At Northwestern University, a professor named John Michael Bailey teaches a class called Human Sexuality. Here’s a surprise — it is popular. More than 600 students are enrolled.
On Feb. 21, the lecture topic was “fetishes and kink.” After the lecture’s conclusion, about 100 students remained for an optional question and answer session with two couples from Chicago’s “fetish community.”
During that session, one of the couples offered a demonstration in which the woman lay naked on a towel in front of the students, and the man exhibited on her the use of a motorized sex toy.
Bailey stated that he hesitated before giving permission for the demonstration. “My hesitation concerned the likelihood that many people would find this inappropriate,” he said. “My decision to say ‘yes’ reflected my inability to come up with a legitimate reason why students should not be able to watch such a demonstration.”
“I certainly have no regrets concerning Northwestern students, who have demonstrated that they are open-minded grown-ups rather than fragile children,” he said. He added that feedback from students was uniformly positive.
Others, however, were critical. Northwestern President Morton Schapiro released a statement saying, “I am troubled and disappointed by what occurred. I simply do not believe this was appropriate, necessary or in keeping with Northwestern University’s academic mission.”
I don’t know about you, but I agree with Schapiro. There shouldn’t be live sex demonstrations during a college class. To me that seems obvious.
Worthy of study
A class called human sexuality undoubtedly invites some cynicism, I’m sure in particular from parents paying the $56,382 per year that attendance at Northwestern is estimated to cost in the hopes of launching their child into a career.
Nevertheless, I agree that human sexuality is worthy of academic study and research. This is because the Jewish tradition teaches that sex is an appropriate and beneficial part of marriage.
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, an influential Orthodox authority who passed away in New York in 1986, instructed that a Jewish community must prioritize building a mikvah (ritual bath) even over building a synagogue, purchasing a Torah, or fulfilling other commandments (Igrot Moshe CM 1:42).
This is because immersion in a mikvah is necessary according to Jewish law in order to allow a regular sexual relationship between husbands and wives.
But the line stops at public demonstration.
Maimonides (Laws of Marriage 14:16) describes a case of a dispute between a husband and wife. The husband (or wife) comes to the Jewish court asking for a divorce, claiming that their spouse refuses to engage in a sexual relationship. Legally this is grounds for divorce. But the accused spouse denies their refusal and insists that he or she is willing.
Maimonides writes that the couple can be instructed to seclude themselves in a room for the purpose of sex, with witnesses appointed by the court to observe their entrance and exit.
But what if this doesn’t solve the problem? What if they emerge from the room still claiming that one is willing and one is not? The only effective solution would be to send in a witness to sort out what’s going on.
But Maimonides says that this we cannot do. He rules that it is forbidden to have anyone witness the couple’s intimate conduct even if that is the only way to save their marriage.
In light of the high value the Jewish tradition places on marriage, this may be surprising. The Mishna (Sota 7a) teaches that even God’s name may be erased to restore harmony between husband and wife. Based on this, the rabbis of the Talmud often expound on the great value the Torah places on reconciling difficulties in marriage.
So why is Maimonides so adamant that even to avoid divorce intimate conduct cannot be witnessed? I believe the reason is as follows.
Jewish tradition places such great value on the sexual component of marriage because sex is a means of creating and maintaining a special intimacy between spouses. That is only true when sex takes place when the couple is alone.
If sex happens in front of others, it is no longer a means of establishing intimacy. Instead, it has been turned into something else: A crude means of giving or receiving physical pleasure or a show for the titillation of an audience. But it is not fulfilling the purpose of creating the special intimate bond that only sex can produce.
Bailey may have succeeded at giving his human sexuality class more information about how sexual relationships can be conducted. But he didn’t teach when, where, and why sexual relationships should take place. And unfortunately I suspect that is what his students most need to learn.
Rabbi Shlomo Levin is spiritual leader of Lake Park Synagogue.
