PDF The Bare Truth: 101 Things Strippers Wish Men Would Learn

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Bare Truth: 101 Things Strippers Wish Men Would Learn file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Bare Truth: 101 Things Strippers Wish Men Would Learn book. Happy reading The Bare Truth: 101 Things Strippers Wish Men Would Learn Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Bare Truth: 101 Things Strippers Wish Men Would Learn at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Bare Truth: 101 Things Strippers Wish Men Would Learn Pocket Guide.

You bet your ass it was. In Iran, they have speeding cameras. To be broke and on the road will teach you how to solve a real massive variety of problems. A bunch of Pakistanis I met on the train…. Employers are looking for people who can think on their feet and problem solve. Crucially, employers are looking for people with life experience — travelling the world will give you a ton of that! I have three go-to outlets for free time: Push ups minimum of a day , reading and writing blog posts.

The internet provides you with TONS of ways to educate yourself and to earn an income. Use your free time on the road to look into what interests you. If you want to travel forever, start working on a passive income stream. Setting up my travel blog has completely changed my life and allows me to travel full time. Work hard and work efficiently and you can achieve anything. I keep my most personal thoughts in my bullet journal though.

Shop now and earn 2 points per $1

Things go wrong, sometimes you need to take time to recenter yourself and rejuvenate from being on the move. I recommend hanging out in a hammock…. I love the uncertainties of a new adventure. I always try to keep myself up to date with international politics because it genuinely interests me. Traveling has made me even more interested in understanding just how the world works.

I recommend The BBC and The Independent as the most trustworthy news sources but never take all your news from one source and always remember there are two sides to every story. I love history. Before I rock up anywhere near, I always do a bit of Wikipedia digging to find out the history of the place I am travelling to. Honestly, if you are reading this that means you have easy access to the internet and are probably American, European, Canadian or Australian. We are so god damn lucky, we have access to so many opportunities. Personally, this is my least favourite part of travelling — struggling to keep my fitness in good condition!

The law of attraction is a powerful thing, visualise what you want, visualise who you want to be and then work your butt off till you get there. I could write a whole post about this. In Jordan, I cavesurfed with a Rastafarian Bedouin for a few nights. I never travel without a buff , it can be used as a makeshift eyemask, as a filter to keep dust and pollution out of your mouth, as a cover to keep tattoos out of the sun, as a bandage and, in extreme situations, a makeshift condom just kidding.

The scale of this world, this galaxy, this universe and all of the unknown mysteries constantly boggles and excites me. Our world is an amazing place. Retrace your steps, find a logical place to pause and collect your thoughts, usually somebody will come along after a while who can help you out. I have an adopted family in Pakistan, and I feel no weirdness using that term, I love these guys and think about them almost every day.

Dithering rarely helps anything. Make a decision and roll with it, evolve your plans as you need but be decisive. Ask questions, find out the stories of those you are with. On the surface, it can seem like people from different cultures have nothing in common but in my experience, I have found that everybody has the same hopes, dreams and aspirations. People all around the world want to feel safe, want to feel loved and want to be noticed. People want to laugh, to build a good future for their children and to work on their passion projects. Stay off your phone and instead read a book — check out this post for some of my favourite travel reads.

No matter how many times I conquer this fear, I still get dizzy at heights. Not mega-manly I know but there you go. This one little hack can save you thousands of dollars over the course of years, especially in the more expensive regions of the world. When I began this two year journey, my destination was the purpose of the trip and it motivated me — it was on the horizon, it was something tangible, I just had to keep going East. Along the way, so much happened and whilst I do still intend on reaching my destination I am enjoying this journey way too much to want to rush it to an end.

Personally, travelling has saved my life more than once. Traveling the world has allowed me to put some deep seated insecurities to rest, to accept myself for who I am and to work through a lot of shit. There is a huge amount to be gained from exploring the world and yourself and being on the road gives you so many incredible opportunities to experiment, learn and evolve. Peace out maaaaaan. Writer and hustler. Adventurer and vagabond. Master of the handstand pushup.

Conqueror of mountains, survivor of deserts and crusader for cheap escapades. Will has been on the road for nine years, travelling to far-flung lands on a budget. Today, he runs a number of online ventures. He is passionate about teaching others how to ditch their desks, hit the road and achieve real freedom by earning money online. Currently, Will is based in Bali where he plans to open his first Tribal Hostel in Getting off the beaten path alone can teach you a lot 4. Hitching a ride in Iran. Heading to our glacier camp in Pakistan. Same girl, different hair.

With amigos at an Indian wedding. Strategising in Thailand. Random street party. Trekking to Mt. Roraima in Venezuela. Bio Latest Posts. Will Hatton Writer and hustler. As time wore on, Kieltyka also became personally adept at doing her own Internet searches. But Kieltyka has pursued her inquiry, in spite of fear. All this might sound crazy, petty, or amusing to some, but such a reading would minimize the actual damage done to people in the whole TMWWBQ affair.

So how did the backlash start? Within a couple of days of her first alert to James on April 10, quoted above , Conway read the book, and found herself as appalled as she had expected Conway, a. She immediately understood the text as especially dangerous because it was fully cloaked in the social power of science and academia. Thus, within just a few more days, Conway called to arms as many allies as she could, insisting. Imagine what would have happened if the Academy had published a book such as this about African Americans.

Their gates would be stormed and the institution would fall. So how can they get away with doing this to us? April 18, , p. Becky Allison, M. Through fortunate timing, Roughgarden was able to attend a lecture by Bailey at her own university, Stanford, on April 23, , and write a scathing review of it for the school newspaper Roughgarden, The backlash against the book had thus begun in force.

