Pornos in KU classroom

[pgwenthold]

I saw something last night about the new outrage in Kansas over a sexuality class KU, where the professor shows pornographic videos (including ones showing sex between handicapped people) as part of the course. Apparently, a Kansas legislator is apalled that state money is being used for such activities, whereas Jocelyn Elders thinks that more public funding should go toward these types of classes. It is not a required course.

A couple comments I have about it:

1) This is not news at all. We had a class like that when I was an undergrad (not at KU). I didn't take the class, but it was fairly popular on campus. Yes, they showed pornos. Moreover, some were even with handicapped people (I had a friend who told me about the parapalegic woman who started convulsing upon orgasm). The course they described sounds very similar in lots of ways to the one we had available.

2) What bothers me as a university professor is that the legislator and the public think they know how the course should be taught. Um, no. The state hired the professor to teach a course on human sexuality. It is his job to determine how that course should be taught. He isn't doing anything illegal, and all the students in the class are adults. His job is to teach the students about human sexuality, and in the course of that, they are going to encounter sex. Personally, I can understand a compelling reason that such materials must be included in the class.

The public/legislators don't tell me how to teach my class. Why should they be trying to tell him?

3) The talkshow guy doing this asked the question as to why the university doesn't put a stop to it. The main question I would ask is why they would even want to in the first place? Heck, they approved the course and the content in the first place. Second, even if they wanted to they wouldn't because the university respects the academic freedom of its faculty. The only recourse the university has is to pull the class completely. If they offer the class, the professor is in charge of teaching it.

 

[corplinx]

Believe it or not, you can have a human sexuality class without showing a single porno. Mind didnt and I dont feel I missed anything. Heck, I dont think we had any video of any kind.

I do think is fine for the college and the government who funds to ask, "is this just a waste of money?" I'm not sure how porno adds value to the class. Seems like a cheap shock value stunt.

 

[DrBenway]

I'm not sure how porno adds value to the class. Seems like a cheap shock value stunt.

Maybe a picture paints a thousand words?

When I was in med school, we had a great human sexuality course. We had a few pornos, including some gay porn. Funny how no one seemed bothered by the lesbian scenes, but several of my male classmates were almost made ill by the guy-on-guy scenes.

We also had people with a range of sexual problems/issues come in and talk with us. We had folks with cerebral palsy, paraplegics, straight and gay folks with HIV, impotent men with penile implants, transvestites, pre-op transexuals --really fascinating stuff. Only "alternative sexuality" topic not covered in much detail was S&M.

No one is "outraged" when doctors get to learn about interesting stuff like this.

 

[corplinx]

When I was in med school, we had a great human sexuality course. We had a few pornos, including some gay porn.

Do you think it actually helped anyone's understanding of sexuality? I just find the idea trite myself. If you are trying to understand male sexual fantasy, porn might be a good aid since its a depiction of male sexual fantasy and not real sex. I daresay though that you can understand male sexual fantasy without watching porn.

If porn is so important to the curriculum, my guess is half the semester would be spent discussing Ron Jeremy.

 

[DrBenway]

Do you think it actually helped anyone's understanding of sexuality? I just find the idea trite myself.

Well, you can convey an image of baseball pretty well in words. But you get a better feel for the game when you watch a couple of actual innings being played.

The porn pieces I remember seeing were only a few minutes long. I didn't find them much weirder than other stuff we saw, like this Masters & Johnson flick (too clinical to be considered porn), documenting changes in the vaginal wall of a woman while masturbating.

I imagine the porn experience was a waste of time for the folks who'd seen this stuff a zillion times already. But a few in my class had never seen a skin flick before.

Isn't it part of human nature, the fascination with the human body?

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm not sure how porno adds value to the class. Seems like a cheap shock value stunt.

On the other hand, you are not one of the top expert's in the world on human sexuality who has a job of teaching young people about it, so I gotta say, what you think is really irrelevent.

Apparently, the professor thinks it is important to include it, just as I think it is important to use demonstrations, videos, and animations in my chemistry class. But no one ever tries to tell me that the demonstrations are just for "shock" value, and the public and legislature don't pester the university about it.

This professor is an expert hired by the state to teach this class. And you think you know better how to do it?

If the state doesn't like the class, then stop the class. But if you are going to have the class, and are going to have someone to teach it, then you have to let them teach it in the best way they can.

 

[corplinx]

On the other hand, you are not one of the top expert's in the world on human sexuality who has a job of teaching young people about it, so I gotta say, what you think is really irrelevent.

Rubbish.

 

[PinkRabbit]

Twice, I've had professors show porn in classes.

The first was a human sexuality class that probably wasn't too different from what's described above. As for the question of whether or not it can be of value ... well, it led to one of the best discussions amongst the class on the difference between porn and reality that I've ever been in on. Was it necessary to show the films? Yes, I think so, because a large number of people had never seen a porn film before (this was the early 80's, there was no internet, and videos hadn't been common very long). Was it of value in a human sexuality class? From the standpoint of learning about the nuts and bolts, probably not very, but in terms of young people discussing the contrast between reality and fantasy, yes, I think it was enormously valuable. And since the psychology of sexuality is just as important (if not moreso) as the physical, I'd say a very valid conversation starter.

However, I will add that the prof didn't show this sort of thing until we were well into the semester and had gotten comfortable with each other and the explicit nature of the topics discussed. By the time the films came up we were all pretty clinical about things. Under those circumstances, I think it was a valuable experience.

The other time was in a film class that was specifically set up to study the genre of slasher films that was very popular at the time. We studied how the porn flicks and slashers had some very similar camera styles and cutting patterns (which was actually very creepy). It was a fascinating class, but I can just imagine the protest such a thing would cause today. Yipes!

So, it seems to me that one can't simply say that porn is useless in the classroom. It seems like someone should sit in on the class before making such a judgment. Or better yet, ask the students. In my experience, student evaluations are generally remarkably accurate about a class, and surprisingly devoid of emotion (I taught for several years, and by far the best feedback I ever got on what worked and what didn't were the anonymous feedback forms that were filled out en masse at the end of each semester). If the students are satisfied, it seems to me the prof is probably doing his job well.

Barb
(edited because I missed a paragraph when I cut and pasted this from another program)