When Northwestern University psychology professor J. Michael Bailey announced he would be having an optional lecture that would contain graphic content, his students were intrigued. One hundred of them showed up for the session on Feb. 21, only to be met with a guest speaker’s demonstration of a sex prop on a non-student female. Upon getting wind of the lecture’s controversial subject matter, Northwestern faculty members investigated the demonstration, leading to a national debate on the ethics of simulated sex in classrooms.
So it came as no surprise when Bailey issued an apology on Sunday. He admitted that the demonstration was “a mistake” but also took a jab at those who had blasted the idea in the first place, arguing that “this reveals a stark difference of opinion between people like [him], who see absolutely no moral harm in what happened, and those who believe it was profoundly wrong.” Bailey is right in that unique learning techniques can provide a truly profound understanding of something otherwise more abstract, which in this case is the broad subject of human sexuality, and his apology was unfortunately necessary in light of imperfect educational standards.
While many colleges are vehemently interested in obtaining professors with progressive teaching styles, especially prestigious ones such as Northwestern, a double standard still exists regarding the morality of sex and masturbation. Classes at Boston University, such as Philosophy of Sex and Gender, introduce pornography in the form of articles and even documentaries. From a progressive standpoint – which is usually the standpoint upon which universities base coursework and class goals – this is acceptable. But a physical demonstration, as Northwestern administrators would argue, is cause to be “troubled and disappointed.”
Clearly, the session involved some graphic material that was meant to instill a certain appreciation of sex toys and physicality as things that shouldn’t be defined by societal norms. For some, it might scream of vulgar hedonism, but the fact of the matter is sex should be grappled with under the umbrella of education in some way or form. In the safe environment that Bailey mandated, wherein students participated voluntarily, the potential to learn was not only precocious but also fundamentally safe.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
I just replied to a parent of a 20 year old at Northwestern. The parent had written in very positive terms in defense of the now renowned sexuality class. As a vendor of sex toys, and a parent of children even older than his, I was pleased to find a common mind and his article and position.
After all the hoopla negativism of the first responders, I had become accustomed to expect the same from any writer. The interesting fact is that now, a few days later, the more serious writers are expounding positively with thoughtful, logical analysis. And at least some of them are older folk like myself who grew up in a very closed sexual environment. Maybe there is still a chance for us.