Subj : Confusion To : CONSTANCE RAWLEY From : Curtis Johnson Date : Fri Nov 03 2000 04:41 am CR> Your posts didn't offer "Clarification." You quoted an article CR> and provided commentary, but you failed to distinguish one from CR> the other. You should have called it "Confusion." Eh? When I exported the post from the editor, wasn't the proper initials inserted before the Todd post that I was quoting? Looking below from what you quote, I see that they were. So I fail to see how I "failed to distinguish one from the other." My comments would have been distinguished from the text in the same way that my comments are distinguished from yours in this post. TH> I just got through reading some reports on a school that held a TH> seminar to GRAPHICALLY instruct high-school kids on homosexuality, TH> "fisting", and other such things. CR> You confirmed this by citing the account and commented: CJ> Note that: 1) this took place at a private university, CR> CR> The definition of "school" includes groups, organizations and CR> places where people gather to be educated. That includes workshops CR> and seminars held at Tufts University. 1) It's not even clear from the article that Tufts had anything to do with this event other than provide the space, probably for rent. It's pretty common for private universities to do this. That the article didn't bother to say is another instance of its inadequate reporting. 2) You are taking a very, very broad definition of "school." A one-time workshop is hardly the first thing that springs into mind upon hearing the word "school." 3) Todd Henson, who posted this article, still seems to be laboring under the delusion that "fisting" was being taught as part of the public high school curriculum in Massachusetts ("it's presence in the public school system" in his message to All, _Echo in a Shambles, Sorry_). I went through the article and demonstrated how the article itself manifestly showed that was not the case. CR> It's alleged that "fisting," anal intercourse and other questionable CR> behavior was/is being taught to children. THAT is the issue. "Young Adult" is a better term than children for "Ages 14-21." Note that 14 is a legal age for marriage in some Southern states! And 18 is the usual age of majority. Another important item unanswered by the article: was there even anyone under 18 present? An event on a campus would tend to draw college students rather than high school students, I would imagine. CJ> Incidentally, if this workshop was "For Youth Only, Ages 14-21," CJ> the question is raised about Whiteman's age. If he were older CJ> than 21, would he not have been crashing a workshop he was not CJ> supposed to attend? CR> CR> The workshop was for students and teachers and was reportedly open CR> to the public. According to the article, Whiteman registered, paid CR> a fee to attend and was admitted. And what about the *name* of the workshop? CR> THE ISSUE is what's being taught to children. And the article left it up in the air as to whether anything more had happened than an attempt at an honest answer to a question. True, Whitman claims a tape showed different, but apparently the tape had not been played to any other party--and apparently the reporter of the article had not even asked to hear it. CJ> Well, well, if it required registration for the event, CJ> this makes it even farther removed from teaching in a CJ> public high school classroom. CR> CR> Tufts University isn't a high school. Does that mean workshops for CR> children which violate state or federal laws can be held there? WHAT *federal* laws? PRC claimed that 3 *state* laws had been violated, but the article itself fails to demonstrate that claim (even if such laws were enforceable). The negative response of the state attorney's office to the PRC complaint may well indicate that this is the case. CJ> And if it were indeed open to any public who wanted to register, CJ> then the teens could well have come there on their own. CR> CR> Does that excuse the people conducting the workshop from abiding CR> by laws? No, it doesn't. You are jumping to the conclusion that laws were broken. You do not know that from the article. You know only that the PRC made the allegation, and there wasn't even any substantiation for those laws being broken from the article. CR> Were children required to have parental permission to attend this CR> workshop? Were parents informed? An interesting question. Perhaps the parents of the youngest teens (if indeed there were any actually there) were informed (remember, this was on a Saturday, and presumbably they would have asked the teens where they would be). Of course, those 18-21 are not going to need parental permission under any circumstance. > Abels and Gaucher, according to Whiteman, both discussed the > practice of "fisting" -- putting one's hand inside the anus or > vagina of a sexual partner. Gaucher taught the children how to > make a fist. He also discussed the pros and cons of ingesting > male body fluid during oral sex. CR> CR> ... > According to PRC's Camenker, "In the Boston press and elsewhere, > GLSEN officials don't deny these things happened. They stand behind > the conference. They're trying to say these kids were just asking > questions and being told honest answers. This is a complete > lie. The tapes prove that beyond a reasonable doubt." CJ> Interestingly, there is no indication from this story about CJ> whether they've let anyone else listen to Whiteman's tape. CJ> Indeed, it would seem we only have his word that such a tape CJ> even exists, much less that it indicates that this wasn't a Q&A. CR> CR> A superior court judge in Boston has attempted to ban distribution CR> of the tape. It exists. Copies are available. Privacy issues, no doubt. I note that you are claiming information on this incident that is not in the posted article. "Copies are available" despite the judge's ban???? And just where would you suppose those copies originated, hmmm? You were being emphatic about the law up there. Wouldn't obeying the law (which includes court orders) apply to PRC members as well? > Pressley agreed that it would be a violation of policy for HIV > teachers to tell children about fisting, ingesting body fluids > and anal intercourse. CJ> And it is against official policy, to boot. CR> CR> And yet? So, it is clear that even if what the PRC alleges had occurred, it was an isolated incident at worst, hardly part of a pattern, nor would be tolerated by the Masachussets public school system, and giving data on human sexuality (instead of ignoring its existence) to persons who are past puberty just may not be a bad thing. *Please* call me a pervert! If you want me to, I'll even call you a pervert, too! --- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000) .