The more I read about the sex toy demonstration at Northwestern

[cali]

the more disturbing I find it. What educational value was imparted? How does this not objectify women in the basest way? Why isn't this just catering to titillation and the woman's particular "kink"?

<snip>

Faith Kroll, the woman who stripped, was laying down on a towel when she was penetrated. When she arrived, she thought she just would be answering students’ questions and showing off sex toys they brought, including whips, paddles and a clown wig.

An “absurd, clinical” video and subsequent discussion about various aspects of female orgasm led Faith and her partner Jim Marcus, 45, to prove to the class that female orgasm is real.

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

“One of the students asked what my specific fetish was and mine is being in front of people, having the attention and being used,” she said. “The students seemed really intrigued.”

<snip>

http://www.suntimes.com/4099633-417/northwestern-university-defends-after-class-live-sex-demonstration.html

[liberal N proud]

1. Sounds to me that Faith was just living out a fantasy

Being in front to people and having the attention and being used all in one.

Value = 0 (except for Faith Kroll)

[cali]

2. There's something really yucky and prurient about this

the way it's all tarted up as educational is such shite.

[ReggieVeggie]

4. so, what should be the subject of a human sexuality class?

ova and sperm?

[cali]

5. Anything and everything should be discussed. Why not?

But live sex acts that denigrate women and feed the fantasy of some woman should not be.

[ReggieVeggie]

10. so you would have approved had the subject been male?

And, if not, where can a professor take a class like this one?

[cali]

14. no. I wouldn't.

how about discussion, written materials, video materials? Oh, and how about a woman screwing a dog? Would that be OK with you? What's the difference? How about a man licking the shoes of a dominatrix?
How about someone pissing on someone else?
Those are all fetishes too.

[jberryhill]

6. Gee, in a class about war, do people come in and shoot one another?

When the psychology class covers suicide, I guess they'll need someone to come in and hang themselves, so that everyone is clear on the concept.

[cali]

8. thanks. you hit the nail on the head.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

219. Shouldn't that be hit the head with a nail?

[ReggieVeggie]

11. I see

so sexual actions are equivalent to death?

[cali]

12. uh, do you really think that's what he/she was saying? really?

[ReggieVeggie]

13. yes

ginned up a counterpoint based on false equivalency

[cali]

15. I think his/her point is that you don't need to demonstrate everything to

discuss it/learn about it. no false equivalency in that.

[jberryhill]

21. No, your position is that any class needs a demonstration of the subject

[ReggieVeggie]

26. who said `needs'?

I'm saying it shouldn't get liberal, free thinking people to freak out about this particular case.

[cali]

27. just out of curiosity: If the demonstration was a woman

being whipped (her particular kink) would you still be all for it. How about someone being pissed on?

[ReggieVeggie]

28. yep

people's sexual proclivities are their own affair

Or are you arguing that you should control people? Is that a liberal position?

[cali]

29. no, I don't give a hoot what people do in their sex lives

I don't think a bdsm couple performing on stage for a class is anything but self-indulgent bullshit that serves no educational purpose

[jberryhill]

30. I'm not feeling particularly "freaked out"

I just think it is dumb and ill considered.

You seem to think that is some sort of "objection" to whatever this professor wants to do, and that is why you have to project your control needs onto others.

Let's take another example of this kind of principle.

I've noticed that a lot of people pick their noses while waiting at red lights. In the confines of their car, they kind of forget that there are windows all around them, IMHO.

Now, do I find it gross when I'm sitting at a red light and someone is picking their nose? Yes.

You seem to think that my opinion about watching red light nosepickers translates into some moral condemnation or desire that they be prevented from picking their nose at a red light. It doesn't.

I firmly believe that if you want to pick your nose in public at a red light, then you have every right to do so, and I would certainly defend your right to do it. Some of my best friends pick their noses at red lights. I also personally believe it makes you look like a disgusting slob. That is also my right.

Now, I'm sure that in courses in otolaryngology, there is probably a discussion on how mucous dries in the nostrils and the role of nasal mucous in otolaryngologic health, treatment, and diagnosis. I'm willing to bet, though, that few professors feel the need to dig one out and show it to the class.

[seabeyond]

32. no fuckin way. wow. driving today, thinking about this subthread, i thought EXACTLY

the same thing. bah hahahah.

was thinking about posting the picking the nose at the intersection issue. lol

[jberryhill]

47. It's a useful example in a lot of contexts

Some people never really get the point of "I can not like something, but do not seek to compel others to behave according to my opinion."

Control freaks absolutely can't understand that attitude.

That is why they perceive others to be "control freaks" for voicing an opinion with which they disagree.

Nobody has said the professor should be punished, censured, or prevented from running his class however he likes. But if you say "I think it was stupid", then the control freak cannot separate that from some idea that you think it should be banned, punished, or whatever.

It tells you a lot about how others think.

[ReggieVeggie]

35. my control needs?

talk about projecting

This is a university course taught to young adults. The opprobrium over this incident is what's out of kilter. As I said to cali, why don't you get in touch with the prof and tell him how wrong he was.

[jberryhill]

45. Yes, your control needs

You see, when someone attributes something to me that I am certainly not thinking, it tells me a lot more about how that other person thinks than I do.

I think the professor is an idiot.

You think that holding such a belief necessitates some need on my part to either communicate my opinion to the professor and condemn him, or that the professor has done something which should not be permitted.

What that tells me is that you cannot separate the concepts of (a) having an opinion, and (b) compelling others to agree.

Those two things are simply not coupled in my mind the way they apparently and implicitly are coupled in yours.

That is why I refer to your control needs. You seem to believe that holding an opinion on a subject necessarily implies I believe it follows that I should condemn persons of different opinions.

And, your demonstration of that coupling - in your mind - is apparent in your behavior on this thread - using language like "why don't you do X" as some sort of challenge or order to others, for example. Remind me of what I have commanded you to do in this discussion?

"As I said to cali, why don't you get in touch with the prof and tell him how wrong he was."

You have an apparent need to tell others what to do. It is clear that the prof and I disagree on whether the event was appropriate.

