As some of you may have already seen on the news and across the blogosphere, professor John Michael Bailey of Northwestern University is in a lot of hot water over a live sex demonstration that occurred in an optional lecture for his human sexuality class. In some of the first articles I found released regarding the incident, though, it wasn't very easy to figure out what exactly had happened. One author referred to "penetration with a sex toy," though did not disclose what sort of sex toy it was. Another referred to the toy as a "f---saw," I would assume for shock value, but didn't mention what the purpose of the public penetration was, except to say the motorized toy was "kinky" and therefore fell under the topic of the lecture.I have to admit, after about a half hour or so of online research, I couldn't really say that I knew what really went on in this classroom. The coverage felt as unsatisfying and as ineffective as a censor's floating black rectangle over a pair of breasts. I had an idea of what the story looked like, without the actual details.Thankfully, Salon.com's staff writer Tracy Clark-Flory published an interview with John Michael Bailey, which (in addition to the breadcrumbs I'd already found) filled in many of those blanks for me. I discovered that the class had watched a video during the formal class on female ejaculation and the G-spot (two areas of contention within human sexuality) and having observed that video themselves, the panelists for the "Network for Kinky People" offered to demonstrate how a woman ejaculates, utilizing a modified electric saw (presumably with a insertable toy attached). The woman involved (whose name, incidentally, as well as personal photos, have been distributed widely with the story - far more so than her partner's) thus disrobed and she and her partner engaged in a sexual act involving the toy.Now, obviously, this demonstration was explicit, as it contained nudity and penetration. Yet as Clark-Flory herself points out, "aren't we overreacting a bit?" The primary motivation voiced by the panelists was their belief that the video (which may or may not have been pornographic) ineffectively demonstrated the dynamics of stimulating the G-spot to ejaculation. Bailey himself did multiple check-ins with the students to affirm that the material was explicit and that those who were uncomfortable could leave.The question is, then, where is the harm? Perhaps the perceived harm comes at least in part from the "Edited for TV" approach reporters seem to be taking, rather than stating what actually happened in this classroom. If the incident is indeed as Bailey accounts it, it served an educational purpose of teaching students what a woman achieving G-spot orgasm might look it (as well as how to do it). Also, for any artist who has taken a drawing class (or a medical student who has observed a pelvic exam, for that matter), nudity serves its place in the classroom. Furthermore, those who remained in the classroom to observe it had a genuine interest in being there. Still, regardless of these nuances, the treatment of the demonstration as media story mirrors the way we seem to treat sexuality in general: foggy titillations that fails to deliver actual information.What do you think? Did Bailey go to far in allowing this in a classroom? Or do you think it's media hype? For another perspective on this topic, check out what Babeland's co-founder Rachel has to say over at Moms in Babeland.r another perspective on this topic, check out what Babeland's co-founder Rachel has to say over at Moms in Babeland.