Poll about Northwestern's latest news story

[FaithManor]

Michigan has a "lewd and lascivious" law..something about indecency, indecent acts, and nudity in public. If she stripped her nickers completely off for this, and a classroom falls under "public" heading, then I think it would be prosecutable here. Additionally, money changed hands to engage in a lewd and lascivious act in public. So, I'm thinking that it's possible that a D.A. in Michigan would consider prosecution if this had occured at say MSU.

 

Faith

[Jenny in Atl]

Does anyone know how common it is to have these types of classes, covering this type of material?

 

 

I took a similar class at GSU, way back in the late 80's. It was really rather boring. No live sex acts, though the prof did share some of his "experiences" with us (verbally); still nothing shocking. Maybe they've had to ramp things up to compete with the Youtube generation. :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

More like pimping I think.

 

It could get kind of murky if it ever when to court since the woman was not paid to have s3x with a person.

 

I know there are laws about having s3x with animals, dead people, etc. I don't know if there is a law about having public s3x with a mechanical device.

 

Wasn't there an evangelical preacher (years ago) who got in legal trouble for paying women to pleasure themselves? I tried to google, but that just isn't working out, given the search terms. :lol:

 

Michigan has a "lewd and lascivious" law..something about indecency, indecent acts, and nudity in public. If she stripped her nickers completely off for this, and a classroom falls under "public" heading, then I think it would be prosecutable here. Additionally, money changed hands to engage in a lewd and lascivious act in public. So, I'm thinking that it's possible that a D.A. in Michigan would consider prosecution if this had occured at say MSU.

 

 

That's what I'm thinking.

[redsquirrel]

I thought it was a stupid thing for the teacher to do. But, I thought it was funny. The story made me laugh and reminded me of the sex education scene from the Monty Python movie 'Meaning of Life"

[Parrothead]

Wasn't there an evangelical preacher (years ago) who got in legal trouble for paying women to pleasure themselves? I tried to google, but that just isn't working out, given the search terms. :lol:

 

 

:lol: I can imagine. Time to clear your search history.

[Murphy101]

BDSM is only considered unhealthy (from a clinical perspective) if it is ego-dystonic. In other words, if the person is not wanting that aspect of their "selves", it would be unhealthy.

 

I'm not defending the live sex demonstration. I voted inappropriate and I'd not encourage my kids to apply. But I also don't think that what they did = encouraging unhealthy psychological issues.

 

There is a wide spectrum of sexual expression.

 

Uhuh. I am aware that from a clinical perspective what makes it unhealthy is if the person wishes they didn't like it.

 

Needless to say, I don't agree with the clinical perspective.

 

There's plenty of messed up people happily messed up, but I still think their behavior unhealthy.;)

[Tap]

I am not real keen on this idea, but I don't think it is quite as horrid as many people seem to think it is either. I have a 16yo son in college so I am a parent who has a child who could have witnessed this also.

 

I think a few important details are not getting enough representation here:

 

More than 100 Northwestern University students watched....

The optional, non-credit demo followed psychology Prof. John Michael Bailey’s sexuality class. Nearly 600 students are in Bailey’s class this quarter, and most didn’t stick around for the after-class show, which featured four members of Chicago’s fetish community describing “BDSM,” or bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism.

 

Faith said she was not coerced in any way and students were repeatedly warned it was going to get graphic.

 

Not everyone stayed, "more than 100" vs the 600 taking the class, showing that it was more common for people to have left the room, than to have stayed. This says, to me, that, the ones who stayed, made a conscious choice to stay.

 

They were warned that it would be graphic, and, ummmm, hello, this is a lecture on BDSM!!!! Those who stayed....we not tricked into this. AND they could have left at any time! It doesn't sound like it was an ambush and attack that just happened, without the students having a chance to leave. They were warned. A towel was laid down. She stripped. The event occurred. To me, it seems like they had plenty of opportunity to leave.

 

Having a 16yo in college myself, I understand the legality of having the potential of an underage person watching. BUT, as a parent who is paying for enrollment and books, I am fully aware of all of my son's classes. I wouldn't sign him up for a class on Human Sexuality at 16yo. I also, wouldn't allow him to be on campus full of adults, if I didn't think he knew how to get out of a situation that he became uncomfortable with. We research professors and if he did want to take the class, I assume the profs previous 'pushing the limits' behavior wouldn't have been hard to find, and then ds and I could make a decision on whether or not to take the class based on this knowledge. I assume this is not a required class for any majors, except, still unlikely but possible, for someone with a sex based major....which is unlikely to be a 16yo with a parent paying the bill.

