to the previous post, very clearly stated that, yes, he normally pays the after hours outside contributors to his sexuality class a modest fee or honorarium, which he requisitions from university coffers. Because, he explained, it is often inconvenient for them.
I am relatively certain it is this fact which has the Uni President trying to recapture the magic with the “Northwestern Community”, much more than the exhibition itself.
Melvoin -Berg is the proprietor of Sex Tours Chicago. The G-spot girl and her boyfriend (who has recently been elevated to Fiancé in several news reports) are friends of Melvoin-Berg. Now, whether or not Melvoin-Berg has actually received a check for his services–yet–or cashed it– might be open for question. Perhaps it is on this basis that he can say with a straight face that he has not been paid. Same goes for the dildo performers whom I assume would have been slipped a few bucks from Melvoin’s fee. Of course, perhaps due to the publicity the expense has not been approved which means they will never be compensated, despite their understanding from the Prof that they would be. Again, useful for deniability.
Intent. Around this town nobody does sumpin’ for nothin’.
elissa (c077e5) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:55 amIf education were actually going on in most of these non-standard courses, I would be concerned but, since most of them are entertainment for functionally illiterate teenagers, little harm was done.
I would have to say that more serious educational activity is going on in community colleges (also called “junior colleges” in California) than in most universities that seem more concerned with leftist indoctrination and babysitting.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:06 amKman/Forrest
Jesus H. Christ, you are stupid.
> Oh, dear. We’re back to Contracts 101.
> A court wouldn’t view this as a renegotiation of the contract, since there was no request for additional consideration for an additional service.
That is so wrong on so many levels. The fact that we are talking criminal law should be the first sign you are wrong.
You are right that this is how to modify a contract but that only goes to the OBLIGATION to do a thing. All of your stupid bloviating only means one thing. That if performing couple suddenly refused to carry out the sex act, he couldn’t sue for breach of contract. But that doesn’t mean that if they were paid they weren’t be paid for performing a sex act.
Let me give you a practical example of the difference between an obligation to pay for something v. whether or not you are paying for something. You go to a restaurant. You order a meal from the waiter. Let’s say it’s Applebees and you order a 2 for $20 entre. By ordering a meal you have entered into a contract in which they promise to provide food and service to go along with it and you promise to pay $20 for it. Now at that moment, are you obligated by law, to pay a tip? Not unless they announce that they will add it to your bill automatically it as some restaurants do. Otherwise, technically as a matter of law you can refuse to provide any tip at all, and you have not breached any contract.
So let’s suppose that this Applebees does not announce that it will automatically add a tip. And let’s say further that during the meal, you say to the waiter “I will give you a 30% tip, by the way.” And the waiter says, “that is greatly appreciated, but I cannot treat you any better than any other customer.” And you say “that is fine, but I will still pay you 30%,” and the meal proceeds. When the meal is over, are you obligated to pay a 30% tip? Nope, because there was no additional consideration and no detrimental reliance. So technically you can completely stiff the guy and there is no breach of contract.
Now, let’s say despite your complete lack of obligation to pay, you pay the 30% anyway. Riddle me this. What did you pay that waiter that tip for? You paid that tip for service provided, right?
Which proves the simple point, that most lawyers know and you apparently don’t, that there is a difference between being having a contractual obligation to pay money for something, and PAYING FOR SOMETHING. It is the difference between promising to do something and just doing it.
Now obviously the situation is a little reversed in the sex show example. With the waiter, you were getting the same service but paying more. With the sex show, you are getting an extra service—the sex act—for the same amount of money. But that is a difference without distinction, as real lawyers say.
Obviously it is ideal for there to have been a traditional contract but so long as it is payment for sex, that is enough. we have a similar issue in anti-kickback compliance.
Really, you should follow lincoln’s advice which was, paraphrase, that it was better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
> But it appears moot anyway, since it appears they weren’t paid at all.
they say they weren’t. you would be naive to take them at their word. which isn’t the same as saying they were definitely lying, but law enforcement should check it out.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:13 amI’m not sure what your Applebee analogy was all about (obfuscation?) because the point remains the same whether you want to look at it through the contract law lens or not…. i.e., even if they were paid to speak at the lecture, they did not seek payment, nor were they paid money (or given anything of value) in return for their gratuitous offer to perform a live sex act. That’s undisputed. Therefore it falls outside the prostitution statute.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:42 amKman, that you accuse someone of obfuscation at the drop of a hat is hilarious. You’re a liar. I proved it yesterday, as has been proven many times before that. I noted one of your arguments about this blog, you said you never said that, and so I linked your comment.
I can see why you refuse to let me comment on your blog, hiding it away. You fail miserably.
It’s clear you’re just making stuff up in order to avoid someone’s thoughtful comparison. You do that a lot. No doubt there are many differences whenver any comparison is made to anything, and if aaron makes a comparison, you point to some obvious difference and claim he’s arguing in bad faith. That’s because you are absolutely obsessed with Aaron, but also completely unable to handle yourself in an argument against him.
What’s the URL to your blog, Kman? You should honor your claim about welcoming any viewpoint and having scrutiny of a blogger’s claims.
Dustin (75f8e1) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:46 amI do not think it is true that what kmart asserted is undisputed.
But law enforcement getting involved would be way too much, at least for me.
JD (29e1cd) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:50 am—But law enforcement getting involved would be way too much, at least for me—
JD-I could not agree more. But somewhere along the line I can almost guarantee that lawyers (for some body or other) will get involved. And that is also too much for me.
elissa (c077e5) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:03 amKman begins the day with a cloud of stoopid! Welcome to Friday.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:08 amKman/Forrest
> I’m not sure what your Applebee analogy was all about
Yes, because you are stupid. Again, I couldn’t put it more plainly. Its about the difference between an obligation to pay for something, and paying for something. You are confusing an obligation to do something with actually doing it.
> That’s undisputed.
Only because right now there is no proof the couple was paid, only rational skepticism. If that turns out to be untrue, you lose your argument. Which doesn’t meant it is automatically prostitution, because there were other concerns (namely that the purpose might be reasonably characterized as academic), but it gets us pretty close to the line.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:44 amNo matter what happens in the end, all these “actors” are getting their fifteen minutes of fame.
