J. Michael Bailey, Northwestern University Professor, Apologizes For Sex-Toy Demonstration

CHICAGO — A Northwestern University professor apologized Saturday for letting a couple demonstrate the use of a sex toy after one of his classes, but he said he still sees "absolutely no harm" in what happened.

Psychology professor J. Michael Bailey said he regrets hurting Northwestern's reputation and "upsetting so many people in this particular manner. I apologize."

The incident took place Feb. 21. After a class on human sexuality, Bailey invited students to stay for a discussion of sexual fetishes. He repeatedly warned that it would be graphic.

The discussion included a woman who stripped and allowed her partner to use a sex toy on her.

In a statement, Bailey said he had never before allowed something like that and would never allow it again.

"During a time of financial crisis, war, and global warming, this story has been a top news story for more than two days," Bailey said. "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."

Initially, Northwestern defended the demonstration. Then President Morton Schapiro said he was troubled and disappointed by the incident and promised an investigation.

Many alumni and parents have also condemned it.

Bailey said critics have not made a compelling case. He said he would give them an "F" if he were grading their arguments.

"Offense and anger are not arguments," he wrote. "But I remain open to hearing and reading good arguments."

About 100 students attended the after-class, optional seminar on fetishes.

Comments

[onceler]

04:29 PM on 03/08/2011

Sometimes you really do have to ask yourself "how will this look to people after the fact" before you go ahead and do something. In this case, about 3 seconds of thought should have been required to reach a simple "hehe, no" decision about whether to do this.

[just in time]

12:45 PM on 03/08/2011

Sexual Repression; they name is the Unites States of America

[mycotropic]

11:38 AM on 04/04/2011

Couldn't agree more.

[orchidOne]

11:57 PM on 03/07/2011

he should be sorry, he didnt invite me

[Kelli Ling]

09:36 PM on 03/07/2011

This quote from another poster puts this issue about roles & education into perspective. An excellent way to explain such differences:

"We all have different roles, and these roles set limits on what we ought to do. The role a stranger plays should be different from that of a parent. One of my best friends recently found out his father was cheating on his mother. After confrontin­g his father about it, his father just said, "well, it's about time you learned that life isn't perfect". Sure, this is a valuable lesson. But as a parent, I would never want to be the one to teach my child this. The world does a good enough job already. Similarly, a professor should be a role model, not a sensationa­list."

[revamk]

01:31 PM on 03/07/2011

The harm done by this little show was not emotional or psychological harm, it was harm to the quality of academic discourse. How this professor managed to convince himself that this was adding to the intellectual enrichment of his students is beyond me. It boggles the mind that this guy teaches at prestigious Northwestern University.

The two guests involved have said elsewhere that they are exhibitionists, and that the point of the "demonstration" was to prove the existence of the G-spot." Anyone who watched Meg Ryan in "When Harry Met Sally" knows that moaning and groaning is easy to fake, and that while the demonstration couldn't possibly prove the existence of the G-spot, it certainly proved the existence of exhibitionists!

[Hegemoneyhoney]

01:51 PM on 03/07/2011

revamk: Really great post! You and Alex Zhang are worth reading on this topic here today. Again, well said.

[Alex Zhang]

01:55 PM on 03/07/2011

Well said.

[Hegemoneyhoney]

11:43 AM on 03/07/2011

I think if the "professor" actually considered this to be legitimate study, he would have made this part of his regular curriculum and held this "demonstration" during regular class hours. It is not a legitimate study; it is a porn show and he knows it. His "apology" is a classic case of the non-apology-apology and I thought it was a pretty disgusting example of an arrogant creep speaking in Smug Self-Importance. It is a fascinating exercise to me to see creeps and deviants doing their "thing" and calling it art or research or scholarly work or the work of the truly liberated and sophisticated among us standing up to the repressed and miserable 'other' and then seeing their sycophants, with their own motivations, whether adoration of their professor or their own deviance given the stamp of approval or whatever else, rise up in their defense against the pathetic, Puritan, intolerant rest of us......and blah, blah, blah, blah....The "gotcha" question from the defenders always seems to be "who was harmed?" Not all "harm" results in wounds or in any observable transition from unharmed to harmed. Sexuality is a powerful force and social strictures on its expression have developed over time and over the evolution of human socialization and civilization. I notice that the reports on this story and what the professor showed have changed to exclude the details and are now saying "sex toy" only. If it's all ok, then why? Protecting Northwestern's revenue?

[Alex Zhang]

12:41 PM on 03/07/2011

Very good point, Hegemoneyhoney. I think informing students about "deviant" sexual behaviors is perfectly fine if you want to study sexuality in an academic way. But I agree with you - he could not have had academics on his mind. This is the problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/03/northwestern-university-professor-defends-explicit-sex-toy-demonstration/

From this article, it seems professor Bailey is against sex negativity. I think that's great. Sex negativity DOES hinder ACADEMIC research into the topic of sexuality. But the problem is, he should know that he is being criticized not for being too open about sex (if this were a problem, then his entire course would never have even existed - and he should know this! ...talk about logic...), but for not doing his job as a professor.

