USC Bonobo Study Group

All of a sudden, the condom-on-a-cucumber crowd is “appalled” when the amoral behavior they’ve worked hard to instill for four decades is on public display on a rooftop at USC.  Seems that when a naked male student and a partially clad female decided to skip class and put in time practicing what American tax payers pay for students to learn in classes similar to ANTH 125g Social Issues in Human Sexuality and Reproduction, college officials expressed disgust.

Based on standard Human Sexuality syllabi, one would think that participating in exhibitionism “in front of hundreds of people” would earn the daring duo an “A,” not make them the subject of an inquiry. “Officials at the university were outraged as photographs of the couple – many of which were too graphic to be shown – quickly went viral.”

Why?  Because college officials like Northwestern University Psychology professor John Michael Bailey, who said “Sticks and stones may break your bones, but watching naked people on stage doing pleasurable things will never hurt you,” would rather the public remain ignorant of the type of shocking after-class activities that students voluntarily attend. Truth is, witnessing promiscuous youth frolic naked on a rooftop is certainly a lot tamer than the educational/sexually explicit demonstrations students around the country are regularly subjected to in the name of academic freedom.

The X-rated lab workshop involved a male “student at the university, and a woman cavorting in a variety of sexual positions on top of the school’s 12-storey Waite Phillips Hall in Los Angeles.”  The public shouldn’t be quick to judge. The pair could have just been Sexual Position Study Group inductees. After all hormoniacs in college classrooms all across America are sometimes asked to sign waivers to address “sensitivities” and “comfort level” issues in classes where sexual positions and exhibitionism are part of the “academic discussion about human sexuality and all that implies.”

This particular “rendezvous took place in broad daylight – and, according to reports, as a ‘philanthropy event’ attended by ‘hundreds’ of other students took place in the quad below.” Those who witnessed the show said, “Instead of enjoying each other’s company in the centre of the roof, where they arguably may not have been seen, the couple appears to have chosen to stay near the edge, ensuring they were in plain view.”

Based on the outrage, are college administrators, renowned for being champions of academic freedom, now in the business of condemning “dogging” class being held in the open air, as well it should? Rest assured the activity is discussed in human sexuality classes around America and widely accepted as a form of joyous outdoorsy sexual expression.  Right there at USC – on a roof, in the middle of the day – free spirited students were merely hosting an impromptu Flasher 101 spectator’s seminar.

The building where the class project took place was the university’s “School of Education… the second tallest on campus,” and obviously a locale that takes ‘education’ to a completely new level.

Onlookers said the couple seemed to purposely “pick out a spot nearest the roof’s edge, in plain view of those below,” describing the “liaison as being of ‘prolonged duration.’”   The young man was identified by USC’s school newspaper, the Daily Trojan (an accoutrement unrelated to the incident), as a university student and Kappa Sigma fraternity member.  According to the publication, in the past the randy romper had “been suspended ‘for conduct unbecoming of a Kappa Sigma and a gentleman.’”

Thus far, the soles of the woman’s feet have not been identified. Prior to making an appearance over the side of the roof neither one had been seen, with or without flip-flops, anywhere around campus.

Referring to the male scholar, a fraternity spokesman said “It’s also important to note that this action was taken by one solitary member of a fraternity at USC, not the Greek community as a whole, which accomplishes great things on a daily basis at USC.” Like filling seats in female affirming class offerings such as “Women’s Spaces in History: ‘Hussies,’ ‘Harems’ and ‘Housewives?’”

To be fair, a person’s character should not be judged for expressing unabashed copulative variety. After all, colleges are full of hermaphrodites “speaking” out, transgendering students, exhibitionists, outdoor/indoor sadomasochists and the like, with each one celebrated as the unsung heroes of sexual diversity.

While attending USC, the nude man may have registered for a course or two with primatologist and Darwinian feminist Dr. Amy Parish, the biological anthropologist who’s an expert in human sexuality and bonobo sexual interaction.  Dr. Parish has based her life’s work around the bonobos who, together with chimpanzees, the researcher considers the closest living relative of the human species.

In the classroom, Dr. Parish “uses the evolutionary approach to shed light on the origins of human behavior,” which means that if humans act like sex-crazed bonobos it should be acceptable, especially in and around the academy.  So if USC students couple in broad daylight and swing from rooftops exercising mating habits similar to the “easily aroused” bonobo, whose social life is “non-distinguishable from sexual behavior,” it should come as no surprise.