Nevertheless, while the condemnation from Conway and those who joined her would come to suggest a unilateral denouncement of the book by all parties on the LBGT front, the reviews suggest otherwise. Positive reviews by queer people seem only to have made Conway and James angrier. Indeed, James was annoyed enough that she sought out writers of positive reviews and asked them to explain themselves, publishing their responses on her Website see, e. Yet, I think it is worth noting that historically not all of these transwomen leaders had always rejected every shred of what might reasonably be classified as autogynephilia the way they would come to do post- TMWWBQ.

But Bailey has pointed out that she does discuss in her autobiography a pre-transition arousability to the idea of becoming or being the other sex Bailey, , pp. McCloskey is speaking here of Donald, her pre-transition self, in the third person:. There are two kind of crossdressing magazines, those that portray the men in dresses with private parts showing and those that portray them hidden. He could never get aroused by the ones with private parts showing. His fantasy was of complete transformation, not a peek-a-boo, leering masculinity.

He wanted what he wanted. McCloskey, , pp. This was none other than Andrea James. The evidence for this is unmistakable. In , James had written to Anne Lawrence to congratulate her on her latest paper on autogynephilia and to talk about her own first- and second-hand experiences with autogynephilia. I got body slammed by the usual suspects in for recommending a Blanchard book.

While I readily admit to my own autogynephilia , I would contend that my drives towards feminization seem to have a component pushing me from the opposite direction as well [i. Nonetheless, I see my own transsexual feelings paralleled in the words of people with other body dysphorias. Andrea James to Anne Lawrence, p. I discuss this further in Part 5. Anjelica was shattered. She now realized that Prof.

Anjelica frantically began web searches to learn about the controversy now swirling around the book. She immediately e-mailed Andrea and Lynn, pleading for their help in clearing her name. Conway, b. Rather, she remembers:. AJ [Andrea James] and the rest of them wanted to lynch me, as they did Joan Linsenmeier [a colleague who helped Bailey with the manuscript] and anyone else connected with the book. They were about to hang me. Kieltyka, f. In fact, in what could only be called a friendly email from Kieltyka to Bailey dated May 16, —nearly two weeks after Kieltyka first read the published book and contacted Conway—Kieltyka spoke warily to Bailey of the likes of Conway.

Dear Mike, Thanks for the Cantor Review [i. I followed up on the links to your difficulties with some hysterical women [an apparent reference to Conway and James] […] when you wrote…. I really appreciated the sarcasm……. Your friend, in spite of spite, Anjelica, aka Cher Kieltyka to Bailey, p. This hardly sounds like a woman who, right after reading the book in early May, considered herself simply wronged by Bailey and looking to fall into the arms of fellow transwomen who would join her in roundly denouncing Bailey and autogynephilia.

Shortly after the book came out, the Chronicle of Higher Education apparently decided to have its staff writer, Robin Wilson, compose a feature story on Bailey and his book Wilson, a. Kieltyka says the professor twisted her story to suit his theory. Bailey as their savior. Wilson, a. As it turns out, Kieltyka, Juanita, and two other women did decide to file complaints with Northwestern University.

She declined to elaborate p. Anjelica Kieltyka took the lead on the filings. On July 3, , she submitted a letter to C. Michael Bailey had sexual relations with me. Northwestern University first appointed a Provost-level inquiry committee to examine the charges against Bailey. Then, in November , the university announced that the inquiry committee had found cause to continue the investigation, and so a Provost-level investigation committee was formed C. Bradley Moore to Alice Dreger, p. Why did Kieltyka, Juanita, and the two other transwomen familiar with Bailey but not mentioned in the book decide to charge Bailey after years of good relations with him?

Motivation is one of the most difficult things to document in historical scholarship, but I think it is fair to speculate that a number of factors may have been in play here. We are socially assimilated trans women who are mentors to many young transsexuals in transition. Unable to bear children of our own, the girls we mentor become like children to us. These young women depend on us for guidance during the difficult period of transition and then on during their adventures afterwards—dating, careers, marriages, and sometimes the adoption of their own children.

As a result, we have large extended families and are blessed by these relationships. Bailey and in uncovering and reporting his misdeeds. Now you have your answer: We are hundreds of loving moms whose children he is tormenting! My conversations with Kieltyka also suggest that she and the other women who charged Bailey found a certain relief—perhaps even pleasure—in going from the powerless position of represented subject to the powerful position of active accuser.

Through her Website, Conway in particular gave them a place to reconstruct themselves and their histories with Bailey. I asked McCloskey whether she knew if Conway financially compensated Juanita for making formal accusations against Bailey p. Regardless of why they turned so dramatically, Kieltyka and her new allies ended up going after Bailey with virtually everything they could muster.

Michael Bailey. Michael Bailey for his recent acts of junk science and groundless defamation. Do not invite him to speak at your institutions. Disinvite him if he is invited. Review his manuscripts and grant proposals with great caution and skepticism. Bancroft elaborated:. Whether based on science or not we have a responsibility to present scientific ideas, particularly in the public arena, in ways which are not blatantly hurtful.

But in addition to that, Michael did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment. John Bancroft, p. We like to think of the Academy meetings as opportunities for sex researchers to openly discuss their ideas and criticisms with each other, and not the outside world. They fight back, often in a self-defeating fashion.

In this case, they went over the top and lost credibility in the process. Walter J. It is felt by many of our members that this poorly referenced book does not reflect the social and scientific literature that exists on transsexual people and could damage that essential trust. We hope that the Office for the Protection of Research Subjects at Northwestern will consider the ethical issues that are involved and we will also be sending them a copy of this letter so that they are aware of our concerns.