Unlike you, I recognize that he is entitled to his differing opinion, and feel not the slightest impulse to communicate my opinion to him for the purpose of asserting some supposed "superiority" of my opinion, or to tell him what to do. You have trouble with the concept of holding an opinion, but recognizing that others may differ.

So, remind me again about how it is "liberals" should behave?

[ReggieVeggie]

63. you can do what you like

I have no need to control you. If you want to be outraged over this, more power to you. Your opinion is your own. I'm just trying to find out why you have the opinion you do. And, no, it seems strange to me that liberals would condemn this event. Maybe my perception of liberalism is different than yours.

[jberryhill]

91. There you go again - "If you want to be outraged over this"

You see, I'm having a quite pleasant day, and am not outraged in the slightest. More than anything, I think the event and the whole topic is amusing.

You, on the other hand, assume that to disagree with someone is to be "outraged".

It's funny really. I haven't condemned a thing.

I don't condemn people who pick their noses at red lights either. Nor do I get outraged. Nor do I seek to tell them what to do.

I do, however, think people look like disgusting nitwits picking their noses at stop lights.

But as a liberal, my feeling is that it is up to them, regardless of what my opinion is. I don't bang on their window to say "I'm outraged that you look like a disgusting nitwit to me!" If that's what they want to do, fine. But it doesn't change the way it looks to me.

Liberalism is not the approval or praise of everything everyone else does. It is simply being able to recognize that people see things differently, and not seeking to impose one's personal sense of "right and wrong" on others where they may validly differ.

Understanding someone else's point of view and agreeing with it are two different things. I strongly support gay rights. The fact that I am not gay, have no interest in sex with those of my gender, and married someone of the opposite gender, does not mean that I support gay rights any less. My choices, in what I would do or not do, are my choices.

Some things that I do in the bedroom would not be pleasant for a gay person. Some things that gay people do in the bedroom would not be pleasant for me. That is why I recognize that none of us should be in the business of telling other people what they do in the bedroom. That way, everybody's happy.

So, back to the point, I would not do what this professor did, because I think it is stupid. I fully recognize his right to run his class his way. That is the liberal viewpoint. Liberals have opinions on all sorts of things as individuals, the POINT is that others are entitled to differ.

[Ikonoklast]

43. You always get to that point in your posts.

"This is the way Liberals should think."


Yeah, right, because you say so.


Ain't foolin' anybody with that tactic, it's been used here before.

Try harder.

[ReggieVeggie]

57. could you explin liberal thought on this subject?

seems few and far between around here

[jberryhill]

62. It's very simple

1. I am entitled to believe the professor's conduct of the class was foolish.

2. The professor is entitled to believe his conduct of the class was proper.

3. I have no need, compulsion or right to impose my belief on the professor.


Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

[Ikonoklast]

69. You go first, Skippy.

Oh, and deflection as a tactic doesn't work here, either.

[Teaser]

22. yes they are.

because nearly every death is the result of a sex act.

[JuniperLea]

34. No, not nearly...

ALL are a result of a sex act. You can't be born without a sex act, you can't be alive unless you are born, and you can't die unless you have once been born alive.

[Teaser]

44. I was going to be that sweeping

but then in-vitro fertilization crossed my mind. Depending on your inclination, that my not qualify as a sex act.

[JuniperLea]

46. Good call...

The sweep would need to include the use of sex organs and related accoutrements.

[yawnmaster]

86. even in-vitro requires masturbation - that would be a sex act. eom

[KittyWampus]

119. in erotic asphyxiation, they can be.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. Is the woman at Northwestern now dead? Injured?

[truebrit71]

61. Yeah because war is exactly like female orgasms right?

Many women have great diffculty reaching an orgasm, some say they don't exist, and many are curious as to how to help a woman achieve orgasm. This was a discussion and demonstration of that topic.

On the other hand EVERYONE knows what war does.

So not they're not really the same, are they?

[seabeyond]

71. hey, and guys have early ejaculation. lets watch and learn. no wait... wont happen. nt

[BobbyBoring]

84. It would be boring

Seeing guys thinking about baseball........

[seabeyond]

85. who says it would be boring to the grls.... oh wait, the guy. boring watch a girl orgasm. been

there, done that. give me a man to watch.....

wont happen.

i didnt know that it was about your entertainment. another, oh wait, i did know that,hence the issue

[Warren DeMontague]

214. I am certain that you could find sex shows with men. They do exist.

If you're feeling left out, I have no doubt that there are professionals as well as amateurs who would be happy to put on that sort of performance.

[Hannah Bell]

180. +100.

[MedicalAdmin]

153. Birds and bees, but only if they are censored.

The puritan is thick on the ground here.

[JVS]

234. Flowers.

[Mz Pip]

33. Usually there's a cover charge

and a two drink minimum to watch this sort of thing.

[MedicalAdmin]

151. Translation: I don't like it so it must be bad.

[Skidmore]

3. And she was manipulating the class and the system to let her

live it out, which leads me to say that sometimes the term "consenting adult" is meaningless.

[cali]

7. that too.

and under the guise of learning about human sexuality, what sex act wouldn't be "educational"?

[Myrina]

192. BINGO!

:puke: but, Ewww.

[kentuck]

9. A perversion...

of some sort.

[SpiralHawk]

16. Clown wigs as a sex toy? This has to be a republicon company

Do they wear the clown wigs with their diapers? Wait, wait, don't tell me. I can't handle the truth...

CAUTION - Image below sexually stimulates Republicons:

[Aerows]

24. I REALLY wondered about that one, too

A clown wig? Really? Clearly I am out of the loop on that one LOL

[SpiralHawk]

25. "Whatever floats our boat. Heh heh." - Republicons

[Aerows]

114. I guess!

:rofl:

[cliffordu]

198. BWAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAH AH

Fookin' perfect.

[seabeyond]

17. what i found ironically amusing. SHE did the act.... HE got paid. nt

[cali]

18. well, I suppose it could be argued that he did the act

he was the one that penetrated her with the dildo.

[Dogtown]

19. Consenting adults.

[JuniperLea]

41. On the public's tax dollars and private donations?

Consenting adults pay their own way and don't use university facilities. They can have their scuzzy little sex party down by the docks/on the other side of the tracks where most cities keep their sex industry.