Dr. Parish’s USC bio says that her goal is to help “students to internalize learning enough to pursue it in the future in their own ways,” which may have been what was going on atop Waite Phillips Hall – students “pursuing ‘it’ in their own ways.”

The good doctor also says her lectures encourage “active learners to emerge,” a goal accomplished in full view of the philanthropy fair where love of humanity was on display and where the “institution was endowed” with generosity from above which, on a boring Saturday afternoon, certainly gave the campus a “socially useful purpose.”

Moreover, the esteemed Dr. Parish believes that students should “make sense of the world through their own eyes, experiences and values, so that they might be significantly enriched.” The USC human sexual behavior research specialist hopes her input, be it “canum” or “hominum” sex life-related, will help “to engage the student in activist pursuits that might lead to more community involvement in their post-campus lives.”

Based on the photos of the incident, no one would argue that ‘community involvement’ was exactly what was taking place for a ‘prolonged duration’ by a naked frat boy and an unidentified barefoot female in a T-shirt on a roof at USC. Although college officials were ‘appalled,’ all that really might have been taking place was a dedicated college student and someone who may have merely been an after-school tutor decided, under the watchful eye of a group of philanthropists, to initiate an afternoon extra-credit practicum where human sexuality/anthropology course content, with direct correlation to bonobo behavior, was on public display.

Also posted at Renew America

16 Comments

  1. Pingback: Nick Campbell

  2. L Smith

    I hate to break it to you, but human beings have been having conspicuous sex since … forever. A friend of mine tells the tale of “doing it” on the 50 yard line at ASU’s Sun Devil Stadium as far back as the mid-1980’s just because it was fun and risky. Another friend “did it” in the median of an Interstate highway. I don’t think either of them even knew what a bonobo was.

    • jeannieology

      Who said they didn’t have conspicuous sex? The article is about the hypocrisy of the officials who encourage such behavior in children and then have the audacity to be appalled!

  3. Scott

    I don’t know what sort of smutty site you are running here, but I intend to protest to my minister at the earliest opportunity. Bad enough that you must post such an unforgivably evil photo of creatures engaging in acts that not even the Lord would approve. Are you trying to corrupt my children? You are, I can tell. You are trying to entice my children into engaging in relations with monkeys, and the Lord will not forgive that, I promise you!

    The rest of your item is filled with a lot of raunchy “sex talk” about children having “sex” in public and other horrible things like science, which we know is against the Lord. I question whether you are actually a Christian at all. You are probably a Satanist, and I will speak with your employer about your conduct as soon as I can!

  4. SNAP-TASTIC

    I too am outraged, Scott, and I am going to protest to MY minister as well! I’m with you, there are few things more horrible than science. And I will accompany you to the author’s employer and we can both speak to them as soon as we can!

  5. Mariah

    fyi–USC is a private institution. Students pay upwards of 40K a year to attend. Whatever you think of this incident, or of the classes and professors you invoke, the students and their parents are paying for it, not “the taxpayers.”

    • jeannieology

      I didn’t say USC was tax payer funded I said taxpayer funding pays for similar courses all over America, which they do. The article wasn’t about who pays for the classes it was about hypocrisy on the part of institutions, tax payer funded and private, who have HS classes taught by professors who teach all sorts of weird stuff and then act indignant when kids have sex on the top of a building in broad daylight.

      As for Michelle, I like her just fine I just don’t appreciate her telling me what to do and imposing her lifestyle on me – especially because she doesn’t really live by her own standards herself … She is presently pushing home gardening-while at the same time the government regulating everything with an eye to regulate seeds and home grown foods and make gardeners get permits – What is the point of that? Here a woman starts a garden, does good things and the government comes in and screws it up!

      Again — the article had very little to do with what the students were doing — people do stuff like that all the time — the article was about the officials being “appalled” at behavior they encourage — institutions of higher learning promote classes and fight for the right to teach all sorts of things and then when kids act out — they’re appalled? Sorry that doesn’t fly with “Crazy Jeannie” over at Renew America.