We are also preparing a separate letter to Northwestern University to express our concerns directly. Tieso to Dreger, p. During the years to , I conducted eight research studies on the therapeutic impact of hormonal and surgical treatment of transsexuals. Blanchard to Walter J. Meanwhile, Conway remained particularly relentless in her drive to get Northwestern to take serious action against Bailey.

Conway, c. The three also made the same complaint to Northwestern see Conway, d. The charges of misconduct against Bailey are worth considering at length, and so I do that in the next part of this article, remaining here focused on the history of the backlash itself. But I will note here what I can of the outcomes of the formal complaints. Much to the dismay of Kieltyka, Conway, the press, and me among others , the university has consistently refused to say what the investigation committee found or what specific actions they recommended. Bailey has also refused to say what the outcome of the investigation was, although he is willing to say that, if the investigation committee did its job correctly, then he was cleared Bailey, When, for this history, I contacted C.

Even though the allegations of scientific misconduct made against Professor J. Any other clues as to how the Northwestern investigation turned out? Meanwhile, Bailey has maintained his title of full professor, has retained tenure, and keeps teaching and conducting human subjects research; he has taken no unscheduled leaves. I recall that I certainly did, watching casually from the sidelines in and Oddly, it seems at least from this vantage point that virtually all of the reporters working on this story from forward did not do much to independently investigate the claims being made against Bailey, even when they had the opportunity; for the most part, they merely reiterated the charges.

But even given that possibility, one particular example of strangely shallow—even critically incomplete—reporting stands out, namely that done by Robin Wilson for the Chronicle of Higher Education. Even Kieltyka did not contradict this account when I asked her Kieltyka, c. Curiously, these two news items give absolutely no hint that Wilson herself had met at least two of the women charging Bailey, i. Why was Wilson acting as if in July she and the Chronicle were completely new to this story?

Genuinely baffled, I asked Wilson as much, and she repeatedly refused to go on the record with her reasoning for reporting in this way Wilson to Dreger, p. I therefore asked her editor to explain p. I simply cannot figure out what happened at the Chronicle. Amazingly, somehow in the midst of all this controversy, Bailey managed to be vilified by both the right- and left-wing presses. She has not taken me up on the offer. She alerted the local police to a possible hate crime [Kieltyka, a ]. But, in general, James took a more direct—though not less expansive—approach than Kieltyka.

Thus, in an effort to undermine TMWWBQ , James tried to discount, denigrate, or discredit anyone who was seen as supportive of the book. James also sought to force anyone who might be on the fence to side with her or face the consequences. You have a choice to make. James and her allies reacted powerfully when a new site claiming to represent self-identified homosexual transsexuals sprang up.

In fact, Triea bonded with the transkids because she could relate to that aspect of their histories; Triea was born intersex and raised male, and at 14 wound up in the famous gender identity clinic led by John Money at Johns Hopkins University. Although Triea and the transkids knew the extent of the anger against Bailey, they never imagined that so much of it would be directed toward them for daring to defend Blanchard and Bailey. She recalls:. We had been working on the transkids. The very next morning, one of the transkids called on the phone in a panic, really scared, because overnight news of our website had caused such outrage on the Internet.

It was frightening because I had never seen anything like that. Triea, But in the end, they left it up and continued to post new material occasionally. For her part, Deirdre McCloskey, too, led sections of the counterattack. Presumably, by then, the publisher was weary of being attacked over the book. The publicist was also very positive.

The Bare Truth

Bailey responded that of course he wanted the book nominated, so the fee was paid, and the nomination became official. Immediately after the nominations were announced, Deirdre McCloskey contacted Jim Marks to let him know she was outraged. The LLF was in some senses an advocacy organization. Jim Marks, p. Marks recalled to me,. I had no expertise in this area which is one reason we were blind-sided by the controversy. I informed the finalist committee of the controversy and asked them what to do. They re-voted and said, keep the book on the list. We did and sent the book out to the transgender panel of judges.

A worldwide online petition was started by Christine Burns, a leading trans advocate in the U. We think that they should hear from you, so as to gain some comprehension of the scale of the pain they have inflicted on transwomen throughout the world. We suggest that our investigators out there quietly gather evidence about any discriminatory policies employed by stores listed below, for future publication on this site.

Only one vote had flipped, but it was enough to have the book removed. In their public comments, those on the Finalist Committee disagreed about whether this action was tantamount to censorship. The book is widely available, has been widely reviewed and is not about to be denied to the public. All of this was no doubt taking its toll, most especially on Michael Bailey. In my interviews with him, Bailey resisted admitting to misery, but conversations with his family and friends suggest the multi-year assault on so many fronts did wear on him. Because they believed he had rhetorically assaulted them, his enemies would seem to deny him any safe haven, however personal.

Joan Linsenmeier, p. For the rest of you, I hope this little rock tossed through your window makes a real human connection. The ostensible cause of the letter was to alert them to the SPLC report:. With this letter we wish to inform you that the Intelligence Report identifies J. Then contemplate the role that some psychologists, including your Department Chairman, are playing in fostering hate and violence against young transsexual women. As late as , Conway was still using this approach, choosing to write to Alice Eagly, who had replaced Bailey as chair of the department.

She then superimposed black bands over their eyes, presumably to mimic the dehumanizing pictures of trans people in the medical literature. She claims on her site that she issued via Drew Bailey a sincere apology to him, his sister, and his mother James, n. When I asked if he had any evidence of that, he thought a moment, and remembered that he and his then-wife Deb had used the same divorce lawyer Bailey, a.

