Kansas university funds threatened over sex class

Great Debates
21

These guys are lightweights. They ought to come over and trying being a film major at my school. My favorite day was when we watched the explicit transnational transgendered robot porn.

If there is a film program that doesn’t include In the Realm of the Senses, *Last Tango in Paris[/] and at least mention of *Deep Throat[/], they ought to have their accredidation pulled.

Really, I’ve seen more porn in my academic career than many see in a lifetime. Usually the professors give a little disclaimer and the option to leave beforehand. But it has never been a big deal. No blushing. No snickering. Just a bunch of adults studying a very interesting for of cultural expression. I’ve never ever heard of anyone getting offended. They generally know what the classes they will sign up for entail, and they are given the skills to handle what they are seeing. In my school at least, watching porn in class is a common occurance but a non-issue.

22

I can’t see anything whatsoever wrong with what the Prof did either, in fact I’ll take it further than that.

As far as I know respected studies of masturbation among the two sexes are fairly dated. For what it’s worth, they found that roughly 95% of men and roughly 60% of women claim to have masturbated. I am rather certain that were such a study conducted today, both those numbers would be significantly higher.

The Prof could encourage female students particularly (but not exclusively?) to masturbate. If we go by the figures above (which I don’t necessarily believe in, but last I checked those were the respected figures) we may surmise that the percentage of women age 20 who have masturbated will probably be rather lower than 60%, since the figure refers to respondents of all ages. On the other hand, the prof knows with a degree of certainty that almost all the males in the class have already masturbated by age 20, at least according to studies.

This would legitimize the prof to an extent if he urged the female members in particular to familiarize themselves with “course material”, because of the apparent discrepancy in masturbation between the sexes.

23

The issue for me is that there is a BIG difference between an academic class on sexuality, and a “self-help” or “therapy” style forum on sexuality.

Advising people of any gender to explore their own genitals may be appropriate for the latter, it is not for the former.

24

Well, if I were teaching them either they have to be familiar with the subject matter or give the class a pass! :smiley:

Ensuring that everyone studying the subject matter has a working idea of what an orgasm is and feels like is not self-help. Prof Abe (for the sake of argument, not that I want to be known as a sexologist) would be out of line badgering every last member to determine their orgasmic experiences. However, addressing the half of the class that is statistically less likely to have experienced an orgasm and advising them to have one because it would help put subject matter in context seems fine by me. How, for example, can one study a complex response like the human orgasm without ever experienced one? Men and women already have enough trouble discussing and examining their respective orgasms, and they are almost identical processes!

If I walked in to a sex studies class never having experienced sex, masturbation, or orgasm, and then heard references to these things known to me only as words and vague concepts, I would probably feel like I’m missing the fundamentals. And life too, come to think of it.

25

Sorry about that, I was referring to the professor telling the class that a female student going to the bathroom was going to masturbate would be very inappropiate, or telling the class to go masturbate. Again, there IS a difference between telling one person to do it, to telling just the female students, to telling the whole class. Again, I’m not sure I understand the entire context of the class, but assume it is just one of the optional classes to fill credit hours. (Read the last little note I had before you critisize this)

Perhaps some consider sex more sacred than how this professor describes it? Perhaps some don’t think a public school should use tax dollars to have a professor tell students to explore their bodies? Perhaps it should be up to the taxpayers? I think this can become quite volatile in that into a subject that in it’s very nature brings out a lot of emotion.

I was reviewing what has been said in this thread, and my own personal opinions about sexuality have crept in. I tried to look at this from as objective a viewpoint as possible, but I consider masturbation to be immoral, and that does affect my perception of this class. If not required for any major or general ed, I would never sign up for such a class. However, understanding sexuality is essential to certain types of therapists, doctors, psychologists, etc. I understand it’s one of the most basic parts of humanity, however my own personal belief is that it does have it’s place and that place is a little more sacred than (from what the article in the OP) suggests it is. Please, if you do respond to that comment, understand that I am not blind to what sex and sexuality is. I have studied it in a college level sociology and psychology class. I do have my own religous beliefs about it, but I understand also the sociological, biological, and psychological aspects of sexuality in today’s world.

I apologize if I repeated anyone, but I didn’t read every post, and from the ones I did I may repeat because I agree with it. I also question why this is happening NOW if it’s been going on for 20 years, and if all 20 years were in Kansas. AFAIK, Kansas is one of the more conservative states in the country.

