Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Fucksaw: John Michael Bailey Demos Sex Toy in NU Class
Share:
by Jordan Yerman | March 2, 2011 at 12:17 pm
21709 views | 4 Recommendations | 6 comments
Fucksaw: Northwestern University Professor John Michael Bailey Demonstrates Sex Toy to Class
Northwestern University Psychology professor John Michael Bailey demonstrated a sex toy he called a "fucksaw", which was essentially a phallus attached to a reciprocating saw (and not, apparently, a motorized jigsaw). In a presentation ot over 100 students, a female non-student was brought to orgasm by Chicago tour guide Ken Melvoin-Berg, who was operating the fucksaw. [Update: the Sun-Times says the fucksaw demonstrators were Jim Marcus and Faith Kroll]
Inevitably, word of the fucksaw demonstration spread beyond the walls of the classroom, and beyond the Northwestern University Campus.
Photos
According to one attendee, students were warned several times during the lecture that things were about to get intense. As the fucksaw demo was part of an optional lecture, it was technically permissible. Students and faculty are defending Bailey, who has a history of pushing the envelope in his classes and research.
John Michael Bailey addressed his regularly-scheduled lecture class regarding the incident, but it was not to apologize: "Sticks and stones may break your bones, but watching naked people on stage doing pleasurable things will never hurt you." Northwestern University president Morton Schapiro said he was "troubled and disappointed" by the fucksaw demonstration during Bailey's lecture.
John Michael Bailey is the former Chair of Psychology at NU; he published a highly-controversial book called The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism, which argues that homosexuality is an inherited trait, and also examines the theory that there are two distinct types of transsexualism.
Last Wednesday, Bailey devoted six minutes of his lecture to addressing mounting controversy regarding the incident and articulating his educational intent. He told the class he feared the demonstration would impact the after-class events, which are sponsored by the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, and he explained the educational purpose of the events.
Actually, the fucksaw demo may influence all manner of "after-class events". For those wondering, the fucksaw is a real over-the-counter product, boasting up to 2500 strokes per minute.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
Crash2Parties (not verified)
Crowd Power
Jordan Yerman
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Related Stories
Recommendations (4)
Anonymous users (4)
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 13:52 on March 2nd, 2011
FWIW the tool derivitive as pictured is not a jigsaw but a reciprocating saw, commonly called a Sawzall (which is a trademarked name of the Milwaukee tool company, who popularized it- but used by construction workers to describe similar products by Bosch, Porter Cable and those of lesser quality by Asian mfrs. So we can't call it a Sawzall here but if you were on a construction site and called it a reciprocating saw, not a Sawzall, be prepared to get chased off the job. One of those things)
The distinction is the jigsaw is much less powerful and has a large flat plate for a base that sits on the material being cut. It is more precise and the blade typically cuts in the vertical plane, though some may hold it against a wall. I can't see how it could be turned into a sexual machine.
The sawzall has much more torque and only has a small "shoe" to butt up against the material being cut- in fact with certain materials the saw can be used in complete free air manner. It has more versatility and is as commonly used for demolition as for construction. It is far more suitable for the application this story described it was adapted for.
references, each depicting an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigsaw_(power_tool)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocating_saw
Just thought I'd offer that. I own one of each.
It's clear that this professor only intended to make a spectacle of this, I don't see how this demonstration has any relevance toward anything but sensationalism. However it appears he does have some qualifications, the assertions he is quoted as making in that book are in my opinion entirely correct.
Sometimes making a spectacle is in itself a necessary goal, if it makes people stop and think- though may backfire into people just thinking you are a tool.
All puns unintentional.
at 14:32 on March 2nd, 2011
Very helpful, thanks. It's the details that count.
Actually, Bailey is well known for this sort of thing. The public fallout from the fucksaw incident is not even a fraction of the academic sh&tstorm kicked up by the book mentioned in the article, though.
at 17:20 on March 2nd, 2011
I hadn't heard about his book until now, precursory looks at some reviews show he did rattle some cages, surprisingly many in the gay community were pretty pissed about some of his conclusions. I will look at more of it later but this amazon page's comment from the author:
I have written a book that I knew would be controversial for several very different reasons. For example, I argue that extreme femininity in men is tightly linked with homosexuality; that it is likely to have a biological cause; that many stereotypes about gay men are true. These assertions are based on the best available scientific data, summarized in my book.