As it turns out, the Bailey clan remains quite close-knit in spite of the parents being divorced. The Baileys are inclined to call it a vicious lie. By all accounts, the Baileys celebrate holidays together, are in constant close contact, and even vacation together. She also remembered that, in , when the stress of the book backlash was getting particularly intense, Michael Bailey came to her house to talk for hours about it with her. This may have been because—as John Bancroft suggested above, and Anne Lawrence seconds below—it became difficult, if not impossible, to put forth any kind of judicious critique of the book given the highly charged terms of the debate.

One sexologist who did seem to take the side of Conway is Eli Coleman of the University of Minnesota. Meanwhile, although strife within the trans especially the transwomen activist and support circles certainly predated the publication of TMWWBQ , the controversy over the book seems to have substantially exacerbated it. A number of the transwomen who wrote to me after my original blog on Andrea James volunteered that they had been harassed, intimidated, and sometimes electronically erased for speaking autobiographically of autogynephilia or positively of Blanchard, Bailey, or Lawrence.

All of these correspondents asked to remain anonymous for fear of further attack. I have been disappointed by some of the vitriolic attacks that Bailey received from trans people at the height of the controversy. I strongly feel that scholarly and creative work should be reviewed on its merits and that resorting to personal attacks on creators of published work is uncalled for at best and demeaning to the critic at worst. Such tactics actually undermine productive critical dialog[.

But as we have also seen above, that firestorm quickly came to be fueled by allegations that J. Michael Bailey had behaved in all sorts of unethical, illegal, and immoral ways in the production of his book. In providing this history, it would be convenient to be able to simply report the merit of the charges made against Bailey as determined by some reliable investigatory body. But I am unable to do so. Consequently, I consider here the allegations of misconduct made against Bailey with regard to the production of his book, and examine what the sources tell us about the merit of those charges.

Bradley Moore, July 3, , available at Kieltyka, b ; see also Conway, c , d , f. Bradley Moore, July 3, , available at Kieltyka, b. But did Bailey need IRB approval and oversight in this case? First the general: In the U. The Institutional Review Board IRB is designated by Northwestern University NU to review, to approve the initiation of, and to conduct periodic review of research involving human subjects or materials obtained from human subjects.

Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, n. In other words, only research that is truly scientific in nature—that which is systematic and generalizable—is meant to be overseen by IRBs. Thus, a person might fit the U. Although I have intentionally obtained data through interpersonal interaction, the interview work I have conducted for this historical project has been neither scientifically systematic nor generalizable.

That is, I have not asked each subject a list of standardized questions—indeed, I typically enjoyed highly interactive conversations during interviews; I have not interviewed all of my subjects in the same way; I have negotiated with some of them to what extent I would protect their identities. This is a scholarly study, but not a systematic one in the scientific sense. Nor will the knowledge produced from this scholarly history be generalizable in the scientific sense. No one will be able to use this work to reasonably make any broad claims about transsexual women, sex researchers, or any other group.

Had the IRB disagreed with me on this point—which, knowing the regulations, they did not—I would have pointed them specifically to the clarification by the U. I went against their recommendation in this case and actively sought confirmation of exception from my own IRB partly out of project-relevant curiosity as to how the Northwestern IRB views these kinds of interviews, and partly out of fear of being charged with IRB violation in retaliation for producing this history. That is true, but the clarification about taking and relaying individual stories was not a new ruling.

It was simply a clarification that oral histories were never meant to be overseen by IRBs. The information about individuals that Bailey gathered for the book from Kieltyka, Juanita, Braverman, and others he obtained haphazardly—without any developed plan of research—from their occasional presentations to his classes, from their joint social outings, and from one-on-one discussions that occurred on an irregular basis.

Bailey did conduct a few fill-in-the-blank discussions with Kieltyka, Juanita, and others Bailey to Dreger, p. But these fill-in-the-blank discussions can again hardly be called systematic or productive of generalizable knowledge. When I pressed him to consult or perhaps even turn over to me the notes he took from these conversations, Bailey admitted he had no organized notes that he had bothered to keep. Obviously, he never really thought of these discussions as research—systematic work meant to be productive of generalizable knowledge—any more than he ever imagined that the women who seemed eager to tell their stories and have him write about them might later charge him with abuse.

Otherwise, he surely would have protected himself and his work by being significantly more organized. By comparison, for the systematic and generalizable psychological and sociological studies of transsexual women and others to which he occasionally refers in the book e. In the book, the way in which Bailey refers offhandedly and irregularly to his methodology could lead some to believe that all of the information he relays therein is the result of scientific study.

Clearly, what Bailey did in terms of learning and relaying the stories of Kieltyka, Juanita, and other transsexual women was neither systematic nor generalizable. Never did he seek a statistically representative sample of transsexual women in deciding whose stories to tell; again, his critics have complained about just this see, e. Although TMWWBQ occasionally seems to brag about its scientific rigor—especially on its jacket—in the text Bailey frequently acts more like a science journalist than a scientist. Given that he consistently obtained IRB approval for work he did that was IRB-qualified, there can be no doubt Bailey knew perfectly well the difference between the anecdotes he used to liven up his book and real systematic and generalizable science.

Given all this, we have to conclude that, in his interaction with the people whose personal stories appear in TMWWBQ—of whom apparently only two Kieltyka and Juanita have complained to Northwestern University—J.

Most Popular

What about the second seemingly damning claim, the sexual relations allegation? Did J. Michael Bailey have sexual relations with a woman who was his research subject at the time? Although the answer to this question turns out to be relatively simple, this story bears careful unpacking. Michael Bailey had sexual relations with the undersigned transsexual research subject. Available at Conway, e. The facts say otherwise.

