The Further Sexualization of Children

They might not even be in training bras yet, but for girls who shop at Abercrombie & Fitch, it's never too early for a padded swimsuit top.

No stranger to controversy, the U.S. retailer has come under intense and well-deserved fire for offering a push-up bikini top to young girls — as in children!

Its "Ashley" bikini — described as "padded" and a "push-up" — was posted on the Abercrombie Kids website late last week.

The company has declined to comment specifically on the controversey, but noted it has since updated the description of its bikini online.

News that a push-up bikini top was being marketed to girls as young as 7, spread like wildfire across the Internet, and a firestorm of complaints to the company erupted from all sources, from parents to sex educators and other professionals.

In response to the overwhelmingly negative groundswell, the company blatantly left the item for sale unchange, but merely removed the word "push-up" from its online catalog. The top is now being offered as a padded, "striped triangle." Bottoms are sold separately.

Obviously, it's up to parents to choose what their children wear, and to reject this type of product. But, what does this say about our culture? Might this horrible push-up bikini saga have broader implications about gender issues? Might tween make-up at Walmart, ubiquitous Disney princesses, high heels for toddlers, the horrendous cable TV show 'Toddlers and Tiaras' and, now, sexy swimsuits for seven-year-olds, be finally pushing the envelope too far? Is this a vision of girlhood that parents never actually meant to sign off on?

I am not a parent, but I loathe the sexualization of children, especially retailers who cross the line merely for profit and publicity. I was molested when I was a girl for a couple of years —ironically beginning when I was 7, so this is a profoundly personal issue to me.

We need to allow children to BE children, to protect them from the pull of adult behavior, especially that of a sexual nature. In addition, the hurtful reinforcement of society's constant mantra: That natural female bodies are always lacking in some fundamental but profound way.

They are never accepted as they are, but must have outside help to be OK; they must always strive to somehow achieve the mythical "perfect" and thus desirable shape and size or they will never gain our culture's (read that men's) ultimate stamp of approval.

Generally, the target of these overt sexualization attempts are directed toward girls, further reinforcing the continued historical objectification of females. Not to mention contributing to making these young girls more appealing to pedophiles!

Another company, the British retailer Primark, faced a similar backlash last year and eventually pulled its padded tops after politicians, including Prime Minister David Cameron, voiced concerns over the swimsuits.

"How is this okay for a second-grader?" asked Rebecca Odes in a recent post on the Babble parenting blog.

"Playing at sexy is an inevitable and important part of growing up. But there's a difference between exploring these ideas on your own and having them sold to you in a children's catalog," she wrote.

Gail Dines, a sociology professor at Wheelock College in Boston, similarly slammed the top, saying it would encourage girls to think about themselves in a sexual way before they are ready.

"It (also) sends out really bad signals to adult men about young girls being appropriate sexual objects," she said.

This is not the first time Abercrombie & Fitch, known for its sexy style of marketing campaigns, has found itself in hot water with consumers.

In 2002, the retailer pulled controversial T-shirts after complaints they were racially insensitive. One shirt showed Chinese laundry workers with conical hats and the phrase, "Wong Brothers Laundry Service: Two Wongs Can Make It White."

In 2003, the company — under pressure from some consumer groups — said it would stop issuing racy catalogs and halt the publication of its holiday book, which featured nude young adult models in sexually suggestive poses.

Another powerful recent consumer backlash comes to mind: The odious pedophile handbook that Amazon finally removed from its Kindle eBook site after literally thousands of complaints.

If you think this issue is frivilous, I assure you it isn't. We need to wake up and see where these trends are heading, and whether we want our children encouraged to behave in more mature sexual ways than they are socially, and emotionally equipped to handle. We also need to understand that by dressing them sexually when they don't even know what that means, they can become targets for twisted adult pedophiles.

Remember, Abercrombie DID NOT remove the offensive product, it merely re-branded it to conform to more acceptable norms. Tell them this is not enough. Tell them the product must be removed, and be vigilant in protecting your children from any product that turns them into sexual objects.

Don't believe me? Take a look for yourself. Do you really want your 7-year-old daughter to hit the beach this summer in one of these?

— The Curator

Just What the Heck IS a 'Fuck Saw'?

Recently, I reported on the trouble that a respected human sexuality professor got into because he conducted a live after-school demonstration of a woman's orgasm with a man using a sex toy on her.

I'm following up that account because I received a surprising and unprecedented number of questions regarding the story. Why surprising? Because each of the questions were regarding the sex toy, none of them related to the actual story!

Just what was the sex toy that generated the questions: A 'Fuck Saw.' That's right, a Fuck Saw. Frankly, I had never heard of the darn thing before the university story, so I researched it. It has quite a cult following. I have included details below. [Note: You can find it easily as a package, or separately by its parts on the Internet to purchase, so I haven't provided any sales links.]

