http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/03/28/sexuality.class.ap/index.html
I nearly laughed my ass off reading this article. Then again, I’m university educated. It reminded me of the old Hollywood Production Code and Tipper Gore’s PMRC. There is no place for censorship at University.
Does anyone want to admit to agreeing with Senator Wagle?
:rolleyes:
I’m currently enrolled in a similar class, and I have to say that it would be very difficult to show sexuality across the life-cycle without visual aids. I couldn’t imagine my professor teaching such a class through only lectures.
And yes part of the life-cycle is youth, when children do have sexuality. Although we don’t like to consider it, even masturbation occurs in younger children without outside molestation by an adult. Kids know what feels good, and nerve endings remain nerve endings regardless of whether you’re post-puberty or pre-.
shrug In the interest of open disclosure, I played with myself as a kid. And no, I have never been sexually molested.
Before I even read the article, I saw nothing overly wrong with the class so long as it wasn’t required for every student, or the university gave an alternative to it.
I wonder what this class actually entails? If it’s a developmental class, or entails some sort of anatomy precursor, then I could see a reason for showing pictures such as that, but what sort of homework assignment is telling the women in your class to explore themselves? The last part of that, if true, seems quite sickening, and on the lines of sexual harassment.
On the other hand, a student in the class wrote this:
There are two sides to every story, and according to this side, the senator’s claims are either blown way out of proportion or the students in the calss accepted what is being taught before they went to in depth into the coursework. Then:
It would seem, then, he prepares students for what they may find offensive. I wonder if this professor allows them to miss the class because of the offensive material or if they are docked points for it? As I said before, is the class required and is there an alternative?
I think it would help to know a little more about the context that the senator is applying all these claims to. That being said, the first ‘could’ be reasonable if the material requires it, (such as sexual development or a precursor to anatomy) but the other two claims would suggest that the state revoke school funds.
On one hand, it is a sexuality class - naturally all aspects will be discussed (genitalia, self-pleasuring, etc). But on the other hand
it appears as though he’s simply trying to make his class controversial just so that he receives more acclaim. The controversy would be to show this video - naturally both homophobes, homosexuals and understanding heterosexuals would take offense to such an explicit video.
Perhaps the professor was joking, but with such a touchy subject, he should have known better.
The class I am taking, which sounds very similar in content, is not required for any major, except by fulfilling credit hour requirements.
You can’t talk about sexuality without touching on its development through the life-cycle, so yes of course its going to be studied from at least just before puberty onward
Its not like he told them to do it right there in class, and I seriously doubt he required note-taking. It probably occured during a discussion of masturbation and orgasm, because many (not all, and I’m unaware whether a majority/minority) women find themselves unable to orgasm during sex without learning to do it by themselves beforehand.
My professor generally requires us to attend the beginning of class, but if it becomes too uncomfortable we can exit the room for as long as we need.
Kansas? I wonder how Sen. Wagle feels about teaching evolution?
This is a class that has survived for 20 years and continues to max out the lecture hall, apparently without being dragged into the review process for censorship, previously. I wonder what the real problem was, this time?
Sexual orientation is part of sexuality. Its hardly about stirring up controversy, but rather about teaching all subjects as if they were equally valuable to know. If you believe showing hetero-erotic content (which he probably did) is a valuable teaching aid, should you also not show homo-erotic content? What is a valuable teaching aid for one remains a valuable teaching aid for another. Plus, at least in my class, we had to sign a waiver which clearly stated that homosexually-oriented videos may be included in the class.
Speaking as a homosexual, I’m just peachy with showing what two human beings do in the bedroom if its a class covering precisely that within its bounds.
For clarification: I’m not sure exactly which points you’re referring to in your last sentence. Specifically, which is “first” and which are “the other two?” Until that is clarified, I can’t address the entirety of your post.
However, I would like to make two smaller points. I agree that a course of this nature should definitely not be obligatory, unless a student is enrolled in a relevant program such as gender or queer studies.
I disagree with your point regarding masturbation. I do not think there is anything wrong with the professor encouraging students to masturbate, as long as it was not a selective statement. If he only encouraged female students to masturbate, I can see how that can be construed as sexual assault. Otherwise, I don’t see anything wrong with telling the class in general of the joys and health benefits of regular masturbation and encouraging them to give it a try. (Assuming they all didn’t already masturbate 
)
My real, underlying point was that showing any form of elicit sexual video, be it homosexual or heterosexual, is going to stir up some controversy. I feel that pornography in the classroom is definitely going too far.
Why the need for pornography in the classroom? I assume that everyone in the college knows how sex happens at that point. The only role pornography serves is to arouse you. And this is a sexual education type course; it isn’t a Porn lovers course.
For a more indepth article visit:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/5489689.htm
I’m particularly amused by her shock at the use of the word “fuck” in class. If swearing in class were banned then half of my professors would be out of a job. Well, at least the ones without tenure.
The only role of pornography is to arouse?
Pornography is an important part of our culture and society. In fact, I will venture as far as saying that a full understanding of human sexuality is impossible without considering pornography. The same can be said for a range of diverse fields of study including Film Studies and Gender Studies. Can anyone truly appreciate the suffering and humiliation women have been subject to without viewing the offending material?
I suppose you would also wish to prevent pictures of grisly murders and mass graves from being displayed in my Forensic Anthropology class.
