NYU Professor Performs In-Class Demonstration on Why Students Should Lube
If you want a fresh take on sex education, then Ronald J. Moglia’s class, “Psychosexual Analysis of Human Behavior,” is the place for you.
Student Evan C. Wattles called it “the most interesting course I have ever taken here at NYU” and last Wednesday’s contraception-related class certainly provided some “interesting” material. Wattles and a female student were asked to come up for a demonstration with condoms; the girl was given the role of the “penis,” which she created by putting up two fingers. Evan was then instructed to create a “vagina” by forming an “O” shape with his fingers, which he then ran up and down the “penises” to simulate sex. Two separate condoms, one regular condom and another containing KY Jelly, were then placed on each finger of the “penis”. The female student then had to say which finger felt more sensation (the condom with the KY Jelly).
Together, they became a match made in hand-sex heaven. It was a moment where “their hands made love,” Evan said, and “lubricant dripped down her hand, and tears [of laughter] dripped down [his] cheeks”.
[...]
Yet the unconventional presentation got the point across to students; sex can be safe and still pleasurable. Even Christine, violated fingers and all, acknowledged, “While it may encompass a different way of teaching, you sure do learn.”After the presentation, Evan says the class applauded while he and Christine cleaned their lube-covered hands. “I told her I’d call her,” said Evan. “It was undoubtedly the best sex I have ever had.”
Hey, our health care system isn’t ineffective if you have money.
Oh, wait…
#21 You make an interesting point.
At some point in the past the US had a good health care system. Now, it isn’t working well.
When you have a system that used to work but isn’t you must analyze changes to the system from that point forward. That way you can revert those changes and end up having the system work again.
Now, since removing a national health care system wasn’t a change that happened, adding it doesn’t address the actual problem.
Politicians aren’t usually interested in pinpointing and correcting problems though. In most cases they want to exploit bad situations for personal power or financial gain. Thus, the proposals for a Nat Health care system.
Doesn’t “everybody know” that the USA spends the most on HEALTH and EDUCATION with much poorer results than other nations achieve–some even third world. We also spend more than all other nations combined on our military and that works to our advantage as well.
We also spend more than anyone else on JAILS and have the highest recidivism rate.
This is all on a per capita basis so being the largest economy doesn’t explain much except we don’t manage our money well.
Fn: Above is from memory. Probably close enough to highlight a few issues.
Paddy -
What changed is we let profit and corporatism run roughshod over peoples health and livelyhood.
The other change is that we can now treat and cure disease, and that’s expensive. Expensive to the point that it can and does break people. In the “good ole days”they didn’t have mri machines and heart transplants. The poor bastards just died.
As long as corporations are given the choice between bottom line and your welfare, you can bet the choice wont be in your favor.
And my apologies to everyone, I got sucked in by the partsan stupidity:
Why are we arguing about healthcare/education when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
hand
=)
Could have had a “video day” and just shown “Monty Python’s ‘The Meaning of Life’”.
John Cleese kills in that classroom scene where the topic is “sex”.
Also google “cleese and hannity” very funny!