But I knew that the most controversial section would be the third, on transsexualism. In this section I review the evidence, which I believe is convincing, that there are two (and most likely only two) types of male-to-female transsexuals. One is the type that most people think about, comprised of males who have been overtly feminine from birth and who are unambiguously and strongly attracted to men. The other type has been unknown (or perhaps more accurately, misunderstood) by almost everyone until recently. This type is motivated something akin to a sexual fetish, and it is the image of themselves as women. That is, these are males who fantasize sexually about wearing women’s clothes, having female anatomy, and doing feminine things. Some of them want to become women so badly that they do so.
My book has provoked a fierce negative reaction among some transsexuals. This reaction was predictable, but the controversy is too complicated to do justice to in the "reviews" section of Amazon. These hostile critics do not want you to read my book. You can only understand the controversy—and you can only understand transsexualism—if you do read it.
Other transsexuals have experienced satisfying self discovery and peace of mind after reading my account, which suddenly made their predicaments comprehensible to them. Transgendered people looking for answers, especially, should take the intellectual risk.
http://www.amazon.com/Man-Would-Queen-Gender-Bending-Transsexualism/dp/product-description/0309084180
Display he had a good grasp of the situation and is why people seeking sexual reassignment surgery are carefully evaluated and even discouraged from going through with it. It shouldn't be easy to get what you want if you don't know why it is you want it. Perhaps those who most angrily reacted are those who realize what a mistake they made?
It doesn't help that society holds a perception that women are the only sex objects, can use sexual favors almost as currency, and the fashion industry revolves around images of their sexuality. If a man is even remotely perceived as cross dressing the immediate reaction is that he is gay, when perhaps the truth is he is intensely heterosexual and turned off envisioning himself in the male image.
At least that is the point I'm seeing from his work.
at 14:17 on March 4th, 2011
People reacted angrily because he misrepresented their lives, and was extremely arrogant and dismissive when they tried to explain things to him. The great majority of transsexual women are nothing like either "type" he posits in the book, but since he was unwilling to entertain the possibility that transsexuality might be caused by something other than a disturbed sexual orientation, he decided that they must all be lying, that the reason most other experts in the field don't buy the model he promoted is because they are all staggerinly ignorant and constantly being fooled by their clients, and that the only reason people were criticising him was because of "narsiccistic injury," all based on no evidence but his own assertions. The studies the model itself were based on have since been discredited, as it was shown that the paraphilia claimed to have been measured in the study was actually indisinguishable from "normal" female sexuality. It's true that people might react angrily if you tell uncomfortable truths about them, but people also at times react angrily if you tell disgusting lies about them (particularly if you're talking about a population as vulnerable to discrimination and denial of medical care as transsexuals).
at 00:55 on March 5th, 2011
Bailey has a track record of abusing and using research subjects. His arguement for abortion of a minority, was particularly sickening. The previous complaints against Bailey were more than enough to have him dismissed from his position, but the complaints were ignored by the university, as Bailey was attacking a minority that some of Bailey's colleagues approved of attacking.I would suggest reading these links.A previous complaint against Bailey and his sexual activites.ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Clinical/ClinicalComplaint.htmlBaileys belief in eugenics and his arguement for abortion of gay babies.ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/NU%20seminar%204-28-05.htmAlso the Southern Poverty law center on Bailey's hate mongering against minorities.www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/winter/disposable-people/queer-scienceThis guy has a track record of hatred of minorities and abusing his position.
at 00:22 on March 6th, 2011
I might also add that the well-known primary source of the research subjects for his views on transsexuals was...gay bars. Kinda skews things a bit, you know?Anyway, he's nothing but a hack. He proclaims to be a researcher but ignores 16 years of neurological, endocrinological, genetic and other medical findings regarding the physiological differences present in transsexuals. He goes to gay bars and come back with his own out-of-the blue, I-must-be-right-because-this-is-what-I-came-up-with-after-talking-to-drag-queens theories regarding conditions such as transsexuality. Problem is, his quackery bears no resemblance the the vast majority of people living with the condition and ignores that half of them are trans men. Oh, and then there's that little detail of trans kids (m and f) that have no sexual aspect to them whatsoever and won't for years, yet know that they have been misgendered. And no, not all of them are excessively feminine and yes, half identify as male (but were assigned female at birth).Wouldn't be so bad except that his views fit in with and have been used to bolster certain other "researchers" that make money off of claiming to be able to "cure" trans kids, while instead harming them for decades to come.