Northwestern University psychology professor J. Michael Bailey said Saturday he wasn’t sure if his job was on the line for the controversial after-class demonstration where students watched a man penetrate a naked woman with a custom-designed sex toy.

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 fiance Jim Marcus demonstrate, he said.


Students were warned repeatedly that the demo would be graphic. After class, no students complained about what they saw and many since have defended their right to see live sex in a sexual education class.


Source: http://www.suntimes.com/4150853-417/northwestern-sex-prof-apologizes-for-after-class-sex-demo.html

Additional information: http://www.suntimes.com/4187266-417/northwestern-chief-live-sex-demonstration-doesnt-define-school.html



I’m honestly not sure how to respond to this… thoughts? Do you think the professor crossed a line, and if so, do you feel there should be some sort of consequences? Or do you agree that the students had a right to see a live sexual act in their sexual education class?

I think it's inappropriate but if the students were of age, in college (obviously they aren't HS kids) and they weren't forced to watch it... hey. who cares. lol Is it honestly much worse than watching a sex ed video? O_o

He had nothing to apologize for. It was a human sexuality class. Everybody involved consented. I don't see a problem here.

I don't really think there's anything wrong with it. They're adults and the seminar was optional.

i agree it was optional and their adults.

Did they not know anything about the female orgasm without another person showing them? I see no reason to have done it and OF COURSE the students wouldn't fuss about it - how many college students would? I can see how it was their choice and if they were inside w/ just the people who enrolled in it and then agreed to it, then they can make up their own minds. I just think it's a little unnecessary - I can figure out the aspects of a female orgasm myself (meaning, kinda sounds like an excuse for the kids to watch live "porn," so to speak, without having to pay for it). But, hey, freedom to all, right?

iWRITE: Because it's a human sexuality class.

Every time I hear about this I think of Monty Python's The Meaning of Life:

In a subsequent class, they watch in boredom as their teacher (Cleese) gives a sex education lesson, by physically demonstrating techniques with his wife (Patricia Quinn). (quote from Wikipedia)

And then I giggle.

Really, it's not a big deal. The class was obviously extremely popular, because sex, even now, is still pretty taboo, and who can blame people for being so eager to take it? You can learn a lot from such a class, and it goes a long way to helping you please a partner.

A lot of people absorb more with "hands on" learning - in this case, a live demonstration in the class they paid to attend in the first place. Think of it as the social equivalent to doing a live autopsy in an anatomy class. Taboo (many people still don't like the idea of dealing with cadavers, even ones donated to medical science), but still a completely relevant way to learn.

"Hands on" doesn't mean watching, it means doing. If they want to take a human sexuality class and practice or gget "hands on" experience with their girlfriend/boyfriend, that's one thing..but to watch another couple and try to say it's education and "hands on" experience is silly. You're not learning anything except that those 2 people have sex and how THEY have sex. You don't see or learn any of the "inner workings" of female orgasms, all you see/hear is the female, which you can do with your own partner. As I said, they all consented. But a professor should be able to realize when something is a teaching tool or not - and I don't buy that this was.

@Anonymous Source: Ok? Go read about human sexuality, what takes place, what muscles and hormones, etc..but how does THIS teach anyone anything except "look what you can do!" ?

*shrugs* If they were repeatedly warned, everyone was over 18, and they were all consenting, I don't see anything wrong here. No one complained (which I find kinda surprising tbh) so honestly, I don't see why the professor should be in danger of losing his job. >__

they were warned and no one complained, why is this a story?

@& skull: I agree completely with you. But apparently it has been all over the news for the past week, so it seems that it is a big deal to some. I also find it interesting that the Universtity President supported the professor when he first addressed the incident, but then said he was disturbed and going to investigate it the next day.

I find it odd that it took place as a university lecture. It's almost as if we're one step away from giving away degree's in fellatio or something...
I don't see anything 'wrong' with a bunch of consenting adults (which is what they were) getting together and watching a bit of live porn. Whatever floats your boat. I just find it odd that it was part of a degree... a lecture on kink and fetish? Bizarre.

ennui: A lecture on "kink and fetish" in a human sexuality class is perfectly reasonable. When I took human sexuality, I had the same lecture.

@anon: an OPTIONAL lecture on "kink and fetish". No one was even required to go.

Jess: Point being that this was a perfectly reasonable lecture to have that was required, let alone being completely optional.

It wasn't part of a universtiy lecture though, it was an after-class discussion hosted by guest speakers about kink and fetish. So it wasn't part of their program or degree. It was an optional guest lecture and didn't impact their grade in the class or their degree in one way or another.

I totally would have gone. ;D

...i hope nothing comes of this for the prof. it was optional. they were warned.

if only the human sexuality class i took in university had been that interesting.

sounds like a fun class to me!

Everything I'm about to say is probably redundant by this point but I'll comment anyway.

For one, it was optional. They were consenting adults. Nobody felt uncomfortable by it. They were warned repeatedly that it would be graphic. Well, it was graphic. It's a human sexuality class; why wouldn't there be kink mentioned?

Two: There is a major difference between the sex occurring in porn and the sex occurring in person. Porn is meant to look 'pretty', not to be realistic.

As a general rule (as discussed within the art community), something that is pornographic has the main purpose of arousing the viewer. I would not personally rule what happened in that optional after school lecture to be pornographic, because it's main purpose was to be informational. Arousal may have been incidental, but it was not the purpose in that setting. Ultimately, the definition of pornographic is determined by that particular community, and it may not be the same as what has been established in my area. As a professor of sex studies, I would expect him to be knowledgeable about what is considered pornographic in his area and to regulate his class accordingly.