Or perhaps engineering students should be prevented from studying the internal workings of the atom bomb?
I could go on and on…
You don’t have to answer this question if you don’t want to, but have you been to university? My intention is not to subjugate you. I am simply curious, since it could explain why you find the content of the course somehow unusual or out-of-place.
Considering pornography is one thing - showing it in the classroom is another. With that said - if people sign waivers saying that they are fine with it, then I suppose they have no right to become offended.
Pictures of grisly murders and mass graves have a bit to do with the course at hand, but - in comparison to the subject in hand, that would be like showing a naked body via a picture, as this is the main part of the course; sexuality. I have no problem with the professor showing pictures of female genitalia. But, since we all know how intercourse occurs, why show pornography? “Can anyone truly appreciate the suffering and humiliation women have been subject to without viewing the offending material?” What, is he going to show sadist pornographic material or something?
My attending a university or not attending has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
One of the key aspects of university life is responsibility. Students graduate from a life of permission slips, detention, and nagging parents, to an adult life where they must take full responsibility for themselves. It is the university’s responsibility to provide resources. It is not their responsibility to make sure students are not offended. All students enrolling in a course have the opportunity to consult the syllabus or speak directly to the professor before enrolling.
**
Because this isn’t a high school sex-ed course. As stated by the professor himself, the course is designed as “an introductory course which focuses on assisting students to understand their own and others’ sexual development and expression, as found in attitudes, beliefs and behaviors.”
What you have in mind would more likely fall under Biology in the course handbook.
No. Clearly you would benefit from a course in gender studies . Almost all pornography, at its core, is about degradation and subjugation of one person or group of people - usually a female in heterosexual pornography.
It does, in the sense that attending University often leads to a more analytical and open-minded mode of thinking, in my humble opinion. However, you are by no means obligated to reveal this information.
In 10th grade health the girls in the class were given the assignment of finding and describing their cervix. I forget what the boys were asked to do. I did not find it harrassing or degrading. I don’t see how that assignment is out of place in a college class.
I am sure in my class there was a general cop out rule in about you could get alternative assignments if you could not deal with one of the ones given to you. To her credit, the teacher was discreet enough that I never new if anyone did choose to ask for a different assignment.
I think this class sounds fine and don’t understand why it is in the center of such a contorversy
I made a point in my previous post that I would like to reiterate more directly:
Learning about sexuality does not just mean learning what goes where. (How could it, when many people get pleasure from sticking things where they clearly weren’t designed to go!) Sexuality has many aspects besides biological. Sexuality can also be considered from a psychological, sociological, evolutionary, economical, or artistic perspective. Perhaps Verminous isn’t interested in anything beyond the traditional plumbing, but many other students are. And, as is Kansas University’s responsibility, they have simply provided students with the resources they need to learn.
Well, if he was insinuating a woman was going out to the restroom to masturbate, yeah, I’d say that’s wrong. If it DID happen.
It’s absolutely all on the “student”, correct. But if the material is bound to offend someone - and like it or not, pornography is - then the university should provide a waiver for the class. The student pays the university for it’s services, remember?
“Sexual development and expression, as found in attitudes, beliefs and behaviors” doesn’t require pornography. I feel as though simply reading about these attitudes/beliefs/behaviors would be more than enough. I don’t know about you, but most humans find pornography arousing by nature. Hardly an easy way to learn about the aforementioned issues - far too distracting.
Regardless of how true that is, the glaring aspect of the pornography - the intercourse - would be the aspect most focused upon. Seeing the degradation of a person in a porno would hardly be educational. It would just represent, for example, that the male is the ‘dominant’ partner, and even this is a generalization.
Haha.
Pornography will just prove to be a distraction. I could imagine students becoming uncomfortable watching a porno with what, hundreds of other students? Hardly a positive learning environment.
All of the other aspects in which sexuality could be taught could be taught in other, more efficient ways. Save for the artistic perspective, which really is just appreciation for pornography.
I go to a school which is by far conservative (when speaking of colleges), and no one in my sexuality course has seemed the least bit uncomfortable. Indeed, no one has used the “walk out” option except to use the restroom. We have open, frank, and sometimes very blunt discussions on all aspects of sexuality, from plumbing to paraphilia (kinks and fetishes). We’ve all learned at least one thing: universal taboos on speaking of certain subjects often do more harm than good, and removing them can lead to a true gain of knowledge.
Obviously we still know that there are places and situations where sexual subjects are not considered polite, but I think part of a human sexuality course is teaching that healthy expression of that sexuality is not a crime. And that strikes me as a very valuable life lesson.
Verminous, you are entitled to your opinion. I assume you would be unlikely to take a course such as this one, and that is your choice to make. However, the legislation enacted by the state senate may interfere with the education of students who do decide to enroll. From the article, it is clear that students are made aware of the nature of the course. They are specifically forewarned as to the material to be covered in next days lecture. The choice is theirs. Students who make the wrong choice (taking the class and then finding themselves ‘offended,’ or sitting through a video they couldn’t ‘stomach’) shouldn’t be allowed to ruin things for the rest. Neither should a middle-aged conservative senator. Or perhaps I’m not aware of the government’s mandate to set curriculum for institutions of higher learning. At least that’s not how it works in Canada. Thank goodness too, as at least one of our politicians was a high school drop-out.
I agree that a comment of that nature might be inappropriate. But hardly cause for the controversy that has errupted.