[truebrit71]

50. Northwestern is a private university...how are the tax-payers involved..

...they're not, but nice to know that the Victorian attitude towards sex is alive and well in the 21st century...

[cali]

53. oh please. because one finds this fatuous and self-indulgent

as well as sexist, doesn't mean one has a Victorian attitude toward sex.

[truebrit71]

64. It isn't any of those things. Getting all worked up about "sex" in the 21st century is ridiculous..

..

[Hannah Bell]

183. oh, bullshit.

[Dogtown]

104. Whatever

Puritanical prudishness.

[JVS]

228. Do you really want to go down this road? I'm sure the right wing would love taxpayer reveiw of...

all activities going on on America's campuses.

[readmoreoften]

243. +1

[bemildred]

20. Yawn. nt

[cali]

23. yawn right back to your inanity.

[JuniperLea]

36. Wow... this is a yawn to you? Really?

The objectification of women is a yawn? The use of a captive audience for selfish satisfaction is a yawn?

Good God. Appalling.

[cali]

58. no, no. you don't get it. we're just close minded prudes

because we don't see the great value of this.

[mitchtv]

229. I'd have to agree

nt

[bemildred]

68. Pretty much yeah.

Does my failure to get upset upset you?

[truebrit71]

92. The woman was a consenting partner, the audience was free to leave...other than that

..you are 100% right....

Epic, EPIC YAWN....

[Lucian]

122. What you fail to see...

is that the woman consented to do it. No one made her do it. She had no problems doing it. And those in attendance were adults. In a college class.

You're just manufacturing outrage.

[Warren DeMontague]

216. Wait. The woman was simultaneously being objectified AND selfishly using the audience?

How does that work, exactly?

No, seriously. How does that work?




...
Because here's how it looks to me: Any time any group of consenting adults does something the clucking moralists don't like, it's just a vicious circle of everyone involved simultaneously oppressing and being oppressed.

Amazing.

[readmoreoften]

244. It's a yawn to this woman.

I'm not going to run around worrying about individual women are "objectifying" themselves. :eyes:

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. Was the teacher John Cleese?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDoQFcQEpOQ

[Blue_Tires]

60. I was about to mention that...

Who knew back when that was made real life would catch up with absurdist satire?

[uppityperson]

133. I was thinking of posting that also. Was my first thought on it.

My second was meh. Consenting adults, forewarned students, non-issue. so to speak

[MellowDem]

37. While the relevance may be debated...

to the class, I still don't understand how it "objectifies women in the basest way". If the point was to "prove" that the female orgasm exists, doesn't seem like it was about demeaning women so much as just drawing attention to their own sexuality, which, it seems to me, has traditionally been ignored or even said to be completely lacking.

If they can destroy such stupid myths with a live demo, I don't really see what the big deal is. I guess you could say that it's not needed anymore, since the students likely already know a woman can have an orgasm. Even then, I don't see how it is objectifying women. The only criticism I would have is that it is wasting the student's time, but it was voluntary, so even that kinda falls short.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. Wasn't it a class in human sexuality?

And isn't female orgasm related to human sexuality?

Sorry but I don't see the problem here.

[cbdo2007]

39. What percentage of women have never had an orgasm??

Maybe these classes should be more prevalent.

[ladjf]

42. Hmm. I thought that I was about as sexually liberated as one

could be. However, the scenarios described in this post seem to be a simple case of matching fetishes, i.e. exhibitionism and voyeurism. While there might have been some instructional components present, the potential for negative side-effects loomed large. That demonstration was,IMO,
inappropriate under the described circumstances.

[cali]

55. well said. n/t

[leftstreet]

100. Can't wait to see what happens if they offer a class on sexual assault

Well said

[uppityperson]

135. Or on veterinary science

[Raine]

197. Agree nt

[guitar man]

48. Damn, college has changed since I went

We used to have to go down to the Dusty Dog after class, pay a cover charge and toss some good tips on the rail to get a show like that :P

[MilesColtrane]

49. I don't think a hands on experiment was needed to "prove that the...

female orgasm is real".

The evidence for that is overwhelming. (pun intended)

[truebrit71]

51. This is still the 21st century right? Why is this news? Consenting adults in front of other adults..

...what is the issue again?

[cali]

52. huh? actually, sex acts in front of consenting adults is illegal in many

jurisdictions. Now tell me how this isn't sexist?

[truebrit71]

54. This was an educational forum exploring fetishes, yes?

It isn't sexist because it was between two consenting adults.

I just don't understand the problem.

[cali]

56. of course it's sexist. just because it's two consenting adults

doesn't mean it isn't sexist. And there are plenty of ways to explore the issue without a live demonstration.

[truebrit71]

67. Okay, maybe I'm stupid. Please explain how this is sexist.

..because I don't get it...two consenting partners and yet it was sexist? So every time I have nookie with the wife I'm being sexist? How about if she's on top? Is that still sexist, or would that make HER the sexist?

[cali]

74. why not have a man as the object of the kink? why a woman?

hey, why not have a guy with his asshole being fucked by a woman wielding a 12 inch dildo? You will never see that on the "educational" stage. As for your sex life, I have no idea, and gee forgive me if I don't give a flying.... fuck.

[cleanhippie]

79. Because SHE wanted to be the one doing it THATS why.

SHE enjoys the kink. SHE wanted to be there. SHE made the decision.

Why does that bother you so much?

[seabeyond]

83. this is not here show. it is a class. nt

[cleanhippie]

96. huh?

[truebrit71]

88. So if it was done to man = not sexist, but to a woman = sexist...got it...

:crazy:

Try this, read up the definition of "consenting" and get back to me...the woman participated in this demonstration of her own accord, with no co-ercion, threat or intimidation..

[seabeyond]

97. what makes it sexist is it will NEVER be the man up there. always a woman to entertain men. nt

[cleanhippie]

105. So you are calling this woman a SEXIST?

Considering that SHE wanted to do this and it was HER decision to do it because it was something SHE likes to do, SHE is sexist?

[seabeyond]

108. she was not in the decision making position. she did not make the call. the teacher did

and.... you ignored the point.