 

Everything that was shown, is modest compared to the p*rn on the internet that is soooo very easy to access. These students weren't subjected to anything that they couldn't have accessed on a computer, phone, or other internet device.....on their own, after class, just like this demonstration was.

 

 

 

This being said, I don't think that the act itself was legal, and that in and of itself, should have not occurred on a college campus. It should not have just occurred in front of people, lingering after a class, they should have had to seek it out. If they felt it was something that was worth watching, it should have been moved off campus and full warning given to each person, who had to purposefully attend.

 

I guess, I liken this action to spam. If you go to certain websites, you know you will get a certain type of spam. If you take certain classes, you are likely to get some unwanted knowledge along with what you are seeking out.

 

 

ETA: a note about the money. I would think that they could argue that the money was for the lecture and discussion that occured during class. The part after class was on the couples 'own time'.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Tap, tap, tap

[Murphy101]

One - it was supposed to be a lecture/discussion - not a porn show demonstration.

 

Two - the fact that only 100 of the 600 stayed for what they thought was going to be a lecture doesn't mean much to me. The other 500 probably had other classes, commitments or whatever. Those that stayed when it went beyond discussion likely either felt too shocked to leave or had some other reason for viewing or maybe were truly interested in the psychology, but ignorant of the many ways this was not professional or academic and thus thoroughly inappropriate.

 

Three - this is still a horrid infraction of basic teaching and psychology ethics. The fact that there are people perfectly okay with a complete lack of medical ethics or teaching ethics, does not make it okay.

 

This is NOT a question of free speech. Not one person here has argued that the subject of human sexuality shield not have been discussed in a psychology program. That is not what happened.

[Scuff]

As for the prof's final comment that the students proved themselves to be thinking adults rather than fragile children, I have really grown weary of academics who go on and on about how the students in their classrooms are adults and should be treated as such, while expecting the parents of these adults to pony up for tuition. If they are such independent actors, then why not only assess the students' personal assets, instead of reaching down into my tax records and savings accounts. :rant: Seemingly when it comes to money, then they are back to being precious children again. Sigh.

 

And why does one have to witness things like this to be proven a "thinking adult"? This forum is full of thinking adults and we all managed to get there without being subjected to such things.

[Mrs Mungo]

They were warned that it would be graphic, and, ummmm, hello, this is a lecture on BDSM!!!! Those who stayed....we not tricked into this.

 

That just isn't relevant to me. Neither is the availability of worse material on the internet.

 

My problems with it are:

 

1. It was unethical from an academic perspective and unethical from a psychology perspective. As I said, there is apparently a chance the psychology department could lost its accrediation over it, that's an extremely serious problem. If my child were thinking of pursuing a psychology degree, I might discourage them from attending NU lest they continue to ignore ethical standards. I'd hate for my child to have to switch universities midstream because the school suddenly lost its accreditation.

 

 

2. It was potentially an illegal act. If I invite people to leave a street before I strip naked and have sex in the street, I would still be arrested for it.

 

ETA: a note about the money. I would think that they could argue that the money was for the lecture and discussion that occured during class. The part after class was on the couples 'own time'.

Escorts who get paid for a "date" and have "optional" intercourse after the "date" can still get arrested.

[4everHis]

I can't get my emotions solidfied on this one. I really feel like the University could be in for a legal battle if this young woman ever changes her mind about "wanting" to do this. She was 25, a student, and she was put on display. Yes, she is a consenting adult, but she is also in a place of unequal authority. 1. because she was a student. and 2. because her proffessor sanctioned this.

 

I actually think it would have been much more appropriate if this had been two paid, non-student adults who were illustrating bondage issues. (and of course no mandatory attendance.)

The fact they used a student makes me very angry. She was not in a position to predict the possible consequences for this action. :glare:

 

It would affect my faith in the schools staff to make decisions based on the best interest of the students.

 

When people take phone cams everywhere I can't help but wonder if pics aren't going to show up. She might have a different take on it if she hits the www. I'm sad for her on so many levels.

[happi duck]

ETA: a note about the money. I would think that they could argue that the money was for the lecture and discussion that occured during class. The part after class was on the couples 'own time'.

 

I think their whole 'presentation' was additional/optional/outside of class.