How to Use a Breadboard

In fact, Juanita knew for many years what Bailey was generally writing about her in his book manuscript—indeed, she gave him permission to write about her—and she likely knew for months before the affidavit specifically what he had said about her in the published book. First, what is the evidence that Juanita gave Bailey permission to write about her—and thus that she knew for years that he was writing about her in a book manuscript?

There Juanita says:. Bailey assured us he would show us what he was writing about us. And most assuredly, she could not have been fundamentally unaware that he was writing about her in his book, as the second sentence of her affidavit suggests. Remember also, as noted in Part 4, that on May 22, , several weeks after the book had come out, Juanita joined Bailey, Kieltyka, and others for the social excursion to the Circuit nightclub with Robin Wilson of the Chronicle of Higher Education. Bailey accountable for his actions.

Juanita knew for years that Bailey was writing about her in his book; she gave him permission and indeed actively helped him; she even helped him promote the book after it came out. She declined my request to elaborate p. Bradley Moore, charging Bailey with having had sex with her, Juanita recounted more precisely the alleged circumstances:.

I arrived at the club with Ms. Kieltyka, but left with Dr. Kieltyka can confirm this. Bailey then drove me back to my place, where the sexual relations occurred. They will provide sworn affidavits supporting my claims. Juanita is thus quite specific: She and Bailey had sexual relations on the night of March 22, The alleged event never happened. I pressed Bailey to answer two questions for me: Did he in fact have sex with Juanita? No, he said, he had never engaged in anything with Juanita that could reasonably be called sexual relations. He did admit to me that he had flirted with Juanita once or twice when they were out socializing, but he insisted that was the limit; he had never had or even attempted any sexual relations with Juanita p.

And he produced it p. When I read it, it struck me ironically as about the least sexy proof one could provide. Bailey explained to me that, when Juanita made the sexual-relations charge to Northwestern in , in order to defend himself, knowing it never happened, he immediately looked up his computer records to see whether he could prove his claim. He quickly discovered that, on March 22, , his ex-wife Deb Bailey had been out of town on her spring break and he was, by their annual arrangement, staying at her house taking care of their children, who were then aged 11 and He provided me what he had offered Northwestern: records of back-and-forth conversations between him and Deb Bailey that week, covering all the mundanities of taking care of house and children provided in p.

In these, Deb Bailey reminded Michael Bailey to feed the fish, the hamster, and the cat, to clean out the litter box, to bring in the newspaper and the mail, to take the kids to their after-school activities, and so on. These documents evince at least that on March 22, , Michael Bailey was single-parenting his two children and their many pets in Evanston. I asked him if he might have left the children in Evanston, perhaps with a sitter, and gone out with Kieltyka and Juanita to the Shelter nightclub into the small hours of the morning, but he was adamant that he would never have left his children to go out to bars while his ex-wife was across the country and it was his turn to parent p.

She also with some embarrassment confirmed the elaborate household instructions she gave him for that period, independently providing me a copy of some of the same correspondence Michael Bailey had provided me. When I asked her if she thought it possible that Michael Bailey would have gone out to a Chicago bar when he was supposed to be taking care of their children in Evanston while she was away, Deb Bailey said she found it unfathomable given his record as a devoted and attentive father.

She made it politely clear that she has no illusions that Michael Bailey is a saint, but she also finds it impossible to believe that he would have been out with Juanita on the night she claimed, especially given that there were plenty of other weeks of the year in which he could have done just that Deb Bailey, ; Deb Bailey to Dreger, p. January 7, I asked Kieltyka to tell me what she knew about the alleged relations and the charge, since she supposedly had been with Bailey and Juanita on the night in question and she had been present for at least some of the sessions in which Conway and McCloskey apparently helped to arrange the charge Conway, e ; McCloskey to Dreger, p.

According to Kieltyka,. Kieltyka, c; ellipses in original. So I pressed Kieltyka further:. Dreger: Clinton got it up. Dreger: And then [in the formal charge] to Northwestern she said that they had had sex. Nevertheless, the national press was enthusiastic about this part of the Bailey controversy. By the time I came to this work in , when I asked people what they knew about what Bailey had supposedly done wrong, the majority told me that he had had sex with a research subject. Yet, given the facts, we must conclude that Bailey was right when, in , he made the rather dull and thus generally ignored legalistic point that, all other questions aside, Juanita was simply not his research subject in March , at least not in any meaningful sense of research.

I have come to conclude Bailey was also right when, in , he made the point that no one—not even his friends and defenders—wanted to hear, i.

Joe Manganiello on Male Stripper Doc ‘La Bare,’ ‘Magic Mike’ Sequel – Variety

If a researcher abused a position of power to coerce a research subject into sex, that would be wrong, but sexual coercion is wrong regardless of the relationship, and it is certainly not the case that all researchers hold all subjects in disempowered and thus potentially coercive positions. Indeed, it is easy to imagine a situation where the reverse could be true, i.

Even after this conclusion, the curious may still wish I could tell them for sure whether the alleged sexual relations happened. To some extent, it worked, in large part because it cleverly took advantage of the sex-negative attitude that pervades American culture, including the particular cultural phobias that surround transwomen such as Juanita. It was a misuse of our friendship and relationship. What then of this claim of unethical behavior?

At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me note again that, by the time TMWWBQ was published, Kieltyka and Juanita had presented themselves, their life histories, and their takes on transsexualism to a total of thousands of students at Northwestern University. Kieltyka had even concluded twice by stripping naked she says to make the point that transsexual women can be extremely attractive even in the nude [Kieltyka, a].

