Answer me this question X..
Do you want every school in the United States to follow the lead of the Massachusetts Dept of Education in teaching "Fisting" to our students? (and bear in mind that this exchange was caught on audio-tape).
massnews.com
Students Given Graphic Instruction In Homosexual Sex
"Fisting [forcing one’s entire hand into another person’s rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It’s] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."
By Brian Camenker
and Scott Whiteman
The above quotation comes from Massachusetts Department of Education employees describing the pleasures of homosexual sex to a group of high school students at a state-sponsored workshop on March 25, 2000.
On March 25, a statewide conference, called "Teach-Out," was sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Among the goals were to build more Gay/Straight Alliances in Massachusetts and expand homosexual teaching into the lower grades. Scores of gay-friendly teachers and administrators attended. They received state "professional development credits." Teenagers and children as young as 12 were encouraged to come from around the state, and many were bussed in from their home districts. Homosexual activists from across the country were also there.
To say that the descriptions below of workshops and presentations of this state-sponsored event for educators and children are "every parent’s nightmare," does not do them justice. It is beyond belief that this could be happening at all. One music teacher who attended out of curiosity said that she could not sleep for several nights afterwards and had nightmares about it.
"Queer sex for youth, 14-21"
In one well-attended workshop, "What They Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only, Ages 14-21," the three homosexual presenters acting in their professional capacities coaxed about 20 children into talking openly and graphically about homosexual sex. The purpose appeared to be to train adults who are running the student clubs. The three presenters, who described themselves as homosexual, were:
o Margot E. Abels, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education
o Julie Netherland, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education
o Michael Gaucher, Consultant, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health
The workshop syllabus included:
o "What’s it like to be young, queer and beginning to date?
o "Are lesbians at risk for HIV?…
"We will address the information you want about queer sexuality and some of the politics that prevent us from getting our needs met."
The workshop opened with the three public employees asking the children "how they knew, as gay people, whether or not they’ve had sex." Questions were thrown around the room about whether oral sex was "sex," to which the Department of Public Health employee stated, "If that’s not sex, then the number of times I’ve had sex has dramatically decreased, from a mountain to a valley, baby." Eventually the answer presented itself, and it was determined that whenever an orifice was filled with genitalia, then sex had occurred. The Department of Public Health employee, Michael Gaucher, had the following exchange with one student, who appeared to be about 16 years old:
Michael Gaucher: "What orifices are we talking about?"
Student: [hesitation]
Michael Gaucher: "Don’t be shy, honey; you can do it."
Student: "Your mouth."
Michael Gaucher: "Okay."
Student: "Your ass."
Michael Gaucher: "There you go."
Student: "Your pussy. That kind of place."
But since sex occurred "when an orifice was filled," the next question was how lesbians could "have sex." Margot Abels discussed whether a dildo had to be involved; when it was too big or too small; and what homosexual resources students could consult to get similar questions answered.
Role playing and "carpet munching"
Then the children were asked to role-play. One student was to act the part of "a young lesbian who’s really enraptured with another woman, and it’s really coming down to the wire and you’re thinking about having sex." The other student played the "hip GSA (gay, straight alliance) lesbian advisor, who you feel you can talk to." The "counseling" included discussions of lesbian sex, oral-vaginal contact, or "carpet munching," as one student put it. The student asked whether it would smell like fish. At that point the session turned to another subject.
"A lesson in fisting?"
There was a five minute pause so that all of the teenagers could write down questions for the homosexual presenters. The first question was read by Julie Netherland, "What’s fisting?"
A student answered this question by informing the class that "fisting" is when you put your "whole hand into the ass or pussy" of another. When a few of the students winced, the Department of Public Health employee offered, "A little known fact about fisting: you don’t make a fist like this. It’s like this." He formed his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier.
Margot Abels told the students that "fisting" is not about forcing your hand into somebody’s "hole, opening or orifice" if they don’t want it there. She said that "usually" the person was very relaxed and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it is a very emotional and intense experience.
At this point, a youngster of about 16 asked why someone would want to do that. He stated that if the hand were pulled out quickly, the whole thing didn’t sound very appealing to him. Margot Abels was quick to point out that although fisting "often gets a really bad rap," it usually isn’t about the pain, "not that we’re putting that down." Margot Abels informed him and the class that "fisting" was "an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with." When a child asked the question, "Why would someone do this?" Margot Abels provided a comfortable response to the children, in order to "put them into an exploratory mode."
"Rubbing each others’ clits…"
Michael Gaucher presented the next question, "Do lesbians rub their clits together?"
Michael Gaucher and Margot Abels asked the kids if they thought it was possible and whether someone would do a "hand-diagram" for the class. No one volunteered, but a girl who looked about 15 or 16 then stepped up to the board and drew a three foot high vagina and labeled each of the labia, the clitoris, and "put up inside the ‘G’-spot." While drawing, Michael Gaucher told her to use the "pink" chalk, to which Margot Abels responded, "Not everyone is pink, honey." All of the children laughed.