      I find it interesting that the hole in the donut becomes the topic of discussion and the larger point of hypocrisy, government intrusion, disingenuous attitudes and standards imposed by people who don’t want to live them is missed and interpreted as me not liking gardening and wasted on points like who pays the tuition at USC. Just a minor observation.

      But all three of you were very respectful and intelligent and I appreciate that!

  6. Magatha

    What if they were married? Would that seem less offensive to you, or equally offensive? What if they were in their 30s? Or not students? In other words, what is the worst component? This isn’t a troll question, it is a real question.

  7. Sophist

    “The article is about the hypocrisy of the officials who encourage such behavior in children and then have the audacity to be appalled!”

    To say nothing of the hypocrisy of schools with criminal justice programs! They teach courses that contain reference to all sorts of heinous criminal acts, rape and murder and arson and on and on, yet they would be appalled if a student were to murder someone on campus. The nerve of these people!

  8. jeannieology

    One small difference Sophie…Criminal justice professors don’t encourage people to rape and murder — institutions of higher learning take tax $ to encourage people to “Do what thou wilt” – they shouldn’t be “appalled” when people do whatever. If and when a CJ professor teaches and encourages someone to burn down a building someone follows those instructions – I’ll be the first to point that out the hypocrisy of CJ professors.

  9. Sophist

    One small difference Sophie…Criminal justice professors don’t encourage people to rape and murder — institutions of higher learning take tax $ to encourage people to “Do what thou wilt” – they shouldn’t be “appalled” when people do whatever.

    Oh really? Do you have any evidence that the “Social Issues in Human Sexuality and Reproduction” class you cite is anything other than an objective and academic exploration of the nature of human sexuality? Any evidence at all that it encourages students to do anything other than study a topic that you don’t seem to like? Because, as far as I can tell, you scanned the class schedule, found one with ‘sex’ in the title, and went “aha, this proves they encourage students to blah blah blah.”

  10. jeannieology

    Now, now Sophie…why would you say I don’t like the topic of Human Sexuality…as a matter of fact I work at an institution of higher learning in the capacity of faculty so I have first hand knowledge of what is taught in standard fare human sexuality courses. Like for instance 18 year old students, like it or not, are subjected in the college I work in to porn films in HS classes.

    Did you take the time to click on all the links?

    http://dornsife.usc.edu/swms/undergrad/descriptions.cfm

    Moreover, the piece was a tongue and cheek article that was making a few points. Specifically how, not just at USC, but at many, many colleges integrated into the course material is some pretty perverse stuff.

    Nevertheless…and again it wasn’t just about USC it was a general observation about a system that starts young teaching children (Check out GLSEN and Ken Jennings Child Safety Czar) some out of the norm things and then when two students do something almost benign — the administration and officials gasp in puritanical horror.

  11. Sophist

    “Like for instance 18 year old students, like it or not, are subjected in the college I work in to porn films in HS classes.”

    Do you work at USC? No? Then how does what happened somewhere completely unrelated support a charge of hypocrisy against anyone at USC? Also, I would need some more context (and a link if possible) before I’m willing to concede that what your college was doing is problematic.

    “Did you take the time to click on all the links?”

    Yes, I did. And all that I found were bog-standard class descriptions of courses that seem both interesting and of academic merit. And I noticed that you still haven’t shared any details about ANTH 125g. You did write that “practicing what American tax payers pay for students to learn in classes similar to ANTH 125g,” did you not? So tell me, please, in what way does that class encourage the “amoral behavior they’ve worked hard to instill for four decades”? What particular aspect of that class do you find so troubling? You are familiar enough with details of that class to tell me which parts of it encourage the sort of behavior cited in this article, right?

    “Moreover, the piece was a tongue and cheek article…”

    Sure it was.

    “…that was making a few points. Specifically how, not just at USC, but at many, many colleges integrated into the course material is some pretty perverse stuff.”

    The key phrase here being “integrated into the course material”. All sorts of classes deal with issues that some might find unpleasant, uncomfortable or, to use you word, perverse. Addressing these issues maturely in an academic setting among people who have chosen of their own free will to take part in is not quite the same thing as springing it on random unsuspecting people who have not consented to it. For instance, medical schools encourage students to work with cadavers, but that wouldn’t make them hypocrites if they objected to an impromptu necropsy performed in the middle of the cafeteria.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to Top