I am quoting from the manufacturer's description:

"The Fuck Saw is a very special hand held fucking machine that can fuck really hard using the motion and six different speeds of a reciprocating saw. The special red rod is a Saw Vac-U-Lock Adapter that attaches to the saw in place of a blade. The Vac-U-Lock dong attachment then slips over the rod. You hold it like a gun, and drill into the ass or vagina with powerful and steady force."

Let me be VERY clear — this device is a mechanical fucking machine, NOT a vibrator. Most of the websites demonstrate it using two people, one w-elding the machine, the other being, well, wielded — but it may be able to be used for solo-sex too, if you could figure out how to anchor it securely.

It has been primarily popular within the gay and BDSM communities, but is gaining appreciation by hetero-couples, too. I watched the videos, and can't believe that most women would be able to orgasm from it, since it simply provides serious vaginal stimulation and nothing clitoral.

However, the concept is appealing to a lot of couples because traditional mechanical fucking machines are generally quite cost prohibitive, but this may be within their budgetary...um...constraints.

The Real Saw

Description of Chicago Electric Power Tools 65570, Reciprocating Saw [There are other power tool brands that also produce this saw]

Handle rotates completely through 180° with five positive stops at 0, 45° and 90° left, and 45° and 90° right for comfortable and controlled cutting from any angle.

• Powerful 6 amp motor with a variable speed trigger goes from 0 to 2500 strokes per minute for precision cutting or speed
• Shoe plate pivots up to 30° for increased stability
• 1/2" twist-lock blade chuck for fast, easy blade changes
• 7/8" stroke length
• Rubber grip for comfort and durability
• Includes a 24 TPI metal-cutting blade and a 10 TPI woodcutting blade

Overall dimensions: 18" L x 3-7/16" W x 6-3/4" H, Shipping Weight: 6.50 lbs.

[Note: This saw, sold separately, retails for about $30-$40.]

The Adapter With Changeable Dildo

The Reciprocating Saw Vac-U-Lock Adepter, which retails at about $80 without shipping, turns a reciprocating saw into a hand held fucking machine with a Vac-U-Lock dildo attached to the end. The adapter works with all Vac-U-Lock Toys. One end of the adepter fits into the saw in place of a blade and the other end is shaped to fit all Vac-U-Lock toys.

The adapter is chrome and glossy red and constructed from unbendable steel. The Vac-U-Lock Dildo attachments are sold separately.

When purchased together, the Fuck Saw retails between $170 and $200 without shipping. The package includes the reciprocating saw, a Vac-U-Lock Dong and a red Saw Vac-U-Lock Adapter. The reciprocating saw weighs a total of 6.70 lbs. Without the rod and dong attachments it has a total length of 16½". It is 3½” wide and the maximum height is 6” at the handle. The extension safety cord for the Fuck saw is 80” long.

The realistic Vac-U-Lock Dong (sadly for vaginal health, most are made of unappealing rubber) attachment goes onto the Saw Vac-U-Lock Adapter. The red saw adapter is glossy and constructed from unbendable steel. It is 9” in total length, and the 3-part segmented end is 3½” with a 5½” attachment stem. The adapter has a 3.25” circumference and a 1” diameter.

The Vac-U-Lock dildo in most package sales is a slim and natural shape and color made of rubber, which generally has an insertable length of 7¼” and a 1½” diameter.

The blade stroke is 7/8”. The six speeds are variable and go between 0-2500 SPM (strokes per minute).

"This sex machine is cool looking and hard core. The Fuck Saw supplies a great machine powered fuck."

To each their own!

— The Curator

Explicit Sex Demonstration at University FANTASTIC!

J. (John) Michael Bailey, the Northwestern University professor at the center of recent controversy over a live sex act in his classroom, apologized Saturday for allowing the demonstration to occur.

“I apologize,” he writes. “As I have noted elsewhere, the demonstration was unplanned and occurred because I made a quick decision to allow it. I should not have done so.”

He said he was surprised by the public outcry over the after-class incident in the Ryan Family Auditorium, where a man used a high-powered sex toy on his girlfriend in front of 100 students.

“During a time of financial crisis, war, and global warming, this story has been a top news story for more than two days,” Bailey wrote in his statement. “That this is so reveals a stark difference of opinion between people like me, who see absolutely no harm in what happened, and those who believe that it was profoundly wrong.”

His statement comes two days after Northwestern’s president, Morton Schapiro, said he was launching an investigation into the after-class live sex demo, saying he was disturbed, troubled and disappointed.

Bailey said that while he regretted allowing the sex toy demonstration, he also does not believe those who were offended made a good case for why the act should not have been allowed.

“Those who believe that there was, in fact, a serious problem have had considerable opportunity to explain why: in the numerous media stories on the controversy, or in their various correspondences with me,” the statement reads in part. “But they have failed to do so. Offense and anger are not arguments. But I remain open to hearing and reading good arguments.”

I strongly support Professor Bailey and the demonstration, which was not required for students to attend but was voluntary. His intention was to show, in real life, how a woman becomes aroused to orgasm, and further whether she ejaculates as men do at climax. (By the way, she DID ejaculate! Congrats all around.)