The students being educated, not so much. It amazes me this professor felt these students needed to be taught this. Seems to me, this should be done as on-the-job training. And not in front of the world.
PatAZ (6b2e01) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:45 amWell, no. Because — as you say — there’s the further issue of whether they were paid for non-academic (i.e., sexual gratification) reasons.
I mean, your point basically is: there’s no evidence of prostitution now — in fact, there’s a couple of strikes against it being prostitution — but it could be prostitution if the facts fall a certain way, so the police should investigate it to find out.
Seems a bit silly. The same holds true for blackmail, too. Maybe there was blackmail involved….. let’s find out!
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:59 amKman
> but it could be prostitution if the facts fall a certain way, so the police should investigate it to find out.
Are you under the impression that the police only investigate proven crimes?
i mean isn’t the fact that it is at least a little unproven kind of implicit in the term “investigation?”
Duuuuuurrrrr.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/4/2011 @ 10:18 amOf course not. The investigate unsolved crimes.
But it strikes me as a waste of money, time and resources to try to “create” a crime where there’s no indication that one exists in the first place.
I mean, it’s Chicago, right? I’m sure there’s actual prostitution going on out there…. enough to keep the police busy.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 10:44 am“I mean, it’s Chicago, right?”
Kman – It’s actually Evanston. We know money changed hands. The details of who received it are a legitimate matter of inquiry, don’t you think? Why is that a waste of money, time and resources given the statutes? Seriously, what objection do you have to that?
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:02 amDaleyrocks – kmart asserted no money was involved, therefore it is true, and undisputed.
JD (0d2ffc) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:06 amJD – The Prof. paid Snidely Whiplash. The question is whether Powertool Babe got some.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:09 amMoney, I mean.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:10 amI know. I was just pointing out kmart’s aggressive dishonesty.
JD (2da347) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:13 amSpecifically, we know that the performers of the sex act weren’t paid, and another person was.
Because even if you can PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that the performers of the sex act were paid, you have the even higher hurdle of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were paid “for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification“.
Good luck with that.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:20 amIn other words, guys, you have to prove not only
but also prove
as well as proving
Fail to prove any of those conditions (beyond a reasonable doubt) and it’s an acquittal.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:29 amSo, it is no longer undisputed that money changed hands?
JD (6e25b4) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:33 am*Sigh* They just don’t make correspondence law schools like they used to.
Icy Texan (4f6850) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:34 am“Specifically, we know that the performers of the sex act weren’t paid, and another person was.”
Kman – Specifically, we know what people claim, which claims have changed as the story has developed. All your other speculations are just that, speculations. Let’s get some facts, why do you object to getting some facts, seriously? Stop the mental masturbation already.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:48 amKman
> Specifically, we know that the performers of the sex act weren’t paid
oh, so the proof that they weren’t paid is… they said they weren’t.
lol, can you imagine it? Its Inspector Kman!
—————
Inspector Kman: Bernie Madoff, did you swindle millions of dollars from other people?
Madoff: No, of course not.
Inspector Kman: good enough for me!
—————
Inspector Kman: Adolf Hitler, did you murder millions of jews?
Hitler: No. It was a dirty lie told by the joooos!
Inspector Kman: good enough for me.
————–
Inspector Kman: Roman Polanski, did you sleep with a 14 year old girl.
Roman: Of course not. I didn’t sleep at all.
Inspector Kman: terrible that they would accuse you of this thing…
—————
Inspector Kman: Osama bin Laden, did you arrange for the murder of 3,000 American civilians?
bin Laden: Oh, no, that is an infidel lie, just like the holocaust.
Inspector Kman: you are right about that holocaust thing. my buddy adolf set me straight.
————–
Apparently Kman is a refugee from the alternate universe in the movie “the invention of lying.”
To him if someone denies committing a crime then not only does he take that person’s word for it, but no investigation is even necessary.
Duuuuuuuur.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:49 am“Fail to prove any of those conditions (beyond a reasonable doubt) and it’s an acquittal.”
Prosecutor Kman – Are those the only charges available? Do those conditions make the situation not worth investigating.
You have not answered that question.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:52 amWere any of the students in the auditorium on Feb. 21 minors? I believe the course materials required students to be over the age of 18, but was that somehow enforced?
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:55 amNo, it’s YOU all who are speculating.
And have you thought through the facts that you need to get a conviction?
For example, even if you get evidence that they were paid (directly or indirectly), what facts do you hope to get to prove that they were paid specifically for the sex act (as opposed to, say, being paid for their appearance)? You think there is a receipt lying around saying:
Get real.
And what facts do you hope to find to prove that the purpose was to get people aroused? As opposed to being educational exercise?
Like I say, good luck.
Waste of public tax dollars, and I think most of you already know that. The rest of you, I can only guess, are being contrary just for the sake of being contrary.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 12:10 pm“And have you thought through the facts that you need to get a conviction?”
Kman – Conviction for what?
Just a simple yeas or no question. Are you against an investigation a) by the University and b) public authorities. Please just answer yes or no. Explain later.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 12:24 pmDaley
i know in my first semester in undergrad i took a class in constitutional law that was only supposed to be available to seniors. the teacher designed it to give students a taste of what law school was about with light socratic method and reading cases, etc. i am proud to say I aced it, and later when talking with the professor she told me frankly that if she had known i was a freshman i would have been kicked out.
Of course with my history of having faced discrimination in high school, i was older than even most seniors, so maybe that is why she thought i was older. the point being that rules like that are hard to enforce for a teacher. i suspect that voluntary enforcement is the primary method. but whoever sock-puppetted that they were 17 when they went to college is making an extremely valid point i hadn’t thought about.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/4/2011 @ 12:26 pmKman
its an open and notorious example of potential prostitution.
And contrary to your idiot confusion between contractual obligations and acts, if they were paid, we know they were paid for sex. so we are down to one thread separating them from being criminals.
So no, i don’t think it is a waste of money to investigate it.