 

The woman involved said that the class had seen the same on video. I'm not sure why a live demo was an important addition. This is hardly the same as an art history class seeing a Matisse in person instead of just a photo, KWIM?

 

Given the woman's particular desire (to be dominated in public), I feel like the class was used by this couple.

[simka2]

I think their whole 'presentation' was additional/optional/outside of class.

 

The woman involved said that the class had seen the same on video. I'm not sure why a live demo was an important addition. This is hardly the same as an art history class seeing a Matisse in person instead of just a photo, KWIM?

 

Given the woman's particular desire (to be dominated in public), I feel like the class was used by this couple.

 

 

:iagree:Even if I chose to go to an afterschool lecture, I didn't chose to become part in someone's personal sexual fantasy. Yes, they could have left, but how much time did they really have? Between the, "This isn't really going to happen is it?" thoughts.

[elegantlion]

AIUI, she isn't a student.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

[Tap]

That just isn't relevant to me. Neither is the availability of worse material on the internet.

 

My problems with it are:

 

1. It was unethical from an academic perspective and unethical from a psychology perspective. As I said, there is apparently a chance the psychology department could lost its accrediation over it, that's an extremely serious problem. If my child were thinking of pursuing a psychology degree, I might discourage them from attending NU lest they continue to ignore ethical standards. I'd hate for my child to have to switch universities midstream because the school suddenly lost its accreditation.

 

It may not seem like it from my post, but I do believe that the professor should have extreme ramifications, and wouldn't even disagree with termination. He knew it was pushing the limits, he admits to contemplating it. I am guessing that he knew, if he asked permission to allow this particular content it would have been denied, thus he didn't ask. They are making it out to be something that just 'occurred' and not planned from the beginning. I would still agree that he should be severely reprimanded, but even more so if he planned it and purposefully didn't seek permission. I do not think the entire department should face repercussions for a single profs actions, unless 1. they knew about it and didn't stop it. or 2. the accreditation board feels like they will make an example of a college for the action to discourage it from ever happening again.

 

2. It was potentially an illegal act. If I invite people to leave a street before I strip naked and have sex in the street, I would still be arrested for it.

I also agree that the couple should face any legal repercussions they deserve for the action. I would bet that if this is her fetish, she knows what is legal in her area and what is not. As is the nature of BDSM, she was the one in control of the situation and should take the brunt of the prosecution.

 

 

Escorts who get paid for a "date" and have "optional" intercourse after the "date" can still get arrested.

Yes, but it wasn't a date between unknown people, they are a couple and were hired as a couple. I don't think know for certain, but I don't think a couple can be prosecuted for prostitution. I could see they getting ticketed for not having a 'licence to perform.' LOL but I expect they would be covered under the schools business/educational licences (or whatever a school has to do legally in this regard) by hiring them.

[phathui5]

Sick, sick, sick. Why do you need a human sexuality class anyway?

 

I could see taking a human sexuality class if you're going into counseling or the medical field.

[Mrs Mungo]

I could see taking a human sexuality class if you're going into counseling or the medical field.

 

:iagree: I don't see anything wrong with a human sexuality class in and of itself.

 

Yes, but it wasn't a date between unknown people, they are a couple and were hired as a couple. I don't think know for certain, but I don't think a couple can be prosecuted for prostitution. I could see they getting ticketed for not having a 'licence to perform.' LOL but I expect they would be covered under the schools business/educational licences (or whatever a school has to do legally in this regard) by hiring them.

 

Hm, I don't know. I don't want to try and google anything related. :tongue_smilie:

 

I do not think the entire department should face repercussions for a single profs actions, unless 1. they knew about it and didn't stop it. or 2. the accreditation board feels like they will make an example of a college for the action to discourage it from ever happening again.

 

I would imagine it will probably depend upon the university's reaction. I would *bet* that's why they suddenly reversed their stance.

[Tap]

I would imagine it will probably depend upon the university's reaction. I would *bet* that's why they suddenly reversed their stance.

 

I agree and hadn't thought about that ...I think this is a valid point. It could have to do with the perception of whether or not the department sanctioned the 'event' or was pursuing appropriate measures to prevent it from happening again/reprimanding those involved.

[Joanne]

When people take phone cams everywhere I can't help but wonder if pics aren't going to show up. She might have a different take on it if she hits the www. I'm sad for her on so many levels.

 

Given her self disclosed fetish, this won't bother her. She'd welcome it.