[cleanhippie]

126. Huh? She CHOSE to participate, without her, it never would have happened!

:wtf:

[seabeyond]

138. you continue to miss the point. SHE does not matter. teacher makes the decision. pulling a dick out

in class and jacking off isnt going ot happen. teacher will say no. but because it was a female adn the boys wanted to watch, the teacher said ok.

what she wanted to do means absolutely nothing. you get it. it has been repeated a number of times to you and you continue to ignore.

[uppityperson]

160. Were there no women in the class?

[seabeyond]

162. we have only heard from the guys... that thought it nifty. nt

[uppityperson]

167. Were there no women in the class? I think you are saying you don't know, clarify please

thanks. I read in the OP that some guy didn't think it "nifty".

[seabeyond]

168. they have not stated if it was mixed.... who stayed, who left. in any article i have read.

and the two students i have read have said it will be something they always remember not like econ class or some such... wow. they will remember a naked girl, on stage getting off on a toy. surprise there.

the guy putting it on said

ready for a sex show.

doesnt sound academic to me

[cleanhippie]

199. You are making the wrong point. Without HER consent, NONE of this happened.

SHe WANTED this to take place, its her "thing". You are trying to make a point that doesnt exist.

[seabeyond]

210. this is a classroom, and the responsibility and decision making is the teachers. she doesnt matter.

the kid that wants to play out his fantasy of jacking off in front of a class doesnt matter. neither are appropriate. both would be an exercise in voyerism. a sex show. not an academic lesson. they would say no, and arrest the guy for jacking off. they say ok to the woman because we live in a society where it is the females role to strip down for male and entertain.

it was the teachers job not to regress to the entertainment and sexist decision.

he failed.

[cleanhippie]

217. "She doesn't matter" - Got it.

[cali]

134. this isn't about the woman. It's about the shit lousy judgment of the idiot prof

who is now in big trouble. gee who woulda thunk?

[Warren DeMontague]

95. If it is, it shouldn't be.

Up until Lawrence v. Texas, consenting adult sex between two people of the same gender was illegal in "many jurisdictions", too. Doesn't mean those laws were right, although moralizing busybodys were able to come up with long, authoritative-sounding lists of reasons why they thought the state should tell consenting adults how not to get their jollies- in their own best interests, of course. :eyes:

[Xithras]

139. No, sex acts in front of consenting adults aren't illegal.

Some states ban public sex for commercial purposes (strip clubs) or for the purpose of public tittilation, but there isn't a state anywhere that bans the act of having consensual sex with a partner in front of willing witnesses. Because this is an educational facility, the purposes aren't commercial. Because it was a class full of students enrolled in a sexuality course, it had purposes other than tittilation.

This is the same reason why universities in states with laws banning public nudity can still have nude models in their art classes. The purpose isn't sexual, it isn't commercial (even if the model is compensated), and it's to support a legitimate course.

[JVS]

236. There's only one problem, the students might be having too much fun and not really learning

:eyes: :sarcasm:

Here is a clip of some performance art, where we see that there is a fine line between artistic appreciation and watching a spectacle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lmvX00TLY

[seabeyond]

241. hm, lol

ah ha. i was talking to niece on the phone watching this, ... thinking wtf and trying to converse and follow conversation. was a hoot.

whatevah....

[Lucian]

124. It's a non-issue issue.

Manufactured outrage.

[seabeyond]

140. if a boy stood in front of class, pulled out his dick, jacked off it would be a HUGE issue

well beyond what is happening now.

his ass would be in jail

but this is a non issue because it is the females role to entertain men so there is nothing to see here.

[Lucian]

201. It was a sexual issues class.

Full of consenting adults.

WTF is the problem? Or are you just looking for one?

And what kind of idiotic statement is this: it is the females role to entertain men? Seriously? Seriously? A woman consented to show a female orgasm. She wasn't forced to. She knew there was going to be an audience (full of people who didn't have to be there).

I'm sure they would allow a guy to "jack off" in there if one asked. I never thought that a sexual issues class teaching about the female orgasm would be such a hotly debated topic on a liberal website.

Fauxrage.

[cleanhippie]

59. SO you are upset that a confident, independent and strong woman made her OWN decision

and because you don;t like the particulars, you demean her? Am I reading you right?

[cali]

65. no, you're not. and just how the fuck do you know what her mental status is, dear?

[Upton]

66. She's an adult..she can make her own decisions..

you have a problem with that too?

[cali]

72. uh, no. I have a problem with you claiming you know her mental status

and whether or not she has the right to do this is hardly my point.

[cleanhippie]

76. Who has claimed to know her mental status? YOU are the only one questioning it.

How do YOU know what her mental status is and why are you questioning it?

[jberryhill]

101. As long as the students were free, if they wanted, to masturbate while watching

Obviously, if a student started masturbating while watching, that would also have been an adult deciding on his own to do that.

[cleanhippie]

75. How the fuck do YOU know what her mental status is, dear?

An adult woman made a decision to do something. She was not pressured nor coerced, as evidenced by her own words. What is it you are upset about here?

[uppityperson]

137. and just how the fuck do you know what her mental status is, dear?

You are the one claiming things about her mental status, "and just how the fuck do you know what her mental status is, dear?"

[TheWraith]

70. I disagree with you in the strongest possible terms.

The woman made her own decision to do something which she clearly didn't find "objectifying" or demeaning. Nobody else's approval is required for that. And I fail to see how getting high and righteous over something that supposedly degrades the subject is really and different from the religious right trying to tell people what they are and aren't allowed to do in their bedrooms because it is or isn't moral.

[cali]

73. whether she felt it was demeaning or not isn't the point.

and finding this little sex show a spurious and sexist event is hardly the same as the religious right. Anyone with a couple of functional brain cell should be able to figure that out, dear. I'm not saying that anyone should be forbidden from doing this or that the prof should be disciplined. I'm saying it's sexist crap and of dubious educational value. not too hard a concept for anyone with a brain to grasp.

[cleanhippie]

78. Ahh, I see now, You are upset she has DIFFERENT values than you do.

She did something you don't approve of. Got it.

[seabeyond]

81. no. that it is always women that is used to entertain the men. in this case, the entertainment

is academics, supposedly. there is nothing academic about it. always. always. you will not find the man up there stripping down jacking off for the group.

that is where the sexism comes in

[cleanhippie]

94. You seem to ignore the fact that the woman WANTED to do this. It was HER decision.

I would think you would be supportive of that.