But on the other hand, you apparently think this was a good use of university money to pay for a sex show. i mean its not taxpayer money (except to the extent that they might be paid for by federal student loans), but still…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/4/2011 @ 12:30 pmProstitution. That’s what we’ve been discussing. AW’s position (in his post) that there could be criminal violation of the prostitution statute.
No, in both instances, because I haven’t read anything which suggests there has been a breach of either the university’s policy or a violation of criminal law.
That said, if the university wants to reconsider its internal policies, and wants to engage in a little fact-finding of the incident as a guide, that’s certainly reasonable.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 12:32 pmKman
> No, in both instances, because I haven’t read anything which suggests there has been a breach of either the university’s policy
Really? They have a f*cksaw policy?
i am sure they have plenty of policies about appropriate demeanor in class and in extracurricular activities. and i would be curious to see what their sexual harassment policy has to say.
Seriously, every time i talk to you i am surprised that you have been at this almost ten years longer than me. you sound like a naif who has never dealt with the real world. but then again, being in a firm is very often the worst kind of experience as a lawyer.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/4/2011 @ 12:38 pmKmart eats boogerz. Calling others contrarian is just priceless.
JD (822109) — 3/4/2011 @ 12:39 pmAW:
No, we don’t “know” that. We only know that only if there are facts indicate that.
They could have been compensated for the talking about fetishes, or reimbursed for gas or who knows what.
Just receiving money isn’t enough to know WHY they received it.
I don’t care how Northwestern spends its money. I imagine there are plenty of places where the money goes that I, personally, dislike (Young Republicans Club). But that’s how it goes in a open society and democracy.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 12:42 pmKman
Regarding whether it was against university policy, if you got off your @$$ and read the employee handbook you might have noticed things like this:
“As members of the Northwestern community, its faculty, staff, and students are expected to deal with each other with respect and consideration.”
And
“Demeaning, intimidating, threatening, or violent behaviors that affect the ability to learn, work, or live in the University environment depart from the standard for civility and respect. These behaviors have no place in the academic community.”
This is really the standard crap you see in employee handbooks. And are arguably violated the conduct described here.
And naturally their policies ban sexual harrassment, including
“such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s academic or professional performance or creating what a reasonable person would sense as an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment, educational, or living environment.”
And under examples they list: “Offensive sexual graffiti, pictures, or posters”
So a sexual poster is harrassment, but a woman playing with herself on stage is not? Heh.
But as usual your aggressive ignorance takes the place of knowledge. I mean anyone experienced in… working… would know that there were very likely to be specific policies that this violated. They write their policies to give them that kind of flexibility, so that if a professor does something out of left field that is extremely inappropriate, they are still covered.
Anyway, you can read it all here: http://www.northwestern.edu/hr/forms/oncampus/handbook.pdf
And all it took was a simple google search to find this. But moreover a basic knowledge of how life and business works would have told you the answer to your question.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/4/2011 @ 12:50 pmSo, are you still saying that it is undisputed that they were not paid?
JD (d4bbf1) — 3/4/2011 @ 12:51 pmYou can’t pretend it’s the same thing. Or maybe you can try, but you only make yourself look foolish.
There’s such a thing as context.
For example, I’m sure students studying film at Northeastern see films which contain nudity. Same with the theatre program. I’m sure they have nude models in the art class, if it’s like any other university I know. What may be inappropriate material for a math class may be fine for a literature class.
Where did you go to undergrad? Liberty College?
The very fact that Northwestern allows a class on human sexuality ought to tell you their policy isn’t the prurient piece of material you seem to think it is.
Context is the key. And I’ll give you one example. Even strip joints have sexual harassment policies. If you can figure out how that can be possible, then you’ve learned something.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:07 pmI think the funniest comment I read was some father who said that if he knew that this was the education his daugter received at Northwestern, rather than spend $200,000, he could have spent $80,000 at the U of I where his daughter would learn the same thing at a frat. Who knew that advancement of knowledge cost so much?
Rochf (ae9c58) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:07 pmStudying about human sexuality in a classroom is not really the same as watching a lady pleasure herself with a dildo strapped to a Sawz-all. Kind of like how reading the USA Today sports section is a bit different than sitting front row at a ballgame.
JD (d4bbf1) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:22 pm“No, in both instances, because I haven’t read anything which suggests there has been a breach of either the university’s policy or a violation of criminal law.”
Kman – Then why couldn’t you simply say so without wasting so many pixels? Never mind, I already know the answer to that one.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:27 pmoh my that tickles
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:28 pmWith their 15 minutes prolly somebody’s suddenly going to be making money on the Saws-all retrofit product.
elissa (c077e5) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:31 pmKman
> There’s such a thing as context.
That policy doesn’t say that sexual posters are only banned… IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS. So they are obviously not being context-sensitive.
Duuuuuuurrrrr.
Moron.
And notice you don’t mention any of the rest of the policies that pretty clearly can encompass what he did.
See your problem is you can’t detangle what you want the law to be, from what it is. you made that clear when i said Lawrence was wrongly decided and you accused me of wanting to lock gay men up for merely having gay sex. for you there is no daylight between what you want to happen and what the law says can happen, because you are a small, stupid, partisan hack. And surely, a terrible lawyer.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:31 pmElissa
> With their 15 minutes prolly somebody’s suddenly going to be making money on the Saws-all retrofit product.
You are making a good point. i wonder if this is available by using the amazon search widget on this side?
Yes, folks get your sex toys using Patterico’s amazon widget!
lol
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:38 pmThe point wasn’t merely to watch.
The demonstration (which lasted about 10 minutes) has been preceded by an hour-or-so lecture which covered, among other things, the existence or non-existence of the “g spot” and its relation (if it exists) to female ejaculation. Apparently, this is a controversial subject in the sexuality field right now. So one of the guests offered a demonstration.
It wasn’t like “Okay, class. Now we’re going to watch a woman masturbate because…. well, just because.”
It was like when your chem professor used to SHOW you chemical reactions, rather than having you read about them.
Now, those who didn’t want to stick around didn’t have to. Those who did stick around, by all reports, handled it maturely.
Only people unrelated to the class seem to be having a problem.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:40 pmKmart eats boogerz.
JD (d4bbf1) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:43 pmYeah, it does. You just are a bad researcher.