[kwickimom]

UGH.

I cant stand it.

 

Is nothing sacred anymore???? This was a live sex show and there are no 2 ways around it. It was porn. If this girl did this in a McDonalds, she'd be arrested. School is a public place. End of story.

 

The more people make excuses for sex being everywhere, the more problems pop up.

[Tap]

Given her self disclosed fetish, this won't bother her. She'd welcome it.

:iagree:

 

At least for now. The bad thing about the internet, if she changes her mind in the future....it will always be there.

 

 

ETA: I also wonder how much negative attention this could bring her. I would expect that being in a traveling sex lecture program, one would have to expect a bit of repercussions socially, but this is opening the group up to a national audience, and national scrutiny. I expect that some her pain if the videos go viral, will be real and not hitting her pleasure center.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Tap, tap, tap

[4everHis]

Given her self disclosed fetish, this won't bother her. She'd welcome it.

 

and I guess this makes me even sadder for her. the same sadness I feel for those jr. high girls 'giving' oral s*x and not realizing the mental/emotional/relational implications that will be felt throughout their lives/relationships.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't know.

 

It isn't so much the nudity but that a self described "exhibitionist" was encouraged to get naked in a psychology class.

 

I have serious concerns that she was exploited in such a manner like some sort of circus freak.

 

It wouldn't be appropriate to exploit any other psychological issue in order to titillate a classroom full of college students, why is it ok suddenly because it is "hot?"

 

I do hope there is an investigation by the American Psychological Association Code of Ethics.

 

I don't care so much that someone was nakey in a college class but that it was unethical.

[Wabi Sabi]

I can't get that worked up over it.

 

Was it crossing boundaries and showed a lack of judgment? Probably. But eh, it was one class and one teacher. Doesn't mean it's indicative of the entire campus.

 

When I was in college I took a human sexuality course where we watched porn: recorded, not live, mind you. Some of it was mind-blowingly foul, to be honest and it still makes me shudder just to think about it even though I'm a pretty open-minded person. The fact that this happens on college campuses in nothing new. I sincerely doubt there would be any under-aged child in a class titled "Human Sexuality."

 

My children are still quite young, but when the time comes I can't imagine that one isolated incident like this would affect whether my child decided to apply. By the time my children are of college age it's about what THEY want, there's very little "we" involved. They can apply to and attend whatever college they want. Granted, our ability to help pay for tuition is something they will probably want to consider, but ultimately the choice will be their own, not mine or my husband's.

[wapiti]

.

Edited March 22, 2014 by wapiti

[Tap]

 

I have serious concerns that she was exploited in such a manner like some sort of circus freak.

 

 

 

I don't know about this. It sound like she put herself into this position and was the exhibitionist, and not being exploited by someone else. Obviously, we don't know if she was coerced, but from what I have read, it seemed like she was a voluntary party. My next statement is based on this assumption....

 

There are people with many, many different forms of mental illness, tragic life changing events or medical diagnosis, who go and give talks about their diagnosis and lives. I don't think of them as being exploited any more than she was. If anyone was receiving extra compensation or being rewarded for her lecture to include this extra 'event' then I may think differently, but this doesn't appear to be the case from what I have read. They were paid for the lecture, this was not part of the planned discussion.

[Tap]

An interesting side story that I would be interested in hearing, is what does the 'Chicago fetish community' (classification taken from an article) think about it all? I would be interested to hear what her 'peers' think about it. Especially her peers who are in academia, or serious students. I would love to hear the other sides views on this.

[Murphy101]

I don't know about this. It sound like she put herself into this position and was the exhibitionist, and not being exploited by someone else. Obviously, we don't know if she was coerced, but from what I have read, it seemed like she was a voluntary party. My next statement is based on this assumption....

 

There are people with many, many different forms of mental illness, tragic life changing events or medical diagnosis, who go and give talks about their diagnosis and lives. I don't think of them as being exploited any more than she was. If anyone was receiving extra compensation or being rewarded for her lecture to include this extra 'event' then I may think differently, but this doesn't appear to be the case from what I have read. They were paid for the lecture, this was not part of the planned discussion.

 

BUT they usually are not encouraged to actually perform, enact, demonstrate their mental illness! For example, a person who hurts themselves or likes hurting others is usually not encouraged to do so for a class, tho they might get off on it. An anorexic is usually not encouraged to demonstrate who she can excersie herself to exhaustion or various ways to purge to her system of calories.