As an aspiring professor, I feel strange how not more professors realize that their jobs come with intellectual AND ethical responsibility. As you say, professors have a tendency to become smug and self-important. After all, professors are salesmen who sell their own ideas.

[Alex Zhang]

11:11 AM on 03/07/2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7AId6wevH8

They interview the people who participated in the sex demonstration including one woman who guides sex tours. A lot more information is offered here.

The reason why the two demonstrated the sex act in the first place was to show that the g-spot does exist. The demonstration seemed to be an ad-hoc decision made between them and the professor. If Mr. Bailey weren't a professor and he just did this with friends, I would say he's not being very smart about proving a point (after all, providing evidence from research would prove the existence of a g-spot more decisively). But since he's a professor, I would say he's not being very smart AND he's being irresponsible. Did he harm people? I don't think so. He's just not living up to the role of the professor.

We all have different roles, and these roles set limits on what we ought to do. The role a stranger plays should be different from that of a parent. One of my best friends recently found out his father was cheating on his mother. After confronting his father about it, his father just said, "well, it's about time you learned that life isn't perfect". Sure, this is a valuable lesson. But as a parent, I would never want to be the one to teach my child this. The world does a good enough job already. Similarly, a professor should be a role model, not a sensationalist.

[Kelli Ling]

03:18 PM on 03/08/2011

I did watch the youtube segment (from Chicago Tonight) -- thank you for posting that, Alex -- & realize that the 3 people being interviewed & who were apart of this sex demonstration on the campus of Northwestern University seem scared and very cautious. It's obvious from their responses that they have no clue about human sexuality as a college-level course. Two of them describe themselves as in a specific, fringe community of fetish & kinky sex. Again, this undergrad class was supposed to be an 'overview' of human sexuality; and it went far beyond that with this particular demonstration. I have to wonder, after seeing this & listening to their guarded responses, if they realize the damage they may have done to the NU community and its handling of sensitive materials related to sexuality?

[Kelli Ling]

10:59 AM on 03/07/2011

Again, where do you draw the line; because there is a line that must be drawn. Consider: Professors teaching about substance abuse issues having crack or heroine addicts shooting up in front of students watching? Professors teaching about eating disordered behaviors have a sufferer of bulimia nervosa come in & consume large amounts of food & vomit in front of kids taking notes? Maybe Prof. Bailey should join forces with Dr. Phil.

[Alex Zhang]

11:13 AM on 03/07/2011

Where would YOU draw the line?

[Kelli Ling]

11:29 AM on 03/07/2011

That's a good question, Alex. First, if it's an intro. course into sexuality and human beings, there are many great books & discussions on this. For undergrads, you could easily cover a wide range of issues in a semester or year long course. For grad students, that's a different story. Depending on their particular interest, they could go 'out and about' to do research, conduct interviews & conduct studies (what Prof. did doesn't even count as a less numbers-oriented qualitative methodology. He also took these interviewees out of their environment, so to speak, which also changes the dynamics of what they have to offer ... or don't have to offer, whichever the case may be). Any kind of on-campus lab environment needs to be carefully controlled for validity; otherwise, it's just a complete waste of time and resources (and it's unfair to students). What I see as an outcome of this -- though NU will have to conduct longitudinal research years later to find out how it actually impacted students & their environment & views on sexuality, etc. -- is that students did not mind such a 'demonstration' (some even sound apathetic in their comments afterward); but what they got out of it educationally is still an unknown. Some report that it was 'interesting' or 'fun,' which doesn't sound like they learned anything. But then again, what were they supposed to learn?

[Chi--townfool]

11:41 AM on 03/07/2011

I like all these ideas, as long as you put down a towel

[Kelli Ling]

11:46 AM on 03/07/2011

On eating disorders & bulimia nervosa: If you had just eaten lunch, chitown, and were watching such a demo, you'd need more than one towel because everyone would be getting sick. And probably leaving.

[BcemXAHA]

10:22 AM on 03/07/2011

Just out of curiosity? Why is it bad? What harm has it caused to anyone? Is someone permanently damaged, scarred as a result?

[Kelli Ling]

10:39 AM on 03/07/2011

DcemXAHA: I can't imagine, when I was doing my thesis on domestic violence and spousal abuse, that I needed a first-hand demonstration of people hitting each other (or using weaponry, etc.) to appreciate what goes on & to have a good sense of how to complete my studies on this particular issue. And this may well be the case for any human behavior issue under study. If Bailey's attempt was to bring such sex-related research into a controlled lab, he just didn't do it well. That's why I think he should be let go.

[BcemXAHA]

10:51 AM on 03/07/2011

But you haven't answered my questions :).

[Alex Zhang]

11:14 AM on 03/07/2011

It's not about whether he harmed anyone. It's about whether he's doing a good job or not. Causing harm and not doing a good job are both condemnable.