Have a good weekend!
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:45 pmAlways glad to help in any small way I can, AW.
elissa (c077e5) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:45 pmKman – So your position is that an in person, live, with sound, demonstration of a f*cksaw is no different than reading about it in a book?
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 2:01 pmKman
First, let me congradulate you for having for once in your f–king life gotten off your @$$ and tried to learn something.
But all you exposed is a conflict between two different statements.
And of course that example doesn’t cover the live sex show example and most of the other examples are not context-sensitive, such as “Displaying or transmitting sexually suggestive electronic content, including inappropriate e-mails.” in fact, i think it is safe to say that the people writing this policy ever imagined a scenario as “out there” as having a person come in and get worked over by the f*cksaw.
Anyway, that “academic value” defense, only works if there is actual academic value, and if there was any other way to learn about it.
but still let me congradulate you for not being a stupid and lazy this time, just stupid.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/4/2011 @ 2:01 pmDaley
> is no different than reading about it in a book?
he will let you know when he gets his in the mail.
he might not be able to sit right for a whole week!
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/4/2011 @ 2:02 pmMy chem class didn’t include a g spot demonstration, but my physics class… wow.
My professor first just doused the whole lab and then we did this neat thing with bleach.
What a rare experience that was… and now it is a major?
Awesome.
I realize that NU is a private school, but these types of classes remind me of how to save tax dollars in our UC system… get rid of stupid majors and their Dept’s
Ax the Womyn’s studies dept, ethnic studies dept., classes in porn, etc.
The UC system and CSU system could save big millions.
Let the private schools have that niche
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 3/4/2011 @ 2:04 pmNo, AW. It’s not a conflict. Regarding the policies, you wrote earlier:
The problem is that they listed things that MAY be sexual harassment. It looks like you are failing to read the policy before you quote it, or you are deliberately ignoring the word “may”.
In any event, it’s not inconsistent.
Well, be that as it may, “out there” or not, if the policy doesn’t forbid the practice, then it’s not forbidden by the policy.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2011 @ 2:09 pmNow you are just being a douchebag, kmart. I suspect there is not a specific policy that would forbid a classroom exercise where kmart riddles an underage non-consensual goat while surrounded by clowns and monkeys. I also suspect that said circus act would fall outside the lines of appropriate behavior.
JD (d4bbf1) — 3/4/2011 @ 2:14 pmLet me say I’m ignoring everything that has been said by Kman or to him.
There are legal considerations.
There are professional ethics considerations (non-legal).
There are common sense, “What the heck?!?!” considerations.
Points to be addressed:
There are graphic posters/pictures of no redeeming intent and there are graphic illustrations and pictures of educational intent. In the lounge of a coed dorm there may be Playboy and National Geographic magazines with similar pictures as far as the anatomy involved, but one might be considered “sexual harassment” and the other not- I suppose (at least in some circumstances).
Medical and nursing schools sometimes use “professional patients”, individuals who are actually trained to be surrogate patients for educational purposes, including for gynecologic exams, who may indeed be paid. Now, this seems to be taken in consideration in the Ill. law quoted when it stipulates, “for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification”. Examination of patient surrogates does not involve sexual arousal or gratification in any usual understanding. Apparently the argument made in this example would be that “the purpose was learning about human sexuality”, and the fact that there was arousal and gratification was not for “entertainment” but part of education and understanding human behavior.
This gets into “need to know” ethical considerations in medicine. It could be argued that someone in a grad school program in psychology, sociology, physiology, Ob/Gyn who is going to professionally counsel patients with sexual dysfunction may legitimately need pretty graphic “observational experience”, which is far different from an undergrad human sexuality class that people take as an “interesting” way of getting non-major credits. (When I was in med school, for example, 3rd year medical students were never allowed/given the responsibility to start IV’s in children. A 4th year student who was going into a peds, etc., would be “allowed/given the responsibility” to start IV’s in children.)
As mentioned in the previous thread on this, to whatever degree the people involved in the demonstration had a personality disorder that drove them to be an exhibitionist, or that people in the audience had a personality disorder that included voyeurism, this would have been considered inappropriate, unethical, and probably malpractice from a mental health professional perspective.
Then there is the consideration that the more one has to explain details in legal statutes and bioethical theory to prove your point, the clearer you have already lost the argument with the typical person on the street. I’m thinking the faculty member in charge did a reflexive, “Oh, we are open minded adults at a university” thought and figured anything could be explained with adequate pseudo-intellectual sophistication, instead of stopping a second and actually thinking about it. Not a good move, but he has worked in an environment that would encourage such. I think something should be done, but I think it would be unfair to make him a scapegoat just to appease segments of the alumni.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2011 @ 2:14 pmLet me propose a few tutorials for other classes at Northwestern …. you know, to keep it real ….
1) African American Studies — putting a loin clothe clad black student in bondage and then holding a raffle for his farming services to simulate a real learning experience on the evils of slavery.
2) Jewish Studies — putting a thin jewish student in a pinstripe prisoner suit and having him walk around carrying really heavy bags over his head to simulate a real learning experience on the evils of the Third Reich.
3) Women’s Studies — get a brutish male student dressed in 1800’s garb to beat the crap out of a women student to simulate a real learning experience on the evils of men and the suffering of women.
4) Asian Studies — get a Chinese student to smoke opium in the class in a nasty rickshaw while having a European call him coolie to simulate a real learning experience on the evils of European imperialism.
5) Amer-Indian Studies ……
6) Hispanic …..
… I could go on but to me all are pretty absurd and quite offensive to most folks. That Teacher should be canned. That Class should be canceled.
Liberal Arts education, not what it used to be.
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 3/4/2011 @ 2:23 pmSteveG – Would you keep Fat Studies? Lotta fat people around and they are people too.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 2:35 pmWas the Northwestern Professor a former Marine at Abu Ghraib?
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 3/4/2011 @ 2:57 pmBy the way, do they have pictures of the prop?