[Slartibartfast]

BUT they usually are not encouraged to actually perform, enact, demonstrate their mental illness! For example, a person who hurts themselves or likes hurting others is usually not encouraged to do so for a class, tho they might get off on it. An anorexic is usually not encouraged to demonstrate who she can excersie herself to exhaustion or various ways to purge to her system of calories.

 

:iagree:

 

It would be like having someone with an eating disorder binge and purge for the class.

 

Of course she was willing....she's an exhibitionist.

[creekland]

Was it crossing boundaries and showed a lack of judgment? Probably. But eh, it was one class and one teacher. Doesn't mean it's indicative of the entire campus.

 

 

 

I know for me and my son, the issue is that this professor thinks this is/was ok and likely has the tenure to keep teaching there AND my son quite possibly will need such a class for his degree (heading to the medical field). We'd rather see one where clinical distance is kept, so it's personal preference with crossing Northwestern off our list of consideration.

 

I am convinced that the U did support the prof at first and is only now changing their minds due to the legal or certification issues others have brought up.

 

If my son were considering Engineering or English or some other non-related field, it might not concern me so much, but then again, it still might. I don't know. I'm not "there."

 

I went to a large public U. I'm aware of what is studied and what NEEDS to be studied for certain professions. I just don't believe this was a "needed" part. I feel the prof was pushing the envelope because he feels the envelope should be pushed. I think the couple involved knew exactly what their plans were and reveled in it. They came prepared, no?

 

And we'd rather send our student and our money elsewhere as our thoughts are that other places are more "professional." In a way, we're picking a college much in the same manner that we'd pick a car (features we like and features we don't). Why buy something one doesn't like when there are other choices that fit better?

 

I've no problem with people "buying" Northwestern if that's the fit for them.

 

I'd like to see the prof, the couple, and the U get ramifications over this so the glory of "studying" porn in this manner doesn't spread and become commonplace as college sanctioned. What people do in their own personal lives is up to them IMO. But that's just my opinion at this point.

[Joanne]

BUT they usually are not encouraged to actually perform, enact, demonstrate their mental illness! For example, a person who hurts themselves or likes hurting others is usually not encouraged to do so for a class, tho they might get off on it. An anorexic is usually not encouraged to demonstrate who she can excersie herself to exhaustion or various ways to purge to her system of calories.

 

You are assuming it is a mental illness.

 

To the BDSM community, it is sexual expression.

 

Clinically, it is not something the mental health community would treat. It is consentual, mutual sexual expression of adults.

[Tap]

BUT they usually are not encouraged to actually perform, enact, demonstrate their mental illness! For example, a person who hurts themselves or likes hurting others is usually not encouraged to do so for a class, tho they might get off on it. An anorexic is usually not encouraged to demonstrate who she can excersie herself to exhaustion or various ways to purge to her system of calories.

 

I have seen videos at lectures of many mental illnesses (I used to work in the mental health field) and have listened to lectures by people who have tourettes syndrome, who were having tics during the lectures as well as other medical conditions.

 

When I was in elementary school, there was a man who came around doing school anti-smoking lectures who blew smoke rings out of his tracheotomy hole.

 

Dateline and other TV shows have done prime time shows on people with various forms of mental illness, including cutting/self mutilation/anorexia/bulimia etc. While they may not be live, I have seen people in the media as they video taped these actions for national viewing.

 

 

I also don't compare someones sexual preferences with mental illness.

[Mrs Mungo]

You are assuming it is a mental illness.

 

To the BDSM community, it is sexual expression.

 

Clinically, it is not something the mental health community would treat. It is consentual, mutual sexual expression of adults.

 

I don't disagree, but would a clinician *encourage* someone to participate in an illegal activity? Public sex is not legal.

[Joanne]

I don't disagree, but would a clinician *encourage* someone to participate in an illegal activity? Public sex is not legal.

 

It is debateable as to whether this was public sex.

 

ETA: I am not defending the institution or professor: I think it was highly inappropriate. I'm just countering the prevailing assumption here that the fetish/sexual choices are mental illness.

[swimmermom3]

I thought it was a stupid thing for the teacher to do. But, I thought it was funny. The story made me laugh and reminded me of the sex education scene from the Monty Python movie 'Meaning of Life"

 

:DMy first thought when I heard about the situation was that the prof had watched too much Monty Python, and obviously not the best films.

 

If I remember correctly, the students were bored by the whole thing.