In a world when students are given detailed information on a wealth of topics without relevance to their lives, this unusual teaching opportunity is an honest breath of fresh air. Almost all people have sex. Few have good sex, and even fewer have fantastic sex. Shouldn't we encourage people to better their sex lives and understand the workings of their bodies?

Female orgasm is often problematic for couples. A life-action demonstration is a great way to see how and what happens during the woman's arousal cycle. I wish I could have been there, too, and I'm 54!

I say Bravo, Professor! I hope you continue to teach human sexuality in real, honest, and memorable ways so that your students will have much happier lives after university.

I found this issue so intriguing that I have included a wealth of information below, primarily from the campus newspaper, which initially reported the story. Note: I have also included links to the paper's websites.

[Above photo: Faith Kroll, 25, and fiance Jim Marcus, 44, pose for a photo in Chicago. The couple engaged in the demonstration in the human sexuality class Feb. 21 at Northwestern University. Kroll took her clothes off and graphically demonstrated the use of the motorized sex toy that was adeptly deployed by a different man.]


Here is the first article from the Daily Northwestern:

Class sex toy demonstration causes controversy
Prof. John Michael Bailey defends demonstration as educational


By Patrick Svitek

Published: Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Updated: Saturday, March 5, 2011

Northwestern students and administrators are defending an explicit after-class demonstration involving a woman being publicly penetrated by a sex toy on stage in the popular Human Sexuality course last week.

University spokesman Al Cubbage has released the following statement regarding the incident: "Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines. The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge."

The optional presentation last Monday, attended by about 120 students, featured a naked non-student woman being repeatedly sexually stimulated to the point of orgasm by the sex toy, referred to as a "fucksaw." The device is essentially a motorized phallus.

The 600-person course, taught by psychology Prof. John Michael Bailey, is one of the largest at NU. The after-class events, which range from a question-and-answer session with swingers to a panel of convicted sex offenders, are a popular feature of the class. But they're optional and none of the material is included on exams.

[Above Photo: Professor J. (John) Michael Bailey]

Last Wednesday, Bailey devoted six minutes of his lecture to addressing mounting controversy regarding the incident and articulating his educational intent. He told the class he feared the demonstration would impact the after-class events, which are sponsored by the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, and he explained the educational purpose of the events.

"I think that these after-class events are quite valuable. Why? One reason is that I think it helps us understand sexual diversity," he said, according to an audio file obtained by The Daily.

"Sticks and stones may break your bones, but watching naked people on stage doing pleasurable things will never hurt you," he said to loud applause at the end of his speech.

Bailey declined to comment for this article due to class preparations that he said last until Friday.

[Above Photo: The sex toy used in the demonstration is referred to as a "fuck saw." An identical motorized device is depicted above. The one used during the demonstration was equipped with a phallus.]

Chicago sex tour guide Ken Melvoin-Berg, who operated the device, emphasized the instructional value of the hour-long session, which also included a question-and-answer period.

"Talking about it doesn't always lend itself to this sort of thing," Melvoin-Berg said. "We're not just talking about it. We're actually doing it."

The shock value could be attributed to offended parties "not really knowing why they're upset, but knowing they're upset," he added.

NU administrators on Tuesday afternoon offered approving but cautious responses to the demonstration, with Dean of Students Burgwell Howard admitting he was "somewhat surprised" upon first hearing of the after-class presentation. The event, however, most likely "falls within the broad range of academic freedoms — whether one approves or disapproves," he wrote in an e-mail.

Laura Anne Stuart, the sexual health education and violence prevention coordinator at University Health Services, said after hearing of the event she consulted with a few members of SHAPE, the on-campus sexual health group she advises.

"As a sexuality educator, I do think that demonstrations of specific arousal techniques — those definitely have educational value," she said.

Stuart added that the sexual display's appropriateness depends on the class context, audience makeup and the professor's ultimate goals.

Bailey is no stranger to controversy. The 21-year professor, who repeatedly has been named to the Associated Student Government Faculty Honor Roll, including in 2010 and 2009, has drawn criticism for the research and conclusions of his book "The Man Who Would Be Queen," which explores male femininity and autogynephilia, a sexual fixation in which a man is sexually excited by the thought or image of himself as a female.

Interested attendees were warned five to 10 times about the intense nature of the demonstration, said McCormick senior Nick Wilson, who was present for the after-class event. He estimated at least 20 students began "trickling out" due to the warning.

McCormick junior Ellen Kourakos described the sex-toy implementation as "a little more explicit than expected."

Administrators and students interviewed said because the event was optional, it is a permissable addition to the class.

"Personally, I probably wouldn't want to witness that, but a student can take or not take the course," said Christine Woo, a member of NU's Christians on Campus chapter. "It's their choice."

Howard wrote in an e-mail Tuesday evening that hopefully students aimed to "plan their attendance accordingly," especially given the popular but provocative nature of Bailey's course.