After the chalk vagina was complete, the children remarked on the size of the "clit," and the presenters stated that that was a gifted woman. Then Margot Abels informed all of the young girls that, indeed, you can rub your "clitori" together, either with or without clothes and "you can definitely orgasm from it." Michael Gaucher told the kids that "there is a name for this: tribadism," which he wrote on the board and told one girl who looked about 14 to "bring that vocabulary word back to Bedford." Julie Netherland informed the children that it wasn’t too difficult because, "When you are sexually aroused, your clit gets bigger."
"Should you spit after you suck another boy (or a man)?"
Michael Gaucher read the following from a card: "Cum and calories: Spit versus swallow and the health concerns." Gaucher informed the children that although he didn’t know the calorie count of male ejaculation, he has "heard that it’s sweeter if people eat celery." He then asked the boys, "Is it rude not to swallow?" Many of the high school boys mumbled "No," but one about the age of 16 said emphatically, "Oh no!" One boy, again about the age of 16, offered his advice on avoiding HIV/AIDS transmission while giving oral sex by not brushing your teeth or eating course food for four hours before you "go down on a guy," "because then you probably don’t want to be swallowing cum."
Another question asked was whether oral sex was better with tongue rings. A 16-year-old student murmured, "Yes," to which all of the children laughed. Michael Gaucher said, "There you have it" and stated something to the effect that the debate has ended.
Use a condom? It’s your decision, really.
One often hears that there is an aggressive HIV/AIDS prevention campaign, but the session ran 55 minutes before the first mention of "protection" and safer sex came. In the context of the "safer sex" discussion, however, it was pointed out that these children could make an "informed decision" not to use a condom. Outside in the conference hall, the children could easily obtain as many condoms, vaginal condoms and other contraceptive devices as they wished from various organizations which distribute such.
Well, yes…it really is about sex!
Another popular session was presented by the same three public employees in their professional capacity and was called, "Putting the ‘Sex’ Back Into Sexual Orientation: Classroom Strategies for Health & Sexuality Educators."
The workshop included:
What does it mean to say "being gay, lesbian and bisexual isn’t about sex?…How can we deny that sexuality is central for all of us? How do we learn to address the unique concerns of queer youth?…This workshop is for educators to examine strategies for integrating sexuality education and HIV prevention content specific to gay, lesbian and bisexual students into the classroom and GSA’s….additional strategies will be discussed."
The three presenters now assumed the task of teaching teachers how to facilitate discussions about "queer sex" with their students.
Tired of denying it
Margot Abels opened by telling the room full of teachers (and two high school students), "We always feel like we are fighting against people who deny publicly, who say privately, that being queer is not at all about sex… We believe otherwise. We think that sex is central to every single one of us and particularly queer youth."
Margot Abels, Julie Netherland and Michael Gaucher reviewed a few "campaigns" that have been used to demonstrate to queer youth how to best "be safe" while still enjoying homosexual sex.
The campaign, "Respect yourself, protect yourself," was thought to be good in getting the message to kids that they should use protection, but since it made children who didn’t protect themselves feel bad, it ultimately was a poor message. Michael Gaucher pointed out that children "with an older partner that they are not feeling they can discuss things with, does that mean that they don’t respect themselves?"
The campaign, "No sex, no problem," was ridiculed, as the campaign assumed that children could opt not to have sex. Additionally, the campaign made those children who had already had sex feel bad or think they had a problem, since they had had sex.
After reviewing a few of the campaigns, Margot Abels described the project she works on. The "Gay/Straight Alliance HIV Education Project" goes to five different schools each year conducting up to eight "HIV prevention sessions" in that school’s gay club. These same presenters who just told a group of children how to properly position their hands for "fisting" were now telling a room full of educators that they would visit their schools and conduct the same workshops for their students.
Bringing homosexuality into the middle school
One participant remarked half-way through that Margot Abels just wasn’t "talking to" her, since she, the participant, was a lesbian, middle school teacher. She wanted to know specifically what she could do to facilitate discussions about homosexuality in middle school. This was solved in another session entitled, "Struggles & Triumphs of Including Homosexuality in a Middle School Curriculum." Christine L. Hoyle, Special Education Teacher and workshop presenter, told the story of how she turned the holocaust portion of her curriculum into a gay affirming section. Ms. Hoyle allowed the group at the conference to watch a video which she had her students produce and which was narrated by a seventh grade girl. This girl told the audience that ancient Greeks "encouraged homosexuals; in fact, it was considered normal for an adolescent boy to have an older, wiser man as his lover." Thus, this teacher informed her adolescent students that it is okay if an older man approaches them for sexual gratification.
Finally, the handouts
An enormous amount of very disturbing material, most of it aimed at children, was distributed at the conference. Much of it encourages young children to become actively engaged in homosexual activities. The Sidney Borum Community Health Center table was giving out a cassette sized "pocket sex" kit, which included two condoms, two antiseptic "moist" towelettes, and six bandages, which were for "when the sex got really rough" according to the high school volunteer behind the desk. There was a countless supply of condoms supplied by both Sidney Borum and Planned Parenthood, all of which were for the taking by any child who wanted them. One could see children as young as 12 or 13 at the conference participating and receiving "information" and materials.
It shocked this reporter.
For the reporter and the music teacher, this "conference" was a shock that words can barely describe. One wonders whether it was similar to the experiences of American GIs when they first approached the concentration camps. They had heard stories and rumors, but no one could imagine it was like this. It was a mind-numbing experience.
But most shocking of all