[yellowperch]

As a parent who will someday be paying (most of) 5 college tuitions (I hope anyway), I am very disappointed at some of the nonsense my $$$ will pay for, at least in part. I've attended two universities, and worked at one, and oh the things I've seen. Nothing compares to this, thank goodness.

 

I'm a little queasy, to be honest.

 

There is quite a bit to learn about human psychology and sexuality before you would even delve into these subject areas, even if you were an advanced grad student. And, of course, no visuals are really needed.

 

What a foolish enterprise, and I feel sorry for the girl invovled.

[Tap]

I don't disagree, but would a clinician *encourage* someone to participate in an illegal activity? Public sex is not legal.

 

Not OP, but I don't know if the point being discussed was if it was legal, it was whether it was exploitation. Mental illness vs. personal choice.

 

Exploitation from Wiki: 2)The act of using something in an unjust or cruel manner

[amey311]

If those people were paid, it's actual pornography (legal) versus prostitution (illegal): http://www.slate.com/id/2186552/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Freeman

 

Generally speaking, people who are arrested for prostitution are not being arrested for the actual intimate act, but rather for solicitation (asking someone for it).

 

It's a bit gray in this situation, since the CA v Freeman ruling basically says that actors aren't doing it for themselves, but for the audience and it's clear that there was something other than money in it for these adults. And let's be honest, not every actor in adult films is doing it just for the audience.

 

Semi-related:

I went to a private women's college in the northeast back in the 90s. My roommate took a "Sex and Gender in Society" class that she described repeatedly as "anti-man" and said she often felt badly for the one man in her class (cross registered from one of the other colleges in the area). They took a field trip to the local sex shop and were given quarters by the professor so they could watch peep shows.

[Murphy101]

You are assuming it is a mental illness.

 

To the BDSM community, it is sexual expression.

 

Clinically, it is not something the mental health community would treat. It is consentual, mutual sexual expression of adults.

 

Yes I am, bc as far as I am concerned (and I'm well aware many don't agree with me) it IS a mental illness to be get off on being publicly debased, and used. The fact that she likes it does not change it is messed up.

 

I have seen videos at lectures of many mental illnesses (I used to work in the mental health field) and have listened to lectures by people who have tourettes syndrome, who were having tics during the lectures as well as other medical conditions.

 

Yes. And I would think and hope, tho i know there are occassions in the past where i would be wrong, that the identity is not available and the setting is professional and done with tact, respect, and care for the patient.

 

When I was in elementary school, there was a man who came around doing school anti-smoking lectures who blew smoke rings out of his tracheotomy hole.

 

 

Yeah. That is stupid. Gee, let's make smoking thru a trach tube fascinating. See kids smoking sucks so much, but well keep at it! Rates right up there with the don't drink demo my kids science class did a few years ago. They talk about how drunks don't know they are impaired and how horrible the results. Then they had all the kids (mostly middle schoolers) put on these goggles that simulate the vision of a drunk and had the kids try to navigate a simple obstacle course. The kids had a BLAST. Laughing and joking and begging to wear the goggles again for more turns. :glare: gee. Thanks for showing my kids how freaking fun being drunk is. Don't know who the idiot was that came up with that brilliant idea.

 

Dateline and other TV shows have done prime time shows on people with various forms of mental illness, including cutting/self mutilation/anorexia/bulimia etc. While they may not be live, I have seen people in the media as they video taped these actions for national viewing.

 

Again. I don't much watch this either. One, what our twisted voyeuristic media is okay with is not typically not how ANYONE would want their teacher or professional mental health provider to treat them. Are some okay with it? Probably. No doubt there. Still not ethical.

 

I also don't compare someones sexual preferences with mental illness.

 

It doesn't necessarily. And sometimes it does. And I have not argued that my opinion is a clinical board approved opinion. In fact, I said I know it isn't.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2011 by Martha
Replaced abused with publicly. Abused might be too strong a word

[justamouse]

Sex acts in public places are not legal. You could be arrested for that.

 

 

.

 

They may not consider this a public venue, though. That will be interesting to see.

 

I don't remember where, but I read that she labels herself as an exhibitionist and apparently enjoyed the attention. :001_huh:

 

I also would be concerned about the legal age. Isn't it still in some states you must be 21 to enter an "adult establishment"?

 

Oh fer cryin out loud-really?