26

I’m sorry, but I’m calling you on this snide little insinuation there. There was absolutely nothing in the article in the OP bringing up evolution, so do your axe-grinding on Kansas elsewhere. Or better yet, just cut it out completely.

Hey, here’s a question for everyone speculating and pulling stuff out of their asses - aside from what’s on the web, has anyone here actually seen the class material or actually taken the class?

Anyone?

Well gee, I have. My thoughts:

The class really goes in-depth into sexuality, and the prof takes some sort of pride (or has fun) asking people deliberately provocative questions. I have no doubt that he not only implied that a girl was leaving to masturbate, he likely came right out and said it.

That’s his point - to try to desensitize students to make them not feel so uptight about sex and sexuality. When I was there, he deliberately asked students questions such as “So, what does your boyfriend’s semen taste like - what wine would go best with it?” and tried several times to fix up two guys near the front, making it a running joke about how he was going to assign a homosexual encounter between them as homework.

It was no big deal. Everyone I knew in the class laughed at it - it was a fun class to take. He did go out of his way to make the class humorous, lighthearted, and entertaining, to try to help people to ease up.

His point on exploring genitals was valid. He did ask people to “take a look and see what you have” - especially women, advising them how to see the layout with a hand mirror. He never once said anything like “Go home and masturbate”, except in jest.

A lot of women have never seen their genitals in detail. Even the Joy of Sex says something to that effect IIRC.

One note though - there were videos which clearly showed and went into detail on the genitalia of very young children - sometimes, I felt, to excess and in a manner that was verging on child porn. There were some references and videos of children “exploring themselves” which were not very tasteful IMO. I do not know if this is what the person in the CNN article is griping about, but I do know that I and my friends were not prudes, and we all had that unpleasant feeling that we Should Not Be Watching This while seeing it. But it was, in its defense, a very tiny part of the material and curricula, so it was easily forgotten. I mean, we’re talking 10 minutes out of a 16-week course.

27

Thanks for your post. Its always great to have opinions from the ‘front line.’ I am wondering what you are specifically referring to when you say that the video verged ‘on chilid porn.’ Was it erotic in nature? How so? Were the children posed in certain ways? I’m just curious as to the specific nature of these particular films.

28

To my mind, that’s like expecting a medical student to personally experiment with every major ailment so they don’t miss the “fundamentals.” Isn’t is possible to academically study something without actually experiencing it?

There’s a big difference between “words and vague concepts” and actual physical experience. Sure - people that don’t know what “coitus” means or a “labia” is might be a little held back studying erotic verse. But surely they can result to a dictionary rather than fumbling with their own McGiblets?

29

I originally agreed with this point. But then Abe brought up the oft-cited statistic about female masturbation. There would be no point in encouraging men to masturbate, since almost all men already do. However, it is likely that females are still victims of stigma surrounding their sexuality and may need some encouragement to explore.

This is just my personal opinion, but I don’t believe anybody outside of the university should have a say in its curriculum, especially not the majority of vastly under-educated taxpayers.

**

It is my experience that many people share your perception of sex as a special, perhaps even sacred. In my opinion this is a legitimate view. However, I do not understand what that particular perception would have to do with masturbation. What is the connection?

In my view, masturbating is no more immoral than exercising any of your other major bodily functions (e.g. urination or excretion). Why would giving yourself pleasure be immoral? It is the safest form of sexual activity a person could engage in.

I am very curious to understand your thinking. I’ve heard several people say masturbation is a sin. This belief I can understand, as they have likely internalized the teachings of their church without question. However, when you use the word immoral, I get the impression that you are making a value judgment separate from your religious views. I have never heard this line of reasoning before, and am very interested.

30

You should examine that analogy again. An ailment, by definition, is a negative experience that often leads to suffering and physical harm. Apart from what religious dogma would have you believe, masturbation has no such effects. In general, it is a positive experience.

In fact, I would go as far as saying that inflicting various ailments on medical students would make them much better doctors, but this would be unethical because of my previous point.

31

Well…OK, I’ll admit, it wasn’t really presented in that light, when you put it like that. Maybe we were just very uncomfortable with it in general. I may be a little prudish as well on that subject. I did downplay the aspect of it in my post, as it was a very short portion of the course.