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 3/4/2011 @ 2:58 pmTorquemada – Check my last link on yesterday’s thread.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 3:56 pm_______________________________________
a professor concluded a discussion of bondage and other sexual fetishes in his human sexuality class by having a woman take off all her clothes, climb on stage and graphically demonstrate the use of a sex toy
I’m sure the professor thinks his approach is so hip and daring. That he’s so oh-so-cool controversial. That he’s really opening the eyes of his students to a stunning aspect of human sexuality. That he’s making them think beyond the boundaries of conventional (ie, boring) behavior and traditional (ie, ho-hum) morality.
But big whoop. Analyzing the following would be far more daring, far more revealing—and far more socio-politically controversial too:
Mark (411533) — 3/4/2011 @ 4:05 pmlike clockwork
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/4/2011 @ 4:49 pmTo take another tack, excerpting ethics, law, propriety, as they apparently have done, in an academic setting, it doesn’t seem particularly
rainier wolfcastle (bcb6cc) — 3/4/2011 @ 5:08 pmoriginal or groundbreaking research. See you weren’t expecting that angle.
fat studies?
there’s supposed to be more on that under the fold
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 3/4/2011 @ 5:25 pmWT Hell? Why is this somehow significant, worthwhile news? Slow news day?
I’m not surprised the uptight prudes of the world are offended, but even within the scope of college events, this is so insignificant as to be irrelevant.
1) Did the amount paid change as a result of them “adding” to the demonstration? Was the demonstration included in the initial contractual expectations? Then it rather clearly wasn’t a “paid for” act. They got the same amount regardless of whether they performed the act or not, so the act wasn’t a part of the payment schedule, and thus — rather glaringly obviously — not paid for. How much more “DUH” can this get?
Q.E.D., this was not “prostitution” under any rational interpretation of the concept.
2) It’s a FRIGGIN’ HUMAN SEXUALITY CLASS!!! Sorry, I have no problem with something being done in the class which actually provides exposure to ideas and concepts which are at the more “risque” end of the spectrum of human sexuality. It’s a defacto live sex show — yeah. SO WHAT? The class is all about sexuality. Gee, whoodathunkit? It’s not a show for prurient interest alone, it’s not dealing with “everyday sex” or anything, it’s about exposing students (willingly learning ones) to some of the more exotic sexual practices humans perform. I’m sure there were those there who “got off on it” — but if you’ve got someone in the class who gets off on women’s undergarments, does that mean you can’t discuss the issue or have someone come there explaining what it is that they find appealing in them, possibly with samples to use for the discussion?
C’mon, people, GROW UP. These aren’t pubescent teens just barely able to understand sex, these are full grown adults able to write contracts and commit themselves to legal obligations. The vast majority probably have not only drunk alcohol, and had sex, they’ve quite possibly even done illegal drugs. If you think THIS kind of thing is going to corrupt them, you’re an idiot!
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
How the hell can you whine about the Nanny State and then go out and claim the right to be Nannies… just on a different topic?
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
And no, the fact that this is done “on the public dollar” doesn’t even qualify in and of itself. This is done as a part of a class which specifically broaches the topic in question, and is designed to deal with it and expose people to a deeper understanding of it. I’m sure that out there, somewhere, is a professor who has gone out to the wilds of New Guinea specifically to study the sexual practices of some obscure tribe that lives there…. and done so using public funding!!
GASP GASP GASP!!
Stuff that appears and sounds ridiculous outside of an academic context can often be fully justified within that academic context. This is probably — almost certainly — one such event.
Studying and learning about things — everything — is in the basic job definition.
And yeah, that includes exotic sexual practices, thank you Mrs. Grundy.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/4/2011 @ 6:31 pmthis happened very far away and I didn’t know anybody involved and Charlie Sheen is funny
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/4/2011 @ 6:52 pm“Stuff that appears and sounds ridiculous outside of an academic context can often be fully justified within that academic context.”
Igot – Gotta laugh.
You forgot illegal in your diatribe. Bastions of higher learning should be above the law so that stuff which appears and sounds ridiculous and illegal outside of an academic context can be fully justified within that context.
How about pimping out the students so they can learn about male and female prostitution as part of that human sexuality class or some sociology class – gritty real life academic experience.
How about in poli sci when talking about the war on drugs having the students snort some coke or heroin so they REALLY understand the issues. Stop coddling the youngsters, make it real. After all, most of them have probably smoked weed before.
Is that what you’re talking about?
So a
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:00 pmI gotta go back and get myself another degree if this kind of stuff is going to get more common!
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:02 pmOh, geeez. I’ll grant you that this does have legal standing, but it’s in the class of “ridiculous excuses for treating young adults differently from real adults, despite the fact that for some 99.99% of human history and situations, they’re long since of the age of real adults.”
The vast majority of people fail to grasp that the fictionalized events of Romeo and Juliet take place when Romeo is 13 or 14 and Juliet is 12 or 13 — notice that this is of an age when it is considered important to begin looking into marrying Juliet off to a suitable husband, and Romeo and his friends are fighting mortal duels and defending the family honor.
(Side note: This also helps explain the rather over-the-top reactions of the “kids” involved. When you’re that young small things seem much bigger and more important and far, far more eternally significant.)
For most of human experience it is a fair thing for a 14yo to say: “16, 17, 18? You’re old, man!”
Anyone in such a class is almost certainly mature enough to handle the topics involved, and, if not, it’s rather more appropriately the parent’s failure as legal guardians to oversee the actions (i.e., classes) taken by their “poor widdle immature baby-child”.
Ghad, people who fail to grasp that the more you push adulthood away from “kids”, the less prepared they’ll be when they actually encounter it.
Sure, they’re gonna screw up if you give them self-responsibility at 13. Your job as parent isn’t to deny them that self-responsibility until they’re 92, but to gradually provide them with an increasing amount of it as well as instruction (and protection as best you can) from consequences (most critically, catastrophic ones) when they fail to meet the challenges involved. Allow them to suffer from their errors, just not so much that it destroys them.
The notion that they aren’t going to have sex by the time they are 17 is stupid. Sure, you may want them to abstain from it until marriage, but to act as though they aren’t going to encounter it and/or need to know about it is another matter entirely.