[seabeyond]

98. the teacher had control of the class. it really doesnt matter if she "wants" to.

two kids wnat to fuck in the middle of the isle the teacher is going to say sure?

it had no academic purpose but to be an entertaining show to a bunch of guys.

[cleanhippie]

106. That is your opinion, but not the opinion of the participants, the teacher or the class.

[seabeyond]

111. not an opinion. not part of the course. she wanted to play, they wanted to watch, teacher ok'ed it

[cleanhippie]

127. So what is the probelm then?

Seems like everyone involved considered it "supplemental" information.

[ReggieVeggie]

131. so the attending class was all men?

I hadn't read that

[Upton]

82. Bingo..

and since this woman does have different values, her mental state has now come under question. How fuckin' ludicrous.

[TheWraith]

80. On the contrary. You're making a moral judgment based on personal beliefs.

Based on the assumption that you and your moral code know better what is right, proper, and appropriate for this woman than she does. And on the idea that there's something automatically and inherently degrading about open human sexuality. You're free to find it distasteful if you like, but going off condemning it and going off on it as "sexist," without having a good explanation why, how, or why this woman is not the best judge of what she does or doesn't find degrading to herself, is at best a dubious position.

[truebrit71]

90. BINGO!!!

.

[Shagbark Hickory]

77. Didn't read it. Don't care. But +1 for gutsy topic. nt

[WillyT]

87. ... the more I wish I were back in college ???

:hide::evilgrin::hide:

:yoiks:

[somone]

89. Optional show-and-tell by adults to consenting adults at a private institution

There was nothing illegal, unethical, immoral about what happened

[Warren DeMontague]

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

graphic."


Seems pretty self-explanatory. It's amazing how many people seem to need to put asterisks after Consenting* Adults*


* You're only capable of consenting if I agree with what you're consenting to
* You're only an adult if I agree with the choices you make

[seabeyond]

99. and if a guy had said... i want to jack off in front of class, are you going to argue the teacher

would have given consent?

[Warren DeMontague]

102. I don't see why not.

It makes just as much sense as a presentation on human sexuality as this does.

[seabeyond]

103. yes it does. and i know you dont. now... honesty time. is the professor gonna say ok

just what you feel in your gut, in honesty. how do you think the class, males and females, the group as a whole, are going to welcome this?

[cleanhippie]

107. You are creating a "what-if" scenario that never happened, and getting upset

over something that took place because YOU don't approve.

[seabeyond]

109. because it will NEVER happen in this society. it is the womans job to entertain the man

that is acceptable. that is allowable. not the other way around. hence, sexist

and still, you did not answer what i put forth

[cleanhippie]

128. Again, thats your opinion. In this case, everyone involved approved. Not seeing why you are upset

Making an issue where one doesnt exist, it seems.

[seabeyond]

149. you dont think problem of rape in military. you dont see problem with groping or vulgar shout out

to females on the street is a problem. you would not recognize sexism if it bit you on the ass. why would i put any more time and effort into your posts. it is clear you refuse to acknowledge anything but male privilege.

[uppityperson]

163. Big difference between consensual sex and rape/sexual assault

You seem to be saying that consensual sex is bad because sexual assault is.

[seabeyond]

165. i am saying they would not have a man drop his pants and jack off in front of everyone

i am saying they would not have a "sex show" as the dude proclaimed if it were a man. i am saying that they only use women for male entertainment and has nothing to do with academia. i am saying, it is sexist.

[uppityperson]

169. Your post I replied to was about sexual assault

This is what you said:

"you dont think problem of rape in military. you dont see problem with groping or vulgar shout out
to females on the street is a problem. you would not recognize sexism if it bit you on the ass. "

To which I replied
Big difference between consensual sex and rape/sexual assault. You seem to be saying that consensual sex is bad because sexual assault is.

If you want to talk about sexism, please continue. But you brought up sexual assault which doesn't have a bearing as far as consensual sex.

[seabeyond]

170. no... i was talking to a particular poster that has of yet

seen a single action as sexist or misogynist.

[uppityperson]

172. I realized I jumped in here, but it was consensual, don't see any relationship to sex assault

[seabeyond]

178. i did not say this ever had anything to do with sexual assault.

at all. ever.

that poster continually asked me what the issue was with this event. i repeatedly told him it was sexist. he ignored and asked again what the problem. finally i recalled other posts he has had, on other sexist issues and his continued oblivion to it. i was telling him he would not see sexism if it bit him on the ass

i had stopped talking about this event.

i was not comparing this stage show as a sexual assault.

i cannot make it any more clear to you

[uppityperson]

184. Thank you

I know, have had issues with that poster also.

[seabeyond]

185. exactly. lol. that is all. nt

[cleanhippie]

204. Oh, but I have, right now its YOURS.

[cleanhippie]

202. Your reading comprehension needs a tune-up.

And its clear that you refuse to see anyone elses point of view.

[ieoeja]

158. Entertainment was the exact OPPOSITE of her job in this case.

According to a prominent sex therapist on WGN-TV this morning, they do this in human sexuality courses** precisely because they want the students to study real female orgasm, not the "full 21-gun salute" variety presented as a form of entertainment.

** Did she say, "they do this?" Yes, she did. She went to college in New York in the 90s, and this sort of thing was standard even then. This did have one difference: it was done in the safety of the lecture hall. For her classes, students had to find their own subjects and perform their studies off campus.

So this sounds both safer and more accurate. Cause you know a lot of guys would just go to a peep show and think they were seeing the real thing.

[seabeyond]

161. and they started it with ken saying, yawl ready for a sex show.... sounds like entertainment to me.

there are many sex ed professors stating this with definitely over the line.

[Warren DeMontague]

147. In my gut? Okay- in my gut: I don't see why not.

Hell, there was a big show many years back called "puppetry of the penis" with a couple of very flexible Australian guys.

I think it's totally reasonable to suggest that a man could give a similar presentation. Are you asking whether people would want to watch it? That's up to them.

[seabeyond]

150. again, i know you dont have issue. that is not the question. honestly

do you think there is any way a male teacher is going ot allow, or male students are going to allow some guy standing up there jacking off for the class room.

this is not about you

i am talking about a society that expects, demands that the female puts herself out there for male entertainment. and no way in hell they would allow a guy to do it.