Remember also that, in , Kieltyka and Juanita had given Maegan Gibson their true, pre- and post-reassignment first and last names, their pre- and post-reassignment photos, and their life histories to broadcast in the Daily Northwestern Gibson, Before this, Kieltyka had revealed parts of her transsexual story to a local paper, Berwyn Life , and on a local cable channel Kieltyka, a.

Then in , in response to a request from Bailey, Kieltyka and Juanita again teamed up to talk openly about themselves, their bodies, and their sex lives for a video made to accompany a human sexuality textbook. To suggest, as McCloskey and Conway do, that these women had no agency in their work with Bailey, no ability to decline him, is to treat them as children. They were not. Might there be some other sort of way in which Bailey abused the trust of the transsexual women about whom he eventually wrote in TMWWBQ?

Kieltyka told me that Bailey had violated both trust and confidentiality by using what the transwomen she brought to him had told him in the interviews he conducted for purposes of writing letters in support of their SRS requests Kieltyka, c. Out of the four women who filed charges with Northwestern claiming Bailey used them as research subjects without their knowledge and approval, three had obtained letters from Bailey supporting their requests for SRS Conway, c , d , f. Kieltyka was the fourth complainant; she was post-transition when she met Bailey.

Bailey denies it. As for the third woman, namely Juanita, Bailey says he did not use her SRS-letter interviews for the book; he says he used what he learned from her outside the context of those interviews Bailey, a , c. It is impossible to confirm whether this is the case. It is also clear that Bailey had plenty of contact with Juanita outside the SRS interviews—in her class presentations, in a book-related coffee appointment in August , in their social outings, and in her participation in the video.

She seemed perfectly willing to be open about herself with him and others on many other occasions. As I have already shown, Kieltyka and Juanita knew many years in advance of that Bailey was writing about their lives in a manuscript and also that he classified Kieltyka as an autogynephilic transsexual and Juanita as a homosexual transsexual. Indeed, evidence shows that Kieltyka noticed and was bothered by her labeling as autogynephilic even sooner, in late Why, then, did Kieltyka keep associating with Bailey, year after year, even though he seemed to keep labeling her autogynephilic, a diagnosis of which she knew and to which she objected?

I put this to Kieltyka—why did she keep going to his classes, socializing with him, introducing him to other transwomen, helping in response to his request regarding the human sexuality textbook video, and so forth, if she was upset with his labeling her an autogynephile? Kieltyka had two parts to her explanation. Kieltyka in particular believed Bailey saw her as an intellectual and professional collaborator. In fact, as noted in Part 2, for some time she believed she would be something like a co-author on the book he was writing Kieltyka, b.

And she believed that, if she stuck with the relationship, she could convince him he was wrong about her. The study sought to explore whether sexual arousal is category-specific in females as it is in males. Bailey and his colleagues specifically wanted to know whether homosexual and heterosexual natal men, homosexual and heterosexual natal women, and MTF transsexuals demonstrated genital arousal to male sexual stimuli i.

Kieltyka told me she was convinced that the study would show Bailey what she believed to be true: that transsexual women such as herself i. In other words, she believed the study would show Bailey that women like her are gynephilic, and not autogynephilic Kieltyka, a , b. More importantly, Bailey said Kieltyka never gave him any sense that her recruitment of transwomen to the study was motivated by her desire to disprove Blanchard. His understanding was that she was simply interested as he was in having his lab study the arousability of transwomen like her Bailey to Dreger, p.

All in all, given the substantial historical record of their collegial associations, it makes sense that Kieltyka got a lot out of her relationship with Bailey and that consequently she wanted to try to make it work in spite of their continuing disagreement over her identity. She was being actively transformed from a well-liked local trans advocate to a national pariah in the realm of trans rights. And so she came to believe she had been used and abused by Bailey; and she came to believe he had been pulling a con job on her and her friends all along. For his part, he was stunned and then angry at how, after years of a friendly relationship in which he often helped her and her friends, she turned so viciously on him Bailey, a.

A total of two women—Kieltyka and Juanita—have complained personally of this sort of treatment. It is also clear Kieltyka repeatedly objected to the characterization of her as an autogynephile, and it seems likely that, through his words and actions, Bailey let Kieltyka wishfully believe she might change his mind about that when, in fact, there was little chance of her doing so.

A subsidiary question to consider in the context of this discussion is this: Did Bailey write about Juanita and Kieltyka without their permission, as they claimed in their complaints, and if so, was that wrong?


  • Burlesque laid bare.
  • Enthralled - Kept by the Viking (Gay Erotic Romance).
  • The Graphic of Life: Applied Math to Life (The Bishops Books Book 3)?

One can see why the subjects themselves might feel that way. But I think one must also appreciate that scholarship like journalism would come to a screeching halt if scholars were only ever able to write about people exactly according to how they wish to be portrayed. I said above that it is not uncommon for scholars and journalists to relay stories without ever asking permission of subjects, particularly when their identities are protected. What about this? How did James and Conway figure out who Cher was? Kieltyka notes that Bailey revealed that Cher plays the hammered dulcimer in an Irish folk group Kieltyka, c ; see Bailey , p.

Bailey states he had put this material up for his human sexuality students to read. It never occurred to him that it could or would later be found by others [Bailey, a ]. I had originally asked her to help me pick a pseudonym for her, and she asked me to use her real name. It was only after she read the initial draft, and especially my interpretation of her behavior as autogynephilic, that she changed her mind on this.