When you treat it like that, it becomes a “forbidden topic” and it’s a fair bet they WON’T resist its allure. This is, I argue, a large part of the reason these days for the increase in binge drinking and alcohol abuse. It’s something “you can’t have until you’re 21!” and so it becomes something you seek after to challenge the limits adults place on you, as well as something you use to impress your friends (i.e. Jeff Spicoli whacking his head with a tennis shoe, going “I am soooo wasted!!”)
The alternative is a bunch of irresponsible “big children” who imagine there are no real consequences to anything, because they’ve never learned the most basic rules of personal responsibility in the school of Mother Nature.
That is, the result is postmodern libtards.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:02 pmComment by IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society
Hmmmm. I wonder what lesson plans you would have for the French Revolution, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and the entire curriculum of a criminal science major…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:07 pmI’m thinking that there was probably a rather large novelty factor in watching this lady’s antics with her coochiepie right there in front of lord god and everybody carrying on naked as a jaybird. If they made this a weekly thing the crowds would probably get smaller and smaller until you just had a committed core of aficionados what shared a common interest.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:14 pmCart. Horse.
Wrong order, daley.
You have no justification for this being claimed as prostitution, barely any possible argument for it being “exposing a minor to untoward influences”, and hence have no call for claiming it illegal.
LOLZ — in many cases — Does the phrase “F*** yeah” carry the full, staggering weight of the sneering “duh” involved?
Giving people certain drugs is illegal outside the academic context, without any exception.
However, inside the academic context, yes, giving them those exact same drugs in a controlled environment for the experience IS fully legitimate. It can also be used indirectly to study and recognize, for an academic learning purpose, what the indications are.
This is true for some pseudo-academic scenarios, even. Do you really think that, a police officer going undercover for a drug investigation cannot, or should not, know directly and personally what the effects of those drugs are on the user is? I suppose it happens, but the so-called officer is most likely to be outed as an ignorant fool claiming things they have no experience of and thus of a suspicious character.
Example: I once had a cop in my apartment point to a false aralia thinking it was a pot plant. I grinned at his ignorance, and told him what it was. Though there IS an admitted vague resemblance, anyone who had actually ever SEEN a REAL pot plant would immediately recognize it wasn’t one.
Any undercover cop who failed to know what a drug he claimed to have taken actually felt like would almost certainly have his cover blown and possibly his life be in serious jeopardy. Maybe some of them don’t ever do any drugs under controlled circumstances, but I’d say they’re stupid if that’s the case. You ask me to go undercover as a heroin addict, you can damned sure bet your ass I’m not doing it unless I’ve had a doctor administer it to me and learned exactly what it feels like at least one time.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:20 pmBeheading, starvation (followed by eradication) and, of course, a life of crime. Duh.
…Because, clearly, these instances are –all– rational extensions of what we’re talking about… yeah.
OW! It hurts when my eyes roll that far back in my head!
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:23 pmHowever, inside the academic context, yes, giving them those exact same drugs in a controlled environment for the experience IS fully legitimate
Timothy Leary
You forgot the footnote.
I’d hate to be in a seminar on “The Evolution of “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” with you, or “Applied Forensics in Homicide Investigations”
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:30 pmWhile you’re presumably speaking for humorous effect, it’s rather self-evident that, after the first time, it’s a lot less academic and a lot more prurient interest involved.
I do find it singularly interesting that no one, so far, is attempting to argue against this being pure Nanny Statism, just legitimate Nanny Statism from the more conservative side of the worldview, as though such a thing were actually possible.
That is at the heart of this:
Either people are self-responsible or they are not.
You cannot make them not self-responsible on “just the things you choose”.
And if they are self-responsible, then there is exceptionally little of possible interest in this entire story. The best claim I’ve heard so far is the concern that this is/was paid for with public funds, and even that is rather ridiculous, considering the vastly greater amount of public funding that goes into much more blatantly frivolous productions, like “The Vagina Monologues”.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:31 pmI repeat, since it was clearly missed the first time:
====================================================================================================
====================================================================================================
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:33 pmoh. Mostly I meaned that freedom of assembly was not unimplicated Mr. President.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:34 pmYou ever hear Leary and G. Gordon Liddy together?
The one thing you come away from it with is, though they are both starting from different initial premises, and both arriving at somewhat at-odds results, they were both intelligent, resourceful, and very competently-thinking individuals.
Your argument is noted as an attempt, BTW, to apply some sort of ad hominem smear against this.
a) I personally don’t have any issue with Leary’s actions or ideas. There is much of value in them (as there is in Liddy’s). I suspect the potential for “recreational” abuse of LSD is far more at the heart of the government’s smear of him than anything of actual threat to anyone who might follow in his footsteps academically.
b) Leary is certainly one of the more celebrated cases of such, but he is hardly the only one by any means. There are many other cases of drugs being used in an academic setting as learning tools, the vast majority of which receive no social condemnation at all.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/4/2011 @ 7:40 pm“While you’re presumably speaking for humorous effect”
Igot – I thought that was what you were doing with your Nanny State argument.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:06 pmI don’t get the nanny state idea. One can disagree with a choice, without having any desire to see government involved.
JD (d4bbf1) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:09 pmThe tuition’s too damn high, colleges should provide free booze, drugs and sex, says noted educational expert IgotBupkis. Don’t mollycoddle the chirren.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:09 pm“I don’t get the nanny state idea.”
JD – Northwestern’s a private Univ. Maybe it’s in loco parentis argument. Who knows? He’s on a roll.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:11 pmalso please to not coddle your molly
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:16 pmUh oh. From the Daily Northwestern:
an award-winning scholar and clinician announced Thursday evening she will file a formal complaint against psychology Prof. John Michael Bailey for what she calls “a gross violation” of the American Psychological Association Code of Ethics.
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.
“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.”
She added that Bailey’s public exhibition “speaks to a voyeuristic excitement” and is not a legitimate form of sexual education.
http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/campus/updated-northwestern-copes-with-fallout-attention-from-sex-toy-demo-1.2505155
elissa (c077e5) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:19 pmMaybe it’s in loco parentis argument… –
Comment by daleyrocks
I don’t think there is any argument, sounds to me like someone was acting like a loco parentis .
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:24 pmNo Rulz! Lulz!
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:45 pmMr. Feets – Keeps your hands off my molly.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:47 pmDo you suppose peer-reviewed articles on human sexuality are better than those goofy global warming ones are?
elissa (c077e5) — 3/4/2011 @ 8:56 pmSeriously though, where are the feminists objecting to the display of a protected class displayed for prurient interests?
I mean, how many white frat boys watched this objectification?
Where is the dividing line between exhibiting innate sexuality and the subjection of women as objects for gratification?
Ag80 (efea1d) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:17 pmAh, the “nanny-nanny-boo-boo” refutation technique. Very well done, sir!!
Here, allow me to refute you in kind:
“I know you are, but what am I?”
Did you have any kind of factual argument to make, or were you just channeling a libtard?
This is actually a worthwhile comment, daley — It’s the one you should have made instead of imitating Shirley MacLaine on multiple levels.
First off, JD — I would suggest that it ignores most of the nature of the actual comments or complaints being made, which includes the suggestion that this was somehow illegal (i.e., “prostitution”), potential corrupting influence on minors (as though anyone in college, regardless of age, wasn’t already exposed amply to such, to say nothing of begging facts not remotely in evidence at this point) as well as actually suggesting this SHOULD be “investigated by the authorities” (specifically mentioning “the police”)
Second off, it’s not even “government”, here, though that’s the worst-case scenario. I’m pointing out that when you give ANYONE’s “opinion” on a matter serious consideration, you are evoking in some manner or another the Nanny-State justification. In some cases it can be justified as being a matter of vested interest of the body politic.
This fails that test. Badly.
This situation is nothing but Mrs. Grundy “harrumphing” at an offense to her sense of propriety. No one was harmed, no one was kept there against their will, and, as I see it, there is really very, very little to be “harrumphed” about. The professor made an unusual decision as to how a non-required after-class session should proceed. Its validity as an educational exercise might be argued, but that’s not really happening here, I certainly hear a lot more heat than light — Mrs. Grundy, again.
– Robert A. Heinlein –
Demonstrating a point already made and answered:
THESE AREN’T CHILDREN.
They are COLLEGE STUDENTS. If you can’t expect students to act like an adult, and behave like an adult, by the time they’re in college, then your society is doomed.
Yes, some of them will fail that challenge.
This is where “dumbing down” comes into play as a bad and stupid argument… and I’m willing to bet you were about to make that comment, though I assume I’ve just stifled it unsaid.
We shouldn’t be running our society to surrender itself to the lowest level of competency.
Posdef channeling a libtard for your argumentation style, daley. Keep the straw men and tissue paper coming.
.. and looking to promote herself in the public eye in order to sell lots more books and generate interest in paying her speaking fees, just found a great “Mrs. Grundy” style situation to run around with a flag on, stirring up Mrs. Grundy’s ire everywhere…
The key “rent-seeking” element of this is the “announced”. She didn’t just do it, she wanted to make SURE that the PUBLIC had a chance to hear and know about her doing it. After all, that’s what this is ALL about… Focusing attention on HER as the leader of Mrs. Grundys everywhere….
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:18 pmAg- I wondered above how the response would be from the leftists if it was a guy who had used the Sawz-all instead of a girl.
JD (d4bbf1) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:19 pmJD:
It is a weird dichotomy seemingly only predicated on who administers the insult. The left is a strange and perverse cult only understood by the drifting bylaws of its members.
Ag80 (efea1d) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:26 pmhttp://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/03/04/report-naked-party-at-yale-university-prompts-sexual-assault-investigation/
I question the timing
EricPWJohnson (967261) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:31 pmI think Charlie Sheen may be posting here tonight.
elissa (c077e5) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:36 pm#87
Yeah, I think I have to agree with Robin Mathy on that one.
And, also what Torquemada said in post #59. I was going to make a post like that, using some of the same examples, but the Inquisitor beat me to the punch.
It’s o.k. to demonstrate how to bake an apple pie in a classroom setting, but it’s really not o.k. to demonstrate deviant sexual techniques (or undeviant sexual techniques, for that matter).
The good professor stepped over the line, if you ask me.
Dave Surls (9f9d2f) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:36 pmI’m just sick of people like Bailey who act so above it all but really get their sexual thrill out of stuff like this.
MayBee (081489) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:49 pmIt’s like the people who say Americans are just such prudes for having our women actually wear bikini tops on the beach, when all the sophisticated Euros go topless. And then they spend their European beach vacations trying to catch an eyeful of bare boobs.
Mrs. Grundy would be a very excellent name for a tabby cat, I think.
elissa (c077e5) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:53 pm“THESE AREN’T CHILDREN.
They are COLLEGE STUDENTS.”
Igot – And they are already morally tainted, so what’s a little more!!!!!!!!!
Church ladies, church ladies, church ladies!!!!!!!
How can you argue with logic like that, if you can actually call that logic?
Easily, most college students are in fact still children.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 9:58 pmExactly.
MayBee (081489) — 3/4/2011 @ 10:00 pm==most college students are in fact still children==
Yeppers. Ask Barry. They get to stay on mama and daddy’s insurance policy till they’re 26.
elissa (c077e5) — 3/4/2011 @ 10:00 pmI think it’s a neat story in the way it’s the sort of backgroundy coma baby type subplot what would be right at home in any number of works of post-America cyberpunk fictions written in the early 90s. It’s kinda like Reverend Wright’s church of hate or that whole tawdry Palin circus or America’s fiscal implosion in that we’ve just got this accretion of crap our culture and polity no longer have any idea how to process.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/4/2011 @ 10:01 pmI have no response to that, says America. Nobody said there was gonna be a test.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/4/2011 @ 10:05 pm______________________________________
When you treat it like that, it becomes a “forbidden topic” and it’s a fair bet they WON’T resist its allure.
But our culture over the past 50 years has become so dumbed down, so I’m-okay-you’re-okay, so if-it-feels-good-do-it, that, if anything, resisting the “forbidden” in the context of today would be more of a sign of one being non-conformist and slightly subversive.
What irks me is I’m sure the professor is a “prude” when it comes to discussing the surprising polymorphous or bisexual (or closeted straight) nature of even self-described homosexuals. THAT is one topic that wouldn’t fit in his grand scheme of things. Moreover, I’m sure he wants all of society to feel guilty and pro-activist about people getting STDs, AIDS in particular, and girls getting pregnant.