Wilson downplayed the controversy, adding students were present because they chose to be and some were actually trying to move closer to the front of the room during the demonstration.

"Everybody's blowing it out of proportion," Wilson said. "It's one small thing. It's an intense thing, but it's a small thing."

patricksvitek2014@u.northwestern.edu

In an e-mail sent to the students of his 600-person Human Sexuality course, psychology Prof. John Michael Bailey offered his account of an optional after-class sex toy demonstration that has sparked controversy on campus and in Evanston.

The February 21st Demonstration: Bailey's Account:

"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 MelvoinJBerg, 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 MelvoinJBerg (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 gJspot 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 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 5J10 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 educational 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."

J. Michael Bailey
Professor
3/2/11
Evanston, Illinois

The following appeared in The Daily Beast:

By Jessica Bennett

A psychology professor did what?! The story behind the Illinois university’s strange sex demonstration.

Update: Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro said Thursday that he was "troubled and disappointed" after hearing about the sex toy incident—and that Northwestern would be launching an investigation into it. “I feel it represented extremely poor judgment on the part of our faculty member,” he said in a statement. On Saturday morning, the professor behind the controversial class issued his own apology stating that he regrets allowing the controversial demonstration, and that "In the 18 years I have taught this course, nothing like the demonstration at issue has occurred, and I will allow nothing like it to happen again."

It was bizarre, say students—even for a professor who gets off (excuse the pun) on controversy. On Feb. 21, after a lecture on sexual arousal, students in Northwestern University psychology Professor J. Michael Bailey’s human-sexuality course were given the option to stay for a guest presentation. Most were used to these sessions: With topics like “The Gay Guys Panel” (gay men talking about their sex lives) and Q&A sessions with transgender performers, the optional add-ons were part of what made Bailey’s class one of the most popular on campus.

But this particular lecture was, shall we say, different. Led by a man whose website describes him as a “psychic detective and ghost hunter,” it was called “Networking for Kinky People,” and began with a towel placed neatly on the auditorium stage. Next, a woman took her clothes off, and—with an audience of around 100—lay down on her back, legs spread. As students moved forward from the theater’s back seats, for a closer view, “The girl grabbed the mic,” says Sean Lavery, a Northwestern freshman. “She explained that she had a fetish for being watched by large crowds while having an orgasm.”

No, the girl involved was not a student. Yes, she was over 21, we’re told—and the guy stimulating her was introduced as her boyfriend. “It was a committed couple who did the demonstration, and it happened at the end of the class,” says Ken Melvoin-Berg, the guest speaker, who helps operate a tour company called Weird Chicago that offers sex tours.

We'll spare you the gory details — but let's just say they involved the woman's boyfriend bringing her to climax on stage, using a contraption called a "fucksaw," and plenty of gasps, not just from flabbergasted students. “I was gauging everyone’s reaction,” says Lavery, who’s been in Bailey’s class since January. “I think everyone was just like, ‘Is she really doing this right now?’”

The demonstration, as you can imagine, has become the talk of campus — a story that will undoubtedly become fable for subsequent classes of incoming freshmen. It will also certainly become a rallying cry for sex-education critics, and parents of fresh-faced 18 year olds for whom Northwestern is suddenly at the top of their college wish lists. With the story first reported in Northwestern’s campus paper, The Daily, on Tuesday, it’s safe to say that the influx of criticism has only just begun.

But Bailey, for his part, has never shied away from controversy. His 2003 book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, ruffled feathers with its argument that some transgender men who wish to become women are driven by erotic fascination rather than biological desire; Bailey has said himself that he enjoys turning intellectual taboo on its head. But he resigned from his post as the chairman of Northwestern’s psychology department in 2004, shortly after allegations that he had unethically published confidential information about many of his subjects. (The claims were never substantiated, and Bailey has vehemently denied them.) Now a professor of clinical and personality psychology, Bailey is not licensed as a clinical psychologist in Illinois, nor has he been, according to the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation.

Back on campus, Northwestern is still defending its longtime prof, despite Bailey's comments in another class, quoted in the student newspaper this week, that "Sticks and stones may break your bones, but watching naked people on stage doing pleasurable things will never hurt you." "Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines," the university's vice president for university relations, Alan Cubbage, told The Daily Beast in a statement. "The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge."

Bailey declined to be interviewed for this article, but seems to have gained at least a bit of perspective since his earlier remarks. Late Wednesday, he posted a lengthy explanation of his behavior to the Northwestern faculty site, in which he acknowledges he had "some apprehension" about the display—though more for the personal repercussions than any lack of educational value. "Do I have any regrets? It's mostly too early to say," he writes. "I certainly have no regrets concerning Northwestern students, who have demonstrated that they are open-minded grownups rather than fragile children." Grownups, yes; but also open-minded enough to assess the display for themselves. "I was like, 'OK, she orgasmed on stage,'" says Lavery, the freshman, who is 18. "What're we supposed to take away from that?"