Bailey to Dreger, p. I changed her name because I liked her at that time and because she requested it. But Kieltyka never had the option of deciding that, since Conway and James quickly flushed her out. It must have been—and still must be—truly painful to feel that her core identity has been misrepresented over and over again. Four final charges made against Bailey must be considered before we close this inquiry into the merit of the claims that Bailey behaved unethically, illegally, or immorally in the production of his book.

I believe all four can be dispensed with rather quickly. Conway claims this on her site and bases the claim solely on a report from Kieltyka that Bailey admitted this to Kieltyka Conway, l. It is worth noting again that even Kieltyka has never disputed any of the facts Bailey related about her and her life; she disputes only his interpretations.

After all, Conway, James, and McCloskey each filed formal complaints with the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation and Northwestern University accusing Bailey of illegally practicing psychology without a license by providing the SRS-support letters Conway, d. Bailey also never offered or represented a therapeutic relationship with any of the women in question. Presumably this is why the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation never seems to have bothered pursuing the charges made against Bailey.

Third, was Bailey undermining the rights of sexual minorities, including transsexual women, by producing the book he did? Yes, he labels some transwomen as having a paraphilia—namely autogynephilia—but he also clearly says it is not harmful and that the only real consideration with regard to SRS decision-making is the happiness of individual transwomen.

If it makes them happier and he says it does , then they should be able to get it. Public critiques as well as correspondence Bailey has received like correspondence I myself have received suggest that some queer people find his book part of the problem of social oppression of queer people, while others see in it personal liberation through his finally giving voice to politically incorrect truths about their queer identities.

So I think it is a serious intellectual challenge to make the claim that Bailey is simply anti-queer or even anti-trans in his book. I see no evidence the book is, as Kieltyka has suggested, part of a widespread, undercover agenda to eliminate queer people through eugenics and other biotechnological means. Of course, McCloskey, Conway, and others have claimed otherwise. I think this one ends up as a problem that has stumped philosophers of science for ages, namely the problem of how scientists or scholars more generally are to discern what data count as legitimate and relevant.

Thus, what seems to some trans critics obvious proof against Blanchard strikes Bailey as very weak indeed Bailey, a. So in conclusion, what did Bailey do wrong legally, ethically, and morally? It seems J. Michael Bailey should have been more proactive in protecting the identity of Anjelica Kieltyka. How could there possibly have been so much smoke and so little fire? One answer is that, if you look as closely as I have done here, there were in fact far fewer accusers of Bailey than all the noise in the press and on the Internet would have you believe.

And of the accusations made, almost none appear to have been legitimate. So what happened to the text at the center of all this? That would be considered a moderate number for an academic book and a low number for a trade book, which TMWWBQ was intended to be. I think that is hard to demonstrate. In that vein, Lawrence agrees with the claim about angst, but thinks it is not an unjust angst thrust upon particularly vulnerable young transwomen. Blanchard had a similar take:. The population of people who were actively doing research on transgender was already pretty small[….

Again, most people I talked with seem to think its effects have been small or negligible. Several people have argued for a generally positive outcome there. So Simon LeVay suggested to me,. It may be that [the criticisms and attacks] have raised the visibility of transgendered people to some extent. But others believe that the nastiness that ensued from the controversy shut down productive discussion of the etiology and meaning of MTF transsexualism among transwomen and indeed among sex researchers to some extent.

When I asked Anne Lawrence about the effects of the book and the controversy, she told me that. It became difficult for anyone to stake out a middle ground concerning the book [and its claims]. Lawrence, a. As Lawrence was hinting here, a few people have suggested that Bailey might have avoided at least some of the fray if he had only been more politic in some of his wording. He clearly puts the value of truth-seeking and truth-telling over the value of the complicated relationships among sex researchers, gender clinicians, and trans people—complicated even tangled relationships he sees as having perpetuated the universalizing of the feminine essence narrative at the exclusion of reality.


  • 72 Lessons from 9 Years of Traveling the World!
  • The heart of the caterpillar for Adults: A conscience-pricking,emotional,sad,gripping,excellent and thought provoking story by an ex-street child.!
  • Lusty Leopard | How I Met Your Mother Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia!
  • The Power of Balance.
  • The Bare Truth: 101 Things Strippers Wish Men Would Learn.
  • Vénézuela - Guayana (French Edition).
  • Dip and Strip 101: Everything You Wanted to Know About Stripping Wood and Metal.

He argues that speaking the truth will help trans people more in the long run, even if it hurts in the short run:. It is almost always better in terms of having a positive effect to know and speak the truth than it is to believe and speak something that is untrue, even if the former upsets people more than the latter. Furthermore, I have profound skepticism regarding claims that X should not be studied or said because it is dangerous, harmful, or hurtful to do so. So was Bailey speaking the truth—not just the truth as he knew it, but the truth?

A number of reasonable questions could and should be raised: What do we make of the varied ways that autogynephilia has been conceived, including by Blanchard himself Blanchard, ? What of the choice of terms used, and how might those terms constrict conceptions of the phenomena and harm or help the individuals in question?

Although fewer sexologists are as familiar with it as Blanchard and Bailey would like, there are indeed researchers considering its explanatory power and evidentiary basis—and some have found evidence to support it. For example, a group in the Netherlands found that. Homosexual transsexuals were […] younger when applying for sex reassignment, reported a stronger cross-gender identity in childhood, had a more convincing cross-gender appearance [….