I bet he would proclaim: “More taxes for sex education in grade school! More government programs to help expectant, single teenage mothers! More public funding for distributing condoms and the pill! More books in school libraries with titles like “The Prince Marries a Prince”! And same-sex marriage should not only be permitted, it should be honored!”
Mark (411533) — 3/4/2011 @ 10:07 pmMy Daughter went to college at 17 as well but I sincerely doubt that institution would ever sanction or even have that class
EricPWJohnson (5cc53e) — 3/4/2011 @ 10:23 pm“Easily, most college students are in fact still children.”
Yeah, pretty much.
And, personally, I wouldn’t feel too comfortable about having my college aged kids taking instruction from a guy who:
1.) Has been accused in the past of having sexual relations with a “research subject”
2.) Has definitely taken college aged kids to a live deviant sex show.
That whole package would make me more than a little nervous.
Dave Surls (9f9d2f) — 3/4/2011 @ 10:36 pm“THESE AREN’T CHILDREN.”
Igot – Are you including the Professor in that comment?
For some reason you seem focused on the chirren. Most parents expect adult, ethical behavior out of the Professors of higher institutions of learning. Conspicuously absent here.
Hey, but he’s an adult, right, so everything’s cool!
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/4/2011 @ 10:56 pmMost parents expect adult, ethical behavior out of the Professors of higher institutions of learning.
mostly they expect learning though, and the learning bar here was set kinda not very high I think
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/4/2011 @ 11:57 pm“Most parents expect adult, ethical behavior out of the Professors of higher institutions of learning.”
Well, I expect them to act like lowlife ratbags who like banging 19 year old girl students (when Ms. Professor isn’t looking, of course), after they take said 19 year old girls to deviant sex shows (under the pretense of pursuing academic enlightenment)…but, that’s probably because I’ve known a bunch of college professors.
Dave Surls (9f9d2f) — 3/5/2011 @ 1:23 amLOL. What a bunch of ninnies. You guys wouldn’t know a good time if it sat on your face and wiggled.
Chris Hooten (24973f) — 3/5/2011 @ 1:36 amDave Surls – Most parents get disappointed.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/5/2011 @ 5:26 amHe seems quite a hack, his previous research doesn’t
rainier wolfcastle (bcb6cc) — 3/5/2011 @ 5:44 ammatch the rest of his work, where he’s ticked off a whole other cohort, re his wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Bailey
rainier wolfcastle (bcb6cc) — 3/5/2011 @ 5:48 am___________________________________
his previous research
Ha! I honestly did not know the background of the guy until I clicked on your link to Wiki. In fact, when I made my previous comments about him, I did wonder if I possibly was mis-characterizing his likely politics and philosophy in general. IOW, that I may have been pigeonholing him or being too simplistic about the overall human nature of the guy.
I definitely considered that he perhaps was primarily into the topic of human sexuality but not necessarily the specific subject of homosexuality.
Beyond that, I guess it’s a matter of “no kidding, Sherlock!” to assume he’s a leftist. Speaking of which, the good professor should start researching the way that genetics affect a person’s ideology and, in turn, his or her sexuality—keeping in mind that over 80% of gays tend to be of a liberal persuasion.
Mark (411533) — 3/5/2011 @ 7:16 amHere is today’s non-apology apology by Prof. Bailey in the Sun Times. He clearly states he does not think allowing the demonstration was wrong after first apologizing for allowing it and says those trying to explain why it was wrong would get grades of “F” if he was grading the explanations.
Good job professor. Pres. Morty Shapiro should be happy with that effort. Heh!
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/5/2011 @ 11:36 amOkay, whatever happened here, it wasn’t prostitution. Prostitution is generally understood to be someone paying for sexual services performed on himself/herself. When a third party pays a couple to have sex with each other so others can watch, it is pornography, not prostitution. Otherwise, the entire adult film industry would be in the dock.
Roscoe (d3d979) — 3/5/2011 @ 11:44 amAh, the ol’ victim card. Gotta hand it to Bailey. He’s setting up his next career as a researcher and speaker, since it has obviously now become clear to him that his days as a working Psych Professor for undergrads at that particular institution are about over.
elissa (18d376) — 3/5/2011 @ 12:26 pmSome years ago I declined the opportunity to see a government-funded performance art by a former porn star on this same empowering theme. If it was ok for the government to fund it then, it’s ok now.
tehag (2ffcb0) — 3/5/2011 @ 3:03 pm“If it was ok for the government to fund it then, it’s ok now.”
tehag – How many teenagers are going to turn down the opportunity to see something like this, at least the guys?
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/5/2011 @ 3:42 pmdid I read that someone is going to fly a kite with their coochie? happyfeet?
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 3/5/2011 @ 4:07 pm1. This seems like A Really Bad Idea to me. An anecdote is not data; this was an annoying ploy by the performers and an absence of thinking by the professor.
2. I think making a prostitution case out of this is untenable. Even were payment made, you’d have one hell of a time getting there from here.
3. I disagree with Kman on the propriety of the performance, and agree with him on most of his points on the prostitution issue. AW’s choice to resort primarily to angry name-calling strikes me as unwise and unpersuasive.
–JRM
JRM (cd0a37) — 3/5/2011 @ 6:35 pmI think I’m going to teach my Boy Scout Troop how to make f*cksaws this week, since a bunch of people seem to think it’s OK.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/5/2011 @ 6:46 pmHooten is just frustrated that his blow-up doll isn’t putting out…………..I just said that out loud didn’t i?
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/6/2011 @ 8:48 pmHaving just survived yet another Unofficial St. Patrick’s celebration here at the U of I, I can attest that most college students are still children, or certainly act like it. We had 157 notices to appear issued to celebrants and at least two students who were admitted to the ER with blood alcohol limits somewhere between 4 and 5 times the legal limit–yes, they were near death. I’m sure most of them would have been delighted to attend a class in human sexuality with demonstrations.
Rochf (f3fbb0) — 3/7/2011 @ 8:56 am