It was reported a couple of weeks ago that a human sexuality class had a sex demonstration which caused an uproar amongst some of the students, parents and alumni. I decided to wait for the professional hysterics and rabid apologists to have their predictable 10 minutes of dry heave rage before I shared my thoughts on the matter. The world of academia has always puzzled and amused me for the simple fact that the craziest shenanigans can be passed off as intellectual curiosity and academic diversity. What is more peculiar is that anyone that dares to raise a question of concern is labeled a narrow-minded fundamentalist/traditionalist forcing women to resort to wire hangers and into oppressive Anglo-patriarchal social roles and constructs. If we make the time to take a step back and scrutinize what happened at
Northwestern University, then I think fair-minded people from various social persuasions can agree that in contemporary academia, what passes foracademic endeavor is becoming more diluted than the alcohol content of a Natty Light after it’s been upchucked onto the curb outside a college stadium at a Saturday 12pm kickoff.
On Feb. 21, about 100 of the nearly 600 students enrolled in Bailey’s “Human Sexuality” class stayed for an optional seminar by four non-students on kink and fetish. Faith Kroll, a self-described exhibitionist, stripped and was penetrated by a modified version of a reciprocating saw with a phallic attachment in place of the blade.
Kroll previously said she thought the session would just be a discussion with students but was game to demonstrate aspects of female orgasm she didn’t think were fairly portrayed in a film students were watching. Bailey also said the sex demonstration was not planned. When he couldn’t think of a reason why students shouldn’t see it, he agreed to let Kroll and her fiancé Jim Marcus demonstrate, he said. *
Believe it or not, I think college is a place where any intellectual curiosity could be satisfied… for the right price. If a professor can get 20 morons to pay for a 5000 level class on Zombie Hookers in Cinematic History, then more power to that professor. But if we are going to tell people to spend their money elsewhere when they are offended at some of the content that is put on the radio or satellite waves, then the general rule should apply to college courses too. If college students really want to pay to see a sex demonstration, then they should have them use their own money. I do not know if this performer was paid with tuition funds or not but the 500 students should not have to subsidize the 100 students who are dying to see an academic peepshow. College, on the other hand, should be a place where education is built on from high school in the most basic of subjects (Math, Science, Literature, History, and Foreign Languages). After you pass your core courses, ideally you pursue subjects based on what you want to do as a vocation 2 to 4 years later. If you want to acquire a PhD in women’s studies, be my guest and pursue your dreams but do not scream “sexual discrimination” when the guy with a masters or PhD in physics or engineering is in a higher tax bracket than you. The same rule applies back to the shock and awe course offered at colleges ( )
You have the freedom to take an unorthodox course if you want to but do not be offended when the workforce does not take your academic career seriously because you took courses that are normally offered online, taught by Professor Hurts-a-Lot and all that she requires of you is a valid credit card number.
Someone once said, “Going to college does not make you any more enlightened than someone working at Blockbuster. In fact, if your parents (or H.O.P.E) are footing the bill to put your pansy ass through 4 to 7 years of college, then you have not begun to be enlightened.”
I think this speaks volumes on the academic community as a whole. College is a place where you pay a great investment to expand your mind with new information, challenge and test preconceived ideas and beliefs, and learn to think and make decisions for yourself. If this can be achieved, then the world of academia has prepared you for potential success. But if you have 30 credit hours “under your belt” relating to the Mysteries of Tantric Sex but do not possess the wherewithal to use “There vs. Their;” “To vs. Too;” “It’s vs. Its” appropriately, then you are essentially Anna Nicole Smith with a bachelor’s degree.
And this brings us to the professors themselves. To say that this is a diverse group of individuals would be the understatement of the year. Judging by the backgrounds and past grievances of some of these professors, I simply refuse to give audience to the idea that no one in America is given a second chance. Take Bill Ayers and Bernandine Dohrn for example. Only in contemporary academia can you be a former leader of a domestic terrorist organization and become tenured professor. It seems to me that in the world of academia, the sketchier one’s past life was, the less one needs to submit to a background check. Say, what if we treat domestic terrorists with the same disdain as we treat child predators? We could build a website of known domestic terrorists, where by the click of an icon, you can know where throw backs from the 60’s revolution now live. Too bad Tim McVeigh was executed or he could have shared a faculty with Bill Ayers at a prestigious university.