[Jessica Bennett is a Newsweek senior writer covering society, youth culture and gender. Her special reports, multimedia packages and original Web video have been honored by the New York Press Club, the Newswomen's Club of New York and GLAAD, among other organizations.]

The next news account appeared in the Business Insider:

That Human Sexuality Class At Northwestern That Everyone Is Up In Arms About Was The Best Class Ever

Katya Wachtel
Mar. 7, 201

Last week, the Daily Beast published a story about a human sexuality class at Northwestern, which, on a particular day, culminated in a woman and her "boyfriend bringing her to climax on stage, using a contraption called a 'fucksaw.'"

The reaction was one of shock, indignation, and a fair amount of disgust littered in the comment sections of any publication — including ours — that discussed the story.

Some of my close friends went to Northwestern, and have talked about the class before.

It's one of the university's most in-demand courses, and Professor Bailey is a big name not only at the university, but within the field of human sexuality more broadly.

I knew that because of those two details (and the fact that those who signed up for the class and were lucky enough to score a seat, knew what they were in for) it was only a matter of time before someone energed with a retort to the Beast's article.

It turns out that one of those retorts comes from a friend, Joe Bernstein, who explains at the AWL, why "That Northwestern "Human Sexuality" Class Was The Best Course I Ever Took."

Bernstein writes, "I won’t comment on the most recent demonstration. I wasn’t there. But the fact that these events have been going on for years leads me to believe that the current controversy has a lot more to do with the word “fucksaw” than anything else. These demonstrations clearly existed to expose a group of smart but sheltered young people to the staggering spectrum of human sexual behavior. Sometimes people need to be shocked out of their assumptions.

It has barely been reported that the “fucksaw” demonstrators led an hour-long discussion after their shocking act. Can we extrapolate from this fact that some knowledge about human sexuality may have been gleaned?"

He adds that one of the major shock points for those reading the Daily Beast or watching CNN, was that students are shelling out $40,000 to watch a couple on stage, armed with an unusually-named sex toy. But in Bailey's class, Bernstein felt like he was the having the experience a student is supposed to have at college -- that is, primarily, to be intellectually challenged.

"It certainly wasn't his presence that made Bailey the best professor I had at Northwestern. He lacked the performer’s intuition that the great lecturers have, the sense of drama, of revelation... But he taught major, contentious areas of sexuality research that we all have a stake in: about the genetic basis for sexual orientation; about the evolutionary costs and benefits of rape; about real, observable differences in male and female arousal patterns... Bailey assumed that we were not in the class just because it was about sex or, worse, to fulfill some silly course requirement. He assumed we were in class because we were as interested in the mysteries of human sexual experience as him."

The following is the complete response written by Bernstein:

by Joseph Bernstein on March 7th, 2011

In three years as an undergraduate at Northwestern University, I only saw one professor argue with his students. It happened several times in the same class, Human Sexuality, and I will never forget the first time it happened. It was the winter of my sophomore year, 2005. The professor, J. Michael Bailey, had been leading us through some provocative research, which suggested that if you control for a whole variety of factors, adults who were sexually abused as children are not much more likely to have psychological pathologies than adults who were not. The implication, that the sexual abuse of children might not be as damaging as our culture has long assumed, naturally upset some members of the class, and Bailey, as was his practice after introducing a controversial topic, halted his lecture for ten minutes of questions and answers.

A dark-haired young woman in the back of the class stood up right away. This was not an insignificant act; Human Sexuality was one of the most popular courses at Northwestern and hundreds of people gathered in the huge lecture hall on North Campus every winter to attend, so hundreds of heads turned to look at her.

“You’re talking about sexually abusing children,” she said, in tone that would have been hectoring if it hadn’t been so surprised. “No matter what the research says, that is morally wrong.” Bailey said that his moral judgment had nothing to do with the matter, that he was presenting research and that was all. This was clearly unsatisfactory to the young woman, who asked in response, “What would you say if one of your daughters was molested?”

Everyone has taken a class where the lecturer loses the respect of the students. This, I thought, was on the verge of happening. If Bailey responded defensively or, worse, derisively, he would lose the audience, maybe for the rest of the semester. I was sure that he would take the temperature of this woman’s voice, deflect the question and move on.

“If one of my daughters was molested, I would be devastated,” he said. “But I would take comfort in knowing that the molestation would not necessarily ruin her life.”

The young woman sat down. Bailey got back to his lecture.

Why am I telling you this story? J. Michael Bailey is the person at the center of the controversy currently burning on the Western shore of Lake Michigan, fed by gusts of air from every prurient corner of the Internet and every red-faced moralist who can sit through the Fox News or MSNBC or CNN makeup chair long enough to release his outrage.

What happened is this: Bailey, as he does several times every semester, organized an after-class demonstration, which in this particular instance took the form of one non-student Chicagoan applying a device known as a “fucksaw” to the vagina of another non-student Chicagoan, who apparently reached orgasm, though we have made the collective mistake of assuming so. (If "Seinfeld" has taught us nothing else, it is that only she knows for sure.)

Pardon the digression; commence the defense. I arrived in Northwestern in the fall of 2003, smart-assed and smug, from the halls of a criminally overpriced prep school in northwest Washington, D.C., which for all of its faults taught me that everything should be questioned, that good argument dignifies everyone and that being intellectually boring is sort of a sin. Let us say that these were not the values I encountered at my new home.

To understand Bailey’s worth to Northwestern, you need to understand a little bit about Northwestern. First, it's full of very smart and very driven people. Second, it's not a place where young people go to have their assumptions challenged. It's not the sort of university where young people go to experiment and find themselves and dabble in campus radicalism and psychedelics and maybe let someone of the same sex or someone in a body suit rub up on them. Due to its prestigious undergraduate programs in theater, journalism, engineering and business, it has an entrenched and sometimes suffocating pre-professional streak. In every way, geographically, intellectually, socially, psychologically, it's the opposite of our South Side rival for academic supremacy. It's also really, truly, appallingly cold. Which is all a way of saying that it's the sort of place that might benefit from a fucksaw every now and then.

I was adrift there. I know, I know: poor little me, paying $40,000 a year to be intellectually alone and sad in picturesque north Chicagoland. But let me say in my defense that 18 to 20 is a really awful age to feel like there's a good conversation going on somewhere and you aren’t having it. The early classes for my English major didn’t help. Sure, I learned how you can interpret The Matrix through a Lacanian lens, but I never heard anyone argue why you should. The students didn’t care and the professors didn’t notice. There were no stakes.

So now you can maybe see why that moment in Bailey’s class was so revelatory for me. I was watching an academic defend his field in the context of his life. There were stakes. It wasn’t life-altering or anything quite so neat as that. But it was an educator taking seriously enough the intentions of his students to expect that they could handle facts that made them uncomfortable. I felt, more than anything, respected.

It certainly wasn't his presence that made Bailey the best professor I had at Northwestern. He lacked the performer’s intuition that the great lecturers have, the sense of drama, of revelation. He spoke in a monotone and in class would basically shuffle around the stage with his microphone. But he taught major, contentious areas of sexuality research that we all have a stake in: about the genetic basis for sexual orientation; about the evolutionary costs and benefits of rape; about real, observable differences in male and female arousal patterns; about case studies of people who can only achieve sexual pleasure by cutting off their own limbs. Bailey assumed that we were not in the class just because it was about sex or, worse, to fulfill some silly course requirement. He assumed we were in class because we were as interested in the mysteries of human sexual experience as him.

I won’t comment on the most recent demonstration. I wasn’t there. But the fact that these events have been going on for years leads me to believe that the current controversy has a lot more to do with the word “fucksaw” than anything else. These demonstrations clearly existed to expose a group of smart but sheltered young people to the staggering spectrum of human sexual behavior. Sometimes people need to be shocked out of their assumptions.

I only remember one demonstration from 2005 well. It was just a panel of gay men, longtime friends of Bailey’s, who sat in front of the class and answered any question the audience could come up with. I simply didn’t know very many gay people when I was 20 years old, and I had a whole host of assumptions blasted by the commonsense, funny, sad answers provided by the men on the panel. There was a moment late in the demonstration when it became clear to the class that the removal of women from the sexual equation results in a lot more, well, sex.

Someone asked the panel: “How many of you have had sex with each other?” The men, who ranged widely in age, looked at each other, and it was clear some major mental math was happening. All at once, the men on stage started just shaking with laughter, and the audience did too. I didn’t leave the lecture hall changed in any fundamental way, except I knew a little bit more about the three or ten (depending on who you ask) percent of men who have sex with other men. I can say that no other professor’s class at Northwestern taught me that much about the way actual people live in the world.

It has barely been reported that the “fucksaw” demonstrators led an hour-long discussion after their shocking act. Can we extrapolate from this fact that some knowledge about human sexuality may have been gleaned? That some 19-year-old from Peoria might not think his new girlfriend is weird or disgusting when he stumbles upon her leather closet? That we all got here from fucking, that we do it in a lot of different ways, and someone should probably be studying it? Or would it just be easier and more satisfying to be scandalized?"

— The Curator

AWFUL Dating Trends

Welcome to the wonderful new age of very ugly dating trends: Being dumped via a pre-recorded message; and hiring a professional to act as a "wing-woman" to help get dates.

The Rejection Hotline is an automated tool for rejecting unwanted callers. Developed in 2001, it consists of a phone number which, when dialed, answers with a recording stating that the person who gave the dialer this number did not want them to have their real number.

A list of possible reasons for the rejection is then enumerated, albeit with the caveat that there is no way to know with certainty what particular reason is applicable to the situation.

The idea of creating the number was conceived when Jeff Goldblatt determined that it would be better to create a centralized rejection number that people could give out rather than, say, the number of a local pizza parlor.

The company that operates the Rejection hotline also operates many other hotlines of humorous intent such as the Breakup Butler, the One Night Stand Hotline, the Easter Bunny Hotline, and fake headquarters hotlines for the Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and John McCain presidential campaigns. Occasionally it covers new issues, e.g. the Billion Dollar Bailout hotline.

So, here's an example: When a woman meets a fellow and he asks for her number ostensibly to call later for a date, she gives him this phony number instead.

When he calls it, he gets a recording, one of which says: "Thank you for calling the rejection hotline, you've been rejected." It goes on, but is pretty awful.

Of course, the dumpee can be of either gender, and all sexual orientations are at risk.

There are various Rejection Hotline numbers across the country, but I will not dignify any of them by repeating one here.

Frankly, I find the entire idea and use of the application hurtful, disrespectful, repulsive and a truly gutless way to treat another person who simply wants a date. Shame on anyone who has dumped someone this way!

In the second example, there is a service available primarily to men to hire a woman to come with them to a social venue or event. It then becomes her job to "breaks the ice" for the guy with a group of women that has gotten his interest Once she "plays the man up," he moves on in.

There are a lot of different "wing-women" services, but I am quoting from information directly from the UsWingwomen website:

"UsWingwomen.com is a modern service for men who want to meet women.Every guy out there knows that it is much easier to meet women when you're around other women. Here at UsWingwomen.com we are able to provide you with those women.

At UsWingwomen.com we provide "Wing Women" to help you have a good time and more importantly to assist you in pick up those girls who always seem to slip through your fingers. We've all been there, out with one of your buddies standing against a wall watching everyone else have fun and meet women. Are you sick of player hating from the sidelines? Well now you can be one of those guys who are having fun and meeting women.

Usual nights on the town are you going out with your friends and trying to meet new female acquaintances to add to your repertoire of potential "friends." Most weekend nights, men can be seen spray painted against mirrored club walls, improving their talent of stirring and sipping strong drinks. It all boils down to watching other men squaring away new phone numbers in their cellular phone books or rubber banding new business cards in neat stacks. Of course, by the end of the night, you are a few hundred dollars poorer, you've accelerated your own liver failure from all the alcohol, your lungs are a shade darker, and you still didn't get to ask that beautiful lady for her number (you didn't even talk to her!). It's another familiar failed partying night. Maybe it's time to reconsider your whole pickup strategy. If it hasn't worked for you and your friends in the past, then it's time to try a new strategy: The Wing Women Strategy. Why just be a spectator? Why not let us enhance your night out with amazing company and more importantly help you attract the curiosity of other women."

And there's more from the website:

"I had never been one to have a great deal of trouble meeting women, but like most guys I found it frustrating as to how much effort was necessary to approach and meet women. I would go out a couple nights a week and spend a ton of money on drinks for myself and often for the girls only to have it pan out every once and a while. Life as a single was frustrating and it was just too expensive and inconsistent for my liking.

In the summer of 2002 I started spending a lot of time with my two friends Amber and Katie. They are both attractive girls with great personalities. In the past, I was hesitant to go out with them because I thought they would hurt my chances of meeting women. I always thought "How could I meet women, if I was already hanging out with other women"? Then the first night I hit some bars with them I was having such good time I didn't even care about meeting any other women. As the night moved along, I ended up meeting five girls, Amber introduced me to two of them and the other three actually approached me. The girls could see how much fun we were having and wanted to be a part of it. I wound up going home with two phone numbers that night.

Over next couple of months, I went out with Amber and Katie frequently. Each time I was out with them I wound up meeting other women. Then I started telling my guy friends about this and they were begging me to let them join the fun. So, I started letting some of them tag along with us and they were having the same success as me — the phone numbers were rolling in. This got me thinking about all the guys out there that would enjoy and benefit from such a service and UsWingwomen.com was born.

Why this would work? In this day and age an outing to any social event is regarded as a potential meat market. Most women have gained a keen sense of most efforts that men make to corner their target. As formidable of a game plan that a wing man is, it has come to our attention that there is always going to be one disgruntled member of the party that wishes that a strobe light would somehow intercept for a clean getaway with no hard feelings. Now imagine yourself with one of our Wing Women. While you are in her company, she will be:

— Initiating conversations.
— Making sure women notice the person's she is with.
— Introducing and Ice breaking you to other women.
You will notice how easy it is to see if any woman in the bar gauges more than your attention. You will be making the choices, socializing, meeting more women then you ever did as a "player hater."
— Creating an Image.
Our ladies are all apt at the art of socialization. Other wonderful women will not only notice your company and you, but be drawn to meeting and greeting you as well.

And, there's even MORE directly from the website:

"UsWingwomen.com is a revolutionary service for men who want to meet women. Every guy out there knows that it is much easier to meet women when you're around other women. Here at UsWingwomen.com we are able to provide you with those women.