[Warren DeMontague]

213. Yes.

If it's a presentation on sexuality, yes, I do. I do think they would 'allow' it. Why not?

Better yet, since you're asking me the question but don't want to hear MY answer, why don't you communicate directly with the faculty at Northwestern and ask them? :shrug:

[cecilfirefox]

110. As a 23 year old college student at KU let me say something...

Academics tend to over analyze crap. To over analyze the hell out of crap, looking at things that aren't there, aren't prevalent, and more often the not don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

This sexual demonstration is voyeurism. Pure and simple. Everyone knows woman can have orgasms. The students were interested and got closer, and closer to her because they were GETTING OFF ON WATCHING HER NAKED AND WRITHING WITH A DEVICE IN HER KOOCH. If I were the chancellor or president of that university heads would roll for this. Its absurd and disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful. There is NO academic merit in watching a live sex act.

God and Goddess, what a load of crap.

As the first responder said- It seems the woman in question was living out a fantasy.

[Hannah Bell]

112. +100. this is jerry springer degradation of academia.

[Union Scribe]

116. Excellent post.

[blondeatlast]

118. +1,000, and what HB said, too. nt

[cecilfirefox]

121. Allow me to also add this,

The discussion of sex, gender, and sexuality in an academic setting is all right. Those sort of classes are fascinating and explore and why we, as a society and culture, tend to think and believe the things we do. But this has no purpose in it, no place what so ever.

I'll also say that even though it was optional, even though NO student could sanely be offended or angry by this after having deliberately chosen to heed multiple warnings and watch it, it is still on a college campus, therefore on public property. The woman in question, her sexual partner, and the Professor should be arrested and charged with public indecency. If I were on that campus I'd be lighting a fire up someones ass.

[Major Hogwash]

152. Stay at KU, okay? Don't get pissed off because your education is sorely lacking, okay?

Just because you didn't go to this other school, just deal with it, okay?

[cali]

159. oh, I don't think this will be happening again at Northwestern

the prof is in deep shit. what a fucking shame.

[woo me with science]

175. +100 nt

[Ilsa]

182. I'd give you an A for your spot-on analysis. I agree. Good luck with your studies. nt

[PassingFair]

207. Are you sure that's not "KY"?

Sorry.

[cecilfirefox]

218. Don't get smart with me,

Because you guys and gals want to find some legitimate reason to watch a chick masturbate in a class room.

There is nothing you can tell academically about a woman in the throws of orgasm, it has no bearing on the study of gender and sexuality in society, NONE. This is like being told that male masturbation doesn't exist, so let me whack it off in front of class for you to prove it. Its silly, and has no academic merit. There is no point to it. By the admission of the woman in question she was getting off on it, I suspect some students were.

I mean they did a class demonstration with a FUCKSAW? How demented do you have to be to see that there is NO value in that, at all? And you say I'm from Kentucky because I can point out the obvious? Your from asshateryville!

I would like to propose that homosexuality does not exist, and demonstrate in fact that it DOES, in the front of class with a model. Preferably one who is handsome, burly, and has a TON of chest hair.

BTW, KU is GREAT. ROCK CHALK!

[PassingFair]

220. I was just kidding....

:hide:

I am a female who is outraged at this incident.
I have a daughter in college, and believe me,
if this happened in her school, and
the professor/teacher who let this happen
in his classroom wasn't fired, I would pull
her out of that school immediately.
That school wouldn't get a dime more of
tuition from me.

I thought you were posting as a student at the
school (had to go back and read that it was
at Northwestern), and I took a cheap shot at
the KY instead of KU.

P.S.: :yourock:

[cecilfirefox]

223. Oh, it was a KY jelly joke. >_< I stand corrected!

[Modern_Matthew]

113. The more I read about it, the more I want to see a video. nt

[joshcryer]

136. Only way to objectively take a position here...

:D

[Lucian]

115. So god forbid this was performed in front of a bunch of adults...

and nobody forced her to do it.

So what's the problem? Or is it a manufactured problem? (I'm guessing the latter)

It was an optional lecture. Those who watched were over 18. The one who participated agreed to do it. I see no problems with this. The only problem is those who are looking for one.

[cali]

123. that she wanted to do it is not the point

and sorry, the U prez has a big problem with it.

[seabeyond]

141. does he? nt

[old mark]

117. Film at eleven.....nt

[PBS Poll-435]

120. 11 Months Until the Next AVN Awards

This was just an Expo.

[Modern_Matthew]

125. I just found the woman on Twitter and tweeted my support. nt

[cali]

130. good for you.

it's not really about her. It's about the prof.

[Warren DeMontague]

148. Right, because the poor dear obviously can't be trusted to decide for herself is she was being

"oppressed" and "exploited". Poor, fragile thing.

[cali]

155. it's not about her or her exhibitionism. it's about the idiot prof

giving her.... the stage. duh.

[uppityperson]

164. You write one thing and then claim another, keep making it about the woman then say no

it's about the professor.

[cali]

166. It's about the professor more than it's about the woman

I've been clear on that. He's a fucking idiot.

[snooper2]

129. Everyone here are missing after school activities... "Spot the Ho"

:hide:

Melvoin-Berg runs the “Weird Chicago Red Light District Sex Tour,” which has participants playing games like “spot the ho” as they travel the city looking for prostitutes. He also teaches “Networking for Kinky People,” a 3-hour version of the one hour lecture he gave at Northwestern.

[joshcryer]

132. Is there video?

[TorchTheWitch]

142. according to the prof this was about female ejaculation

not female orgasms in general. There need not be live demonstrations to "prove" that female ejaculation is "real". This is already known and women have been doing it since the dawn of time. This particular session was specifically about fetishes and why Ken and Faith were invited to attend as presenters. A live demo of female ejaculation doesn't "prove" anything that isn't already known, doesn't add value to the this session on fetishes since female ejactions has nothing to do with any fetish, and it's very apparent that the desire for the presenter in performing the demo had everything to do with fulfilling her own particular fetish. There was nothing that could possibly be observed about the demo that had anything to do with her particular fetish or any fetish whatsoever. There was also no consideration paid whatsoever to health ordinances - anything that comes out of a human body is a biohazard and must be treated as such.