So am I a prude? I do not think so. But I think C.S Lewis put it best and I’ll refer you to what he said about the sexual experience:
Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it: the old Christian rule is, “Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.” Now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong. One or the other. Of course, being a Christian, I think it is the instinct which has gone wrong.
But I have other reasons for thinking so. The biological purpose of sex is children, just as the biological purpose of eating is to repair the body. Now if we eat whenever we feel inclined and just as much as we want, it is quite true that most of us will eat too much: but not terrifically too much. One man may eat enough for two, but he does not eat enough for ten. The appetite goes a little beyond its biological purpose, but not enormously. But if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily populate a small village. This appetite is in ludicrous and preposterous excess of its function.
Or take it another way. You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act—that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us?
One critic said that if he found a country in which such strip-tease acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that country were starving. He means, of course, to imply that such things as the strip-tease act resulted not from sexual corruption but from sexual starvation. I agree with him that if, in some strange land, we found that similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the possible explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next step would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or little food was being consumed in that country. If the evidence showed that a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to abandon the hypothesis of starvation and try to think of another one. In the same way, before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip-tease, we should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more sexual abstinence in our age than in those ages when things like the strip-tease were unknown. But surely there is no such evidence. Contraceptives have made sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and even to perversion than it has been since Pagan times. Nor is the hypothesis of “starvation” the only one we can imagine. Everyone knows that the sexual appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence. Starving men may think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as the famished, like titillations.
Here is a third point. You find very few people who want to eat things that really are not food or to do other things with food instead of eating it. In other words, perversions of the food appetite are rare. But perversions of the sex instinct are numerous, hard to cure, and frightful. I am sorry to have to go into all these details, but I must. The reason why I must is that you and I, for the last twenty years, have been fed all day long on good solid lies about sex. We have been told, till one is sick of hearing it, that sexual desire is in the same state as any of our other natural desires and that if only we abandon the silly old Victorian idea of hushing it up, everything in the garden will be lovely. It is not true. The moment you look at the facts, and away from the propaganda, you see that it is not.
They tell you sex has become a mess because it was hushed up. But for the last twenty years it has not been hushed up. It has been chattered about all day long. Yet it is still in a mess. If hushing up had been the cause of the trouble, ventilation would have set it right. But it has not. I think it is the other way round. I think the human race originally hushed it up because it had become such a mess. Modern people are always saying, “Sex is nothing to be ashamed of.” They may mean two things. They may mean “There is nothing to be ashamed of in the fact that the human race reproduces itself in a certain way, nor in the fact that it gives pleasure.” If they mean that, they are right. Christianity says the same. It is not the thing, nor the pleasure, that is the trouble. The old Christian teachers said that if man had never fallen, sexual pleasure, instead of being less than it is now, would actually have been greater. I know some muddle-headed Christians have talked as if Christianity thought that sex, or the body, or pleasure were bad in themselves. But they were wrong. Christianity is almost the only one of the great religions which thoroughly approves of the body—which believes that matter is good, that God Himself once took on a human body, that some kind of body is going to be given to us even in Heaven and is going to be an essential part of our happiness, our beauty, and our energy. Christianity has glorified marriage more than any other religion: and nearly all the greatest love poetry in the world has been produced by Christians. If anyone says that sex, in itself, is bad, Christianity contradicts him at once. But, of course, when people say, “Sex is nothing to be ashamed of,” they may mean “the state into which the sexual instinct has now got is nothing to be ashamed of. **
While I do not agree that sex should be hushed, I do think it should be talked about with family and other trusting adults (Counselors, pastors, mentors, etc.).
The end of the matter is this: If one of the human sexuality courses that you are thinking about taking can be rationalized away by one of the following, save your money and take the History of Rock and Roll.
Sexual Enlightenment at college is not academic if:
– You can pay Las Vegas professionals 49.99/hour to do it to you.
– You say, “Oh, I saw this technique demonstrated by Sue Johanson on the Sunday Night Sex Show.”
– You have seen the sexual act in a stealthy sent inappropriate e-mail under the guise of an innocent sounding title.
– The demo can also be described in great detail or posted on Blogspot.
– A celebrity has already made a disreputable video tape about it.
– You have seen said sex act on American Pie.
– It has reminded you about the time when you found your parent’s self-help book buried in their closet.
– You can watch a prostate or breast exam video and YouTube and get the gist of it.
– Have ever watched MTV for more than an hour and thirty-seven minutes.
** Chapter 5 in Book III (Christian Behaviour) of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis