Northwestern University psychology Professor J. Michael Bailey’s human-sexuality course included an after-class optional demonstration that did involve sexuality, penetration, and orgasm. It’s creating a buzz around the web and in sex positive circles. Some are calling it “controversial” others are calling it a inappropriate use of university space. Even sex positive critics are questioning what the point of the demonstration was, exactly.
First off, I think the mainstream media is getting off on being able to say “Fuck Saw” in their article which actually makes the demonstration a little more interesting. In and of itself it’s irrelevant. No funds were directed to the demo, everyone consented including the audience, it was designed for anyone who had some spare time and was curious. My question about the hullaballo is around how the discourse of this demonstration would change if we stopped calling the device in question a “Fuck Saw” (its brand name) and called it a handheld motorized dildo.
Was the demonstration potentially pointless? Sure. Every single lecture I ever sat through in University was potentially pointless. You can only take away what you’re open to hearing and for a lot of people it might very well be important to see a fuck saw used on a woman because the only time a device like this is spoken about in academic circles is in an anti-porn context. Actually seeing that the fuck saw is not, in fact, a chain saw can literally change the entire context of the debate for someone. It wasn’t mandatory, it was there if you wanted to see it and participate in a discourse about it with the people involved. It seems to me that it’s a perfectly fine place for an optional demonstration of that nature.
Although people are incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of explicit sex in classroom, sex is a human activity worthy of critical study. When you recontextualize sex and put it in a lecture hall for the expressed purpose of dissecting it, theoretically and critically, it loses its erotic charge and becomes almost medicalized. We talk about “the male gaze” or the “female gaze” but there are also “academic gazes” and “medical gazes” and explicit sex is just as worthy of an intellectually focused gaze as a piece of art, architecture, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, literature, et al. Universities study two things: nature and humanity. Sex is very much a part of both.
It looks to me like the media eroticized that demonstration more than anyone else in the room and that’s interesting.
[Edit: Maymay did an amazing wrap up of all the links along with some of his insightful commentary before me. How did I miss that? Click this link if you want to read more.]
On the issue of explicit sex in sexuality education, and on the media’s response, I completely agree. Evergreen’s porn week did comparably the same thing with queer porn stars and I thought it was perfectly appropriate.
In this instance, context is important, especially as a lot of cool sex-positive folks are rushing to Bailey’s defense. In doing so it’s important to know that as a therapist doing research he:
* Denied health care to trans patients who don’t give narratives that conform to his research hypothesis.
* Broken doctor/patient confidentiality to use his patients’ experience for his research WITHOUT their consent — at least one patient filed a complaint about it.
* Been disciplined for having sex with his patients.
In addition to those abuses of power, his pseudo-science research has also “proven” the following:
* Bisexual men don’t exist, he’s often used the phrase “gay, straight, or lying”
* All women are bisexual
* Trans women are “particularly well suited to prostitution”
* Trans women who have sex with only men are really women
* Trans women who have sex with women are really mentally disturbed men who need help
* Trans women who oppose this two-type system only do so because they are the second (less valid) type and are either in denial or lying.
* He claimed that gay men can be recognized by their lisp as a part of a lecture about how sexual orientation is biological and that parents should have the right to screen for and selectively abort gay fetuses.
I don’t want to see him fired over this latest instance because of the precedent that would set, but that doesn’t change the fact that he does deserve to be discredited and have his institutional power taken away and nothing he says should be taken on face value.
I totally agree with all of your points and it is important to realize that he’s scuzzy, no doubt, and *those* are the kind of issues people should care about.
It pisses me off that saying “fuck saw” in public is much more fun than actually talking about real issues like that. The fuck saw is a red herring.
Thank you so much for posting this comment though. It was something I should have stated in my quick briefing. I first heard of him researching for PSIgasm.
Agree with your general take on Bailey, but a few minor corrections:
Denied health care to trans patients who don’t give narratives that conform to his research hypothesis.
I think you’re conflating him with his hero Ray Blanchard on that one.
Trans women who have sex with only men are really women
Actually, he says they are really uber-gay men who are sexually frustrated at not being able to attract masculine gay men and transition to try their luck at attracting straight men.
Trans women who have sex with women are really mentally disturbed men who need help
True in and of itself, but he doesn’t actually oppose transition for non-straight transwomen (what he calls “nonhomosexual transsexuals). He just insists that his narratives about their lives take precedence over the actual reality of their lives. (Although I think he knows full well he’s setting the stage for other people to oppose transition based on his models)
I actually had a conversation with my male roommate about this very topic. He felt that using a motorized hand held sex toy made it more likely to offend people, and took away from the intended demonstration of female orgasm and ejaculation. His idea that having her do it to herself with a non-motorized toy would somehow be better didn’t make sense to me. For me using a tool, or a toy, gives distance and objectivity, and would allow the viewer to more likely be able to have an academic gaze. It sounds like the intent wasn’t to be instructional about the nuts and bolts of how to help a woman ejaculate, but simply to expose students to alternate lifestyles. I’d say the fuck saw got the job done.
I am still deciding my opinion of sex demos on the fly in a University setting but if G-spot orgasms are the goal, showing someone use their hand, cock or an inexpensive toy seems more practical to me.
Sure, buy a fucksaw if you want but according to my quick Google search they cost $169 and require an outlet. No doubt the brand is benefiting from all this free marketing.
Learning how to with your hand or to yourself is so much more empowering imho.
Pingback: NU Fucksaw Controversy -My Take | Penny Piquant