This is the professor's statement about the event. So much of what he says makes me believe that these extra-curricular presentations that he does on his own time and own dime have a hell of a lot more to do with his own personal kinks then providing educational value. He's creepy as hell...

Prof. Bailey's full statement:

I teach a large (nearly 600 person) human sexuality class at Northwestern University. During class I lecture about the science of sexuality. Many days after class I organize optional events. These events primarily comprise speakers addressing interesting aspects of sexuality. This year, for example, we have had a panel of gay men speaking about their sex lives, a transsexual performer, two convicted sex offenders, an expert in female sexual health and sexual pleasure, a plastic surgeon, a swinging couple, and the February 21st panel led by Ken Melvoin-Berg, on "networking for kinky people." These events are entirely optional, they are not covered on exams, and I arrange them at considerable investment of my time, for which I receive no compensation from Northwestern University. The students find the events to be quite valuable, typically, because engaging real people in conversation provides useful examples and extensions of concepts students learn about in traditional academic ways.

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

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

Ken MB and friends spoke to the class for a while and then informed students they were about to perform their demonstration. The presentation seems to have lasted about 5-10 minutes of their hour-long presentation. While I watched, I experienced some apprehension. None of this apprehension had to do with the possibility of harm to any observer, and none of it had to do with a lack of education value. As I alluded, some experiences are educational and interesting in non-traditional ways. Rather, I was worried that there could be repercussions that would threaten the valuable speaker series that I have built over the years.

Student feedback for this event (I routinely feedback collect for all events) was uniformly positive. Although most students mentioned the explicit demonstration -- which they enjoyed and thought was a singular college experience -- most also said that the most valuable part was engaging in a dialogue with Ken MB et al.

Do I have any regrets? It is mostly too early to say. I certainly have no regrets concerning Northwestern students, who have demonstrated that they are open-minded grown ups rather than fragile children. I have not enjoyed the press, because I have assumed that reporters will sensationalize what happened and will not provide my side. (A welcome exception to this, mostly, was the Daily Northwestern article.) I suspect that my Dean is not enjoying this publicity, and I do not like displeasing my Dean.

To the extent that this event provokes a discussion of my reasoning, above, I welcome it. I expect many people to disagree with me. Thoughtful discussion of controversial topics is a cornerstone of learning


Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Northwestern-Teacher-Under-Fire-For-Sex-Toy-Demo-117242023.html#ixzz1FZXo7tRI

[cali]

157. what an idiot. where the fuck has this expert been? Since when is

a woman using a vibrator/dildo/ kink? The kink was the exhibitionism and the wanting to be used.

And I agree, he's creepy.

[ieoeja]

143. A prominent sex therapist on Chicago news this morning said this has been common for decades.

Said she went to college in the 90s and were routinely exposed to all sorts of live sexual acts. And, yes, this included sexual acts performed by men: alone, in pairs and in groups.

It is a university. They study all kinds of stuff. Frankly, if I found out the training I PAID TO RECEIVE was being censored, I'd be asking for my money back.

[cali]

144. The University President disagrees. He's launched in investigation

and you provide no links. Sorry, I don't buy claims without links.

[ieoeja]

146. Bowing to negative press does not mean you agree with it.

And maybe he does disagree with the prof. Maybe he believes a university should filter their education. If so, he should consider a different career.

And your link ... http://www.wgntv.com/videobeta/?watchId=d96fa4f8-c95e-4153-babe-ea803cd6ec61

[cali]

154. right because no one can get a decent education without viewing a woman being

fucked with a dildo on stage. What shite.

[ieoeja]

179. I think you're too caught up in this incident and the arguing.

How about starting over? Forget this incident and ask yourself, should there be university studies on human sexuality?

If yes, should those studies be limited to interviews? Or should there be studies, following the scientific method, using volunteers in a safe setting?

If the latter, isn't that what they did? They studied a real female orgasm (as opposed to the "full 24-gun salute" version you'd see in porn or peep shows) via fetish. They observed and interviewed the subjects before, during and after the study.


I really wasn't thinking of this as a scientific study either until I listened to the linked interview this morning. Realized I had been approaching this issue from the wrong angle completely. Fairly certain I would still have been one of the students who chose not to attend. But I believe that is a flaw in me, not them.

[seabeyond]

181. did they? did they prove she climaxed or could she have faked it?

did they prove she ejaculated? did the measure the amount of ejaculation?

or

did they watch a gal strip down, and play with a toy.....

do you know she didnt fake it? do you know she had orgasm? what scientific equations did they have in this oh so academic preformance.

[cleanhippie]

238. I see no amount of reason will ever make you see this from anywhere but your own POV.

What a shame.

[seabeyond]

242. simple enough questions. if academic and scientific, then one would expect it treated as such

i would say i am being a lot more open minded and looking at different perspective than you.

[cleanhippie]

245. fair enough

I guess we will just have to disagree.

[cali]

189. I have no problem at all with discussing everything about human sexuality

how on earth is a live sex show part of the scientific method? It's not. At least not as described in the articles about this. And you have no idea whether she orgasmed. Not very scientific of you to assume that.

This was not a scientific study and Bailey made no such claims.

[cleanhippie]

237. No one claimed that wasn't possible. You are making a strawman argument.

[truebrit71]

174. Ooooh he's launched an investigation...the Universiaty Relations Department has alrady backed him up

The President of the Uni is out of touch...

Care to wager something on the outcome? If the Prof gets canned I'll donate $10 to DU, if the Prof keeps his job YOU donate $10? Sound fair?

[cali]

190. he's tenured. unlikely to get canned. but he's been in trouble before

and was demoted from chair of the dept. I won't wager that he'll lose his job. Tenure is pretty durable- but I won't be shocked either. Why? Big bucks are at risk.

[seabeyond]

193. would that be from sending students out to point out WHORES. ya, this man respects

the whole sexuality thing.

[truebrit71]

221. So that's a no then?

..

[elehhhhna]

156. Dorm life. What can we say?

[Hannah Bell]

177. bullshit.