At UsWingwomen.com we provide "Wing Women" to help you have a good time and more importantly to assist you in pick up those girls who always seem to slip through your fingers. We've all been there, out with one of your buddies standing against a wall watching everyone else have fun and meet women. Well now you can be one of those guys who are having fun and meeting women.

Advantages to having a "Wing Woman"

In the game of meeting women, it is understood that in most cases, it's the man who does all the work. Unfortunately, women have not made it any easier for men to approach them. As a result, men have learned to work together in order to increase their success rate. The solution to the male dilemma is the "Wing Man" pickup strategy, which usually has some level of success. But some women have learned to recognize the "pack" mentality and have developed reactive strategies to counteract the wingman's pickup mission. The guy's response to such female defenses is the Wing Woman. Its an amazing union that if properly applied has a 65% conversion rate. Surprised? Well you shouldn't be, and here's why the wing woman approach is so effective:

— Domino Affect
Women are attracted to men who have women around them more so then men who have other men around them.
— Limited Resources
Women want what they can't have.
— Let The Games Begin
Women are very jealous and love to compete with one another.
— Icebreakers
Women tend to lower their defenses around men who have other women around them. Most women tend to see these men as having a seal of approval and being less hostile.

What does it cost me to get a Wing Woman?

Our Wing Women rates are $50 per hour. That is a flat fee, there is no tipping because our Wing Women will not accept tips. So don't even bother trying to give them extra money. Sure it would be nice if you bought them drinks over the course of your time together, but that is not mandatory. What is mandatory, is that your Wing Woman makes every attempt to introduce you to the women you desire to meet. If you require more than one Wing Woman, each additional Wing Woman is $40 per hour.

Results

What we provide at UsWingWomen.com is an attractive, outgoing and fun spirited Wing Woman who will do her best to introduce you to other women. Nothing in life is certain, so we cannot guarantee that when your time with your Wing Woman is up that you will have gotten any phone numbers or had extreme success meeting women. But we do provide some measure of a guarantee, if after the first 25 minutes of your time with your Wing Woman you are not satisfied, you will be refunded the full amount of your payment.

Safety Measures

To make sure our Wing Women are as safe as possible all meetings will occur in public places (bars, clubs, lounges, etc.). Your Wing Woman will not go into a place where she does not feel 100% safe. Do not ask your Wing Woman to accompany you to your apartment or anyone else's apartment because she will refuse. If you act inappropriately with your Wing Woman, your time with her is over and you will not be refunded your payment.

Do I get to select my "Wing Woman"?

We can assure you that all of our Wing Women are very good-looking and extremely personable. Should you have any preferences as to the type of Wing Woman that can best help you meet other women, we will take them into account in selecting the ideal Wing Woman for your evening. If you are unhappy with the Wing Woman selected for you, we offer a full refund as long as we are notified within the first 25 minutes.

Can I see a picture prior to our date?

Of course you can. Once you have booked time with a Wing Women we will be glad to email more information about your Wing Woman as well as her picture.

Our recommendations for your night out:

— Tell Her What you like
Do be social, and let your Wing Women know exactly what you like and dislike in other women.
— Show Her What you like
Do point out women that you find attractive, and would like to meet.
— Be a good host
Do be a great host for your Wing Women. Please act as a gentleman would. Not only does this help socially, but helps encourage your Wing Women throughout the night.
— Be a Cautious Drinker
Drinking is allowed for Wing Women, but please be responsible in drinking (no one likes a belligerent drunk).
— Stay in Public Places
Do meet in public places. (Lounges, Clubs, Bars), Wing Women will not escort you to a place she doesn't feel is a hundred percent safe.
— No Tipping
Do not tip your Wing Women. She is not allowed to accept any tips, no matter successful your night out was.
— Have Fun
Do have an amazing time on your night out and meet lots of women!"

Guess what? There's even a website guarantee:

"With the employment of our services you will be provided with a charming woman who is guaranteed to dazzle a room, and create the kind of buzz that leaves everyone wanting to meet you, specifically other dazzling women. If for any reason you are not satisfied within the first 25 minutes of your company with our Wing Women, we will refund the total cost of the service."

O-kay then. I hate the entire concept of "wing-men," who are friends that help each other out with women. Again, sexual orientation in terms of friends in the real world is often unimportant. I could not find whether UsWingWomen only provide its services to heterosexual men.

Anyway, I hate it regardless. I find the material incredibly sexist and juvenile, describing women dating targets in the most stereotypically and insulting manner. Not surprisingly, it is a popular concept that has spread nationwide.

I'm old-school. I want real people to dump me. Hmmm. I don't think that came out right, but you know what I mean.

I also want someone to recommend someone to date who actually knows that person, and hasn't been hired to tell me what a wonderful person he/she is. Someone who doesn't view all women merely to be played and as completely shallow — except for our protruding breasts!

Dating and relationships in general, are about trust and honesty. If you decide to go down these dark paths, they will likely lead to nothing but heartache and very, very bad karma.

— The Curator