[BcemXAHA]

11:38 AM on 03/07/2011

Ok, fair enough. Do you think that he didn't do a good job, or do you think that he did his job well? This is a human sexuality class, hands on, might or might not be a good idea, I don't know. Thus my questions.

[Aldyth]

10:14 AM on 03/07/2011

The line between appropriate and inappropriate has been moving all over the place for decades. I daresay this particular professor decided to take a chance about where the line is right now. He had to know this was risky. His students may be adults and able to make choices for themselves about how far is too far, but once it got into the news...

What is acceptable to college students and what is acceptable to the public at large can be two different things.

[librainstars]

10:13 AM on 03/07/2011

Well Mr Bailey. I would like to know how much this class cost?
Quoted "The discussion included a woman who stripped and allowed her partner to use a sex toy on her.
Isnt that called a bachelor party?
The rest of the course is ok. Im just wondering why you felt the need to demonstrate sex toys?
DId the stripper get payed?
Why would parents be upset? cause we pay alot of money to send our kids to college.
For the class they could have gone to a strip club. Or at least that part.

Would have been awhole lot cheaper.
Oh yea then theres respect to woman too.
DId you teach that? Plus diseases? HIV?
Looks at floor and wonders if i am too old...

[Alex Zhang]

10:10 AM on 03/07/2011

Professors are important people. They need to be good role models. He wasn't one. Rather than make excuses for himself, he should devote more time to reflect on his words and actions - something many professors do surprisingly little of.

If you want to teach about fetishes, great. But a sex-toy demonstration is absolutely unnecessary, and, for what little academic contribution it might bring to a classroom, the costs simply outweigh it. A professor is not in the position to just be able to say, "this is just my opinion" or "this is just how I like to do things". Unlike an ordinary civilian, a professor who says "watching a sex act within a classroom setting alongside students is okay" is likely to influence people in unquantifiable ways. By being in a position of authority, a professor needs to exercise greater responsibility over what he says and what he does.

A public display of sex should not be condonable and especially should not be ARRANGED by a professor. It doesn't even matter what is wrong with showing a live sex act in a classroom. As a professor, your mind should not on how to push the limit of what is DECENT. Your mind should be on how to push the limit of what is intellectually stimulating and what is ethically commendable.

[Kelli Ling]

10:40 AM on 03/07/2011

Well said, Alex.

[Hegemoneyhoney]

12:17 PM on 03/07/2011

Alex Zhang: I think your comments on this subject are very insightful and wise, this post and others. I don't think that it's a matter of professors (or in the case of Bailey, I'll say "professor") not knowing that they have, or can have, profound influence on their students because I think most professors do realize that; it's the professors who exploit that power and influence to advance their own personal motivations,impulses, and psyches that often cross a line of decency. Another example is the cliche founded in truth, as cliches are, of professors identifying their new "paramour" in the new school year and "cultivating" that student through manipulation and the exercise of that same power and influence. Decency, ethics, judgment, and yes, even wisdom are parts of the stereotype of "professor"; unfortunately, some feel important by abandoning those qualities in pretense of "throwing off the repressive attitudes of a constricting society". Allowing the deviants to teach deviance to gullible students is harmful to a civilized society and debases higher education - and, in this particular case, Northwestern. It is interesting to me that the specifics of his extra-curricular event have now been removed from the news reports, even though they appeared in the original. Could it be that Northwestern doesn't want that "material" in the public's eye? If they aren't ashamed, why isn't the "professor's show" part of the regular curriculum, part of regular class?

[Alex Zhang]

12:50 PM on 03/07/2011

Oh, how right you are. I just emphasized the recognition of responsibility because I didn't want to sound like I'm setting my bar too low. But you are right -most professors know of their responsibility and KNOWINGLY exploit it. There are all types of career syndromes. The one for a professor is especially bad because you are forced to sell your ideas day in and day out. Because selling an idea is often a matter of being convincing (as opposed to being correct or intelligent), professors can easily end up being huge self-justifiers who rarely reflect on themselves. It's just a fact of the trade.

As for advancing "power", I think professors easily become power-hungry because they are in the position to feel powerful too often. Think about it, you talk to a classroom of young impressionable kids everyday. You know more about them on a specific topic and your job is precisely to talk about nothing other than this topic with them. Thus, you constantly live in a world of superiority. It's all quite corrupting if you ask me...

[jd29992]

08:38 AM on 03/07/2011

An “F” in argument? How about this for an argument, I am paying an ungodly amount of money to send my child to Northwestern if I wanted my kid to learn this it would be much cheaper letting them listen to Howard Stern LOL!

[timotay89]

12:54 AM on 03/07/2011

He's got a point. No one's given a good argument yet. Saying you don't like it just isn't good enough. Why is it bad. Anyone?

[Kelli Ling]

10:46 AM on 03/07/2011

Read my above comment, timotay89.

[nasayer2]

11:16 PM on 03/06/2011

Some apology.

[Kelli Ling]

11:13 AM on 03/07/2011

Indeed.