 

You know, though, her boyfriend was the one in the class for the talk-he offers her up as an example--that is so not cool. I'm going to fall back on the external pressure for her-I mean, even IF she is an exhibitionist, someone needed to pull her back from the edge here, not be the one to suggest it.

 

Boyfriend gets a 0, and so does the prof. And she gets a 0 for not knowing herself enough to control herself in such situations.

[Tap]

I also would be concerned about the legal age. Isn't it still in some states you must be 21 to enter an "adult establishment"?

 

I have been thinking about this...I wonder, if there were any students under 18 in the venue, about 'child endangerment' allegations. Hmmmm.

[Mynyel]

College students need a demo for that? :001_huh: Really?

 

Yuck :ack2:

[Mynyel]

I agree. I had the same reaction to reading that. Tho I guess some men could be so upset by their lack of ... Technique... That they prefer to believe it doesn't exist than that they aren't getting the job done?:001_huh:

 

omg I have to :lol: at this.

[littleWMN]

I have no words. I'm disgusted.

[happi duck]

They may not consider this a public venue, though. That will be interesting to see.

 

 

 

Oh fer cryin out loud-really?

 

You know, though, her boyfriend was the one in the class for the talk-he offers her up as an example--that is so not cool. I'm going to fall back on the external pressure for her-I mean, even IF she is an exhibitionist, someone needed to pull her back from the edge here, not be the one to suggest it.

 

Boyfriend gets a 0, and so does the prof. And she gets a 0 for not knowing herself enough to control herself in such situations.

 

The couple who did the demonstration were NOT students, they were both the guest speakers. They decided to demonstrate and the prof said okay. These were not students and no one was forced or 'encouraged'. It was her idea and she is happily being interviewed all over the news about it.

[mommymilkies]

I voted the third, but I'm biased against northwestern to begin with, so...

 

If it happened at Duke, my kid was accepted, and the financial aid was there, I would still send my kid. I have a bigger issue with the tours of sex crimes scenes than the sex scene. Not that I like the latter, but the former is worse, IMO.

[creekland]

I voted the third, but I'm biased against northwestern to begin with, so...

 

If it happened at Duke, my kid was accepted, and the financial aid was there, I would still send my kid. I have a bigger issue with the tours of sex crimes scenes than the sex scene. Not that I like the latter, but the former is worse, IMO.

 

I don't think I would still consider any college my kids were looking at if it happened there - at least - not for this son who might need the class. At this point, we have several possibilities for good schools, but none that we are "in love" with. Finances will say a lot about his choice. However, we still need to pick those he wishes to apply to. Northwestern is no longer on that "possibility" list. I've also replaced it for his ACT scores next month.

[Audrey]

Here's the news story:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4099633-418/northwestern-university-defends-after-class-live-sex-demonstration.html

 

Don't read it if you don't want graphic. It's not that important.

 

I'm just curious about the poll results. I know how I feel, but I'm curious to see how the "majority" feels (and I don't know who the majority is yet...)

 

 

I am a Northwestern alum. I think the demonstration was inappropriate and the fallout was handled inappropriately. IMHO, the professor responsible should be disciplined severely or possibly dismissed, if this is not the first incident of poor decision making.

 

However, this doesn't change my view on the level of excellence in education at Northwestern. I wouldn't discourage anyone from applying there. It does make me a wee bit embarrassed, but it doesn't diminish my opinion of the school as a whole.

[kalanamak]

It wasn't on my desirable list to begin with. The nickname is "Potatoheads" and the WORST grammar I saw in my medical school applications was from there. My GOSH the grammar in the printed literature was bad.

[TravelingChris]

In graduate school for a criminal justice degree, I took a class on sexual crimes. It was labeled graphic and that was a good description since in order to talk about certain sexual crimes, you need to discuss them somewhat graphically. Let me assure everyone there were no demonstrations at all and not even any videos. We had lecturers discuss what pornography has been defined as in some communities but we weren't watching it and deciding ourselves. Even if we had watched some clips, we were a graduate level class. This was an undergraduate class and someone saying the optional part was graphic-well, the discussion was going to be about fetishes and I can think the discussion would be graphic. There is no reason anyone should expect that just using the term graphic automatically grants the professor the right to have a live sex show.

 

In terms of legality, it seems that several laws may have been broken here. Oh, and pornography is not legal. THe way sault movies get around this is that what constitutes pornography depends on the area. But I think that even in Evanston a jury might very well decide that a live sex act in front of college students may very well qualify.