[ieoeja]

235. Why do you believe the sex therapist lied? (nt)

[closeupready]

145. I don't really care whether this happened or not.

This is 'news' because it gets people to click on hyperlinks and generates revenue for the Sun Times and Huff. Post - nothing more than that.

Hillary Clinton is so right.

[woo me with science]

171. It's not about being a prude. It's about being an idiot.

It's about the degradation of college, along with everything else.

I would love to line up the "students" at this event and give them a comprehensive test of what used to be considered basic college-level literature, math, sciences, world history, and writing.

We have all become sadly accepting of what passes for a college education these days, just as we have become sadly accepting of what passes for "debates" in our presidential elections and what passes for "news" in our media.

[ItNerd4life]

173. 2 bags of popcorn and counting. Munch, munch, munch. nt

[WinkyDink]

176. I suppose Masters and Johnson's tome was totally omitted from the "lesson plans."

[Kurska]

186. If a woman WANTS to be objectified, isn't that her right?

IT seems almost as tyrannical to objectify a woman who doesn't want to be objectified, as saying a woman who wants to be objectified can't be.

Yeah, but whether a university should be engaging in it or promoting a public display of it, I'm not excatly sure. I do think there is value in at least documenting fetishistic behavior.

[seabeyond]

187. it is a fetish to use a sex toy to masturbate? maybe the fetish of shitting on a mans chest should

be explored?

that is a fetish

[joshcryer]

188. I am sure that there are students who would be interested in viewing such a spectacle.

In fact, if I recall 2Girls1Cup was viewed by millions of interested people.

[seabeyond]

191. but.... that would not be allowed because it would be demeaning to male and god noes!!!1!!!

we NEVER allow the male to be demeaned in any way. only female. only female to entertain male with the "sex show" as it was described by the performer.

[joshcryer]

194. Who said that? What? The male orgasm is highly uninteresting.

If only because it's so trivial for us to accomplish.

edit: that doesn't mean that it would be "objectifying" to watch a guy squeeze one off in 25 seconds

[Kurska]

203. Never seen a male being demenead? You need to watch more dominatrix porn.

I'd have no problem with viewing a similar presentation with a male.

[joshcryer]

208. Same. If this was two gay males I doubt there'd be any arguments.

Certainly cali would still have a problem with it because they're the abiter of truth, but I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a 200 page post. People would go "so what?" and move on.

Same if it was a girl, completely covered mind you, pegging a guy. No one would give a shit.

It's ONLY because it's a "girl being objectified" that DU 'cares.'

[Kurska]

211. I can't predict such things, but politics really has no business judging scientific study OR sex.

So as far as I'm concerned this is a perfect storm of 'None of your business."

[Warren DeMontague]

215. You may need to get out more.

You can find plenty of instances of men being "demeaned" in various fashions, all over the internet. They seem to like it, too.

[cleanhippie]

239. You really are allowing your misandric views to shine brightly in this thread.

A sight to behold, indeed.

[JVS]

233. Hey, I think the world community grew a lot closer with that video!

[Kurska]

196. Jebus krist, take your foot off that floored sarcasm pedal, it is in the OP.

"One of the students asked what my specific fetish was and mine is being in front of people, having the attention and being used,” she said.", That was the fetish I was talking about.

And it isn't a fetish just using a sex toy to masturbate, but you can have a fetish for sex toys. All fetishistic behavior is worthy of study by people researching sexual behavior because fetishistic behavior is a major part of sexuality. I think what most people are objecting to is the public demonstrative quality of this (then again how could you study a fetish for public demonstrations any other way?".

That wasn't the point of my post and you know it, my point was I don't see how people can take umbrage at her being objectified when she wants to be. That is her right in this free society, just as much as someone who doesn't want to be objectified shouldn't be objectified.

[Lucian]

205. Yes it is her right to be objectified if she wants to be.

But apparently it's not. :eyes:

[cliffordu]

195. These people are morons, one and all.

Youporn dot com, (or, my personal favorite for amateur couples, Redtube dot com) for all your frisky needs.

Or this is some weird setup by someone needing to go back to the meme of colleges as hotbeds of communistic skullfucking and other perverse lifestyle choices.

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

200. Girl with public sex fetish likely pressured by others to actually "prove it."

Professor stands by idly to observe results.

News at 11.

Big fucking deal.

I assure you there are way more atrocious things going on in college dorms and college parties that are worth worrying about, such as date rape, stripper objectification and so on and so forth.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

206. "The more I read..."

I prefer Chaucer.

[markpkessinger]

209. Your argument seems to rest on the following premise:

That because the fact that a certain act is exploitative of a certain group (Group A, or women) under certain circumstances (e.g., where a subject does not or is not deemed able to consent, or because members of Group B (men) are "never" (I would dispute that, and concede "less frequently" instead -- more on that below) the subjects of that act, then the act in question is always, in almost all circumstances, exploitative of Group A collectively. There are some pretty huge logical leaps in that.

As to the assertion that men are "never" subject to such objectification, I think that is empirically untrue: have you seen any gay porn lately?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

212. I don't have a problem with it.

People were warned and they could leave.

[Exultant Democracy]

222. I believe in academic freedom. People say the same thing about teaching evolution. n/t

[seabeyond]

226. blanket academic freedom? so you support teaching creationism? hitler was a good guy

and holocaust never happened? and any number of thing that would be an outrage that come to mind? that is ok with you.

[JVS]

232. "blanket academic freedom" is academic freedom.

[Paradoxical]

224. Some of you people seriously need to pull your heads out of your ass.

From what people are saying in here there can only be two positions on this subject. You either think it's okay because they are consenting adults or you have to be against personal freedom.

I think everyone with half a brain understands that this involved consenting adults. Enough with the patronizing bullshit.

I can denounce this event as nothing more than a misogynistic sex show while also recognizing that it was perfectly legal.

[seabeyond]

225. you state only two positions, yet you give a third. misogynistic sex show

that has been the only argument against this sex show that anyone has made.

[Paradoxical]

227. It's the only one that needs to be made.

My point was to show the false dichotomy that some of the "bright" members of the board cannot seem to escape.

[JVS]

230. +1

[Paradoxical]

231. ...

[NillaWafers]

240. They lost me @ "F**k Saw".

Really dumb.