It was a while ago, but what I remember were that there were scenes of children seen “exploring” themselves and “fondling” themselves, although it was presented in a clinical manner. There was a brief scene of a girl and boy playing “doctor”. That’s really all I can recall. I just remember that it made me - and everyone else watching it - very uncomfortable. If this was the same sort of thing that people are seeing now, then I can understand that it would be a “fringe” subject that would make many uncomfortable.

I’m just saying - depending on how one classifies “child porn” in their opinion, it might make some reasonable people very uncomfortable with it being shown. And not just because they live in that Whipping Boy of all States, Kansas.

I mean, hell. There’s plenty of argument over whether Balthus “The Guitar Lesson” is child porn or not. While we may say that technically that’s not “child porn” (and it’s hard to come up with an absolute definition of it), we should be able to acknowledge that things which are “on the line” enough that they could be interpreted that way.

Now mind you, I don’t think the class was bad at all, I thought it was a very informative and instructive course. It would be a shame if one small section would jeopardize the whole thing.

32

Nope. Cheap shots are fair game and par for the course, on the SDMB. Anyone who has paid attention already knows that Kansas citizens threw out the School Board that tried to get rid of evolutionary discussion. I have also tossed cheap shots at Ohio, even though the the Intelligent Design clowns were narrowly defeated, here.

If I launch into a complete harangue that Kansas is incapable of maintaining good educational standards, feel free to shoot down anything I say.

If you choose to be upset by cheap shots, then I’m afraid you may find yourself upset. Given that a well-attended course that has been around for 20 years with (apparently) no previous extreme reactions has caused the Kansas legislature to go so far as to withhold funding on the word of one shrill legislator, I would say that cheap shots are par for the course.

33

Thanks for the information. I don’t think you need to be apologetic for your reaction. I would have also felt uncomfortable, as would most people.

However, it is important to ask whether the discomfort is due to the inherent nature of the films, or to cultural taboos. We are not used to thinking of children as sexual beings, though they clearly are. The study of childhood sexuality should be a non-issue. However, visuals can become controversial, and in this particular case it may be better to ere on the side of caution.

34

I have a very hard time believing that the allegedly obscene materials presented in that class cost $3 million.

35

Yeah, my obcene materials are MUCH cheaper.

36

Anthracite - were these children identifiable? Because what concerns me here is the issue of their privacy being invaded. They can’t give informed consent about appearing in this sort of of video, and that is what makes me queasy, regardless of the intent of the filmmakers. (And regardless of their intent, this video would obviously provide titillation to real life paedophiles, though one might argue that of a children’s clothing catalogue, so perhaps it’s not a fair complaint).

But if I was 14, or 18, or 21, or 41 - I really don’t think I would be happy with a video of myself fondling my naked childish body still available for others to access, albeit for educational purposes. It would be embarrassing enough to have been a child actor in an embarrassing TV commercial, but to have been naked in a video about sexuality - well, I for one sincerely hope that the children had their identities completely protected.
bo989 - the issue is not whether the experience is positive or pleasurable or not. The issue is not needing to personally experience something in order to academically study it.

37

Posts have focused on whether this material is offensive. Fair enough, since that’s where the objection lies. A separate question is whether there are better uses for limited government funding than this coursem, such as improving inner city education or providing indigent medical care. I’d rather see every child learn to read and do math than train a cadre of materbation experts. (“Masters of masturbation”)

Also, who should decide where the money gets spent? Obviously, the taxpayers will want to have a say in how their money is used. They will get what they want, if they’re concerned enough.

This is a public university. Who wouldn’t like to get government money with no strings attached? The real world seldom works that way.

It is unfortunate that this incident is likely to reduce support for public higher education in all fields.

38

I have never said that someone needs to experience something to study it. But experience certainly facilitates and enhances understanding. And since this particular experience is so positive and pleasurable, how can their be objection?

39

Or, alternately, you could have admitted that your self-described “cheap shot” was biased, wrong, and improper for the subject at hand, and certainly neither constructive nor conducive to the debate at hand. A shame, since by my posts in here we’re likely on the same side of this debate.

40

It is true that whether or not the material is offensive has been the focus of discussion. However, I do not believe it is the central issue. The main source of my bemusement is the idea of a bunch of middle-aged senators deciding what has educational merit and what doesn’t.

It is unfortunate that your country operates that way. Fortunately, it is not a forgone conclusion that public institutions are at the mercy of government minders or uneducated mobs simply because they receive tax dollars. In my country, the majority of the cost of our post-secondary education is subsidized by the government. Thankfully, they do not feel this gives them the authority to step in and dictate our curriculum.