Many transwomen have complained that, in their work, Blanchard and Bailey have ignored their life narratives, narratives that these women say fly in the face of the simple two-type model of MTF transsexualism that sees eroticism as a fundamental motivation for MTF sex reassignment. I am not. It did play a part. A small part. But this strikes me as a blatant mischaracterization at several levels. First, in a move I think could only be labeled pro-trans-rights, Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence have each actively argued that the chief determinant of whether transwomen should have access to SRS is whether or not individual transwomen are better off Bailey, ; Blanchard, ; Lawrence, This is the work that Bailey alludes to in his book when he writes about why Paul McHugh is wrong to deny transwomen access to reassignment Bailey, , p.

Finally, it seems to me that there are actually subtle but key differences in the way that Blanchard and Bailey have conceived of and Lawrence is now conceiving of autogynephilia. Lawrence is developing a conceptualization of autogynephilia as a real sexual orientation, akin to the way being homosexual or heterosexual is a sexual orientation.

Like Blanchard and Bailey, she sees autogynephilia as a paraphilia, but she seems to be more interested than Blanchard and Bailey in elaborating what it means to take seriously autogynephilia as a sexual orientation. So she has been theorizing the roles of the erotic-based, attraction-based, and attachment-based elements of autogynephilia, and considering how the balance of these elements might change as an autogynephilic transsexual develops her identity as woman.

All this, she suggests, helps to explain why some transwomen who admit to erotic crossdressing pre-transition say that they essentially give up or lose what looks like autogynephilia after transition, especially after the reduction of libido that happens with the intentional shift from male-typical to female-typical hormones.

To do so, it would have to overcome the widespread political rejection of a model that sees transsexuality as a pathology. After all, Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence have all argued that autogynephilia is a paraphilia—a psychosexual disorder. Granted, they argue autogynephilia is a non-harmful paraphilia, and one which absolutely should not eliminate a transwoman from consideration for sex reassignment.

In doing research for this project, I have been disturbed to see the extent to which transwomen, in order to speak and be heard, seem to feel obliged to completely deny the role of eroticism in their decisions to undergo sex reassignment—and not just by trans activists like Conway and James, but also by gender therapists like Randi Ettner and Mildred Brown, and by the press. After all, in the past, some influential clinicians claimed that confession of a single instance of sexual arousal associated with crossdressing should eliminate a patient from consideration of a diagnosis of transsexualism and thus also from consideration of sex reassignment see, e.

Although the de-eroticized feminine essence narrative may function socially and clinically like a sort of get-out-of-male-free card, this pushing of sex into the closet where transsexuality is concerned at some level robs transwomen of their erotic possibilities and realities, and in that sense Ettner and Brown are surely doing their clients and readers no favors.

Importantly, as Lawrence has pointed out, there exists an almost invisible group of people for whom the universalizing of the feminine essence narrative may ironically act as a barrier to beneficial sex changes. This constitutes another reason why the feminine essence narrative—especially at the exclusion of all other possibilities—may harm some trans people even as it seems to help others. Ironically, as some science studies scholars have suggested, it is gender clinicians and sexologists themselves who have set the scene for trans women denying anything other than feminine essence autobiographies by demanding singular sorts of Western heteronormative stories out of MTFs seeking SRS Stone, ; see also Meyerowitz, As I write, Deirdre McCloskey maintains an active and prominent academic career, enjoying an international reputation as an interdisciplinary scholar.

Andrea James keeps up her own Website as a source of consumer advice to transwomen, as a marketing platform for herself, and as a font of intimidation to those who would dare to openly disagree with her. I do not know what has happened to the woman known as Juanita. As for Anjelica Kieltyka, my sense is that she feels chewed up and spat out several times over. Of all the people in this story, Kieltyka is the one I worry about. She struck me—both in her biography and in our conversations—as a genuinely kind-hearted person who truly tried to help her fellow transwomen along the way, only to find herself ejected from that community.

I was at the bar over there and she was among my friends and I […] heard that she was going around saying that I was stalking her. Kieltyka, a.

How to Treat Strippers, According to Strippers

A woman who once enjoyed an active life among the transwomen circles of Chicago, a woman who once valued her regular association with academics including Bailey and his colleagues at Northwestern University, Kieltyka has now become largely isolated through what she feels has been one misrepresentation of her after another. He did tell me he found the backlash.

In this particular battle, people were not playing by the familiar academic rules. This was totally out of the rules of discourse. Blanchard, When I asked Lawrence about how she had been affected by the backlash personally—a backlash that ended up repainting her as a sworn enemy of trans rights—Lawrence said:. It feels like a great loss to be so alienated from my own community. I have worked very hard on behalf of my community. I conducted the research that demonstrated, among other things, that nonhomosexual transsexuals can have outcomes from sex reassignment surgery that are every bit as good as those of homosexual transsexuals.

I used to be respected, even admired, within my community. Now many people see me as the anti-Christ. I rarely attend transgender conventions anymore. And Bailey? Undaunted, he plugs ahead, working on more sexual-orientation studies—studies likely to keep angering people on both the right and the left who wish his work fell simply into one of the politicized scientific boxes on which they insist. He is relieved that, with the dust of the backlash settling and the full history emerging, his colleagues seem increasingly inclined to rally to his side and to the sides of similarly beleaguered sex researchers see, e.

As I was nearing the end of my research into this history, I asked Bailey whether he regrets publishing his book. Not a bit, he replied. Regrets the backlash? On top of that, he notes, the backlash also did exactly what I had warned Conway back in it would: it gave his book far more publicity than it otherwise would have had.

My thanks go to the more than people who answered inquiries on this project, Yorgos Strangas for excellent research assistance, the Editor for patient editorial assistance, and the following people for comments on drafts of this article: Marcus Arana Holy Old Man Bull , William B. Nelson, Maxine Petersen, Julie F. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Arch Sex Behav. Published online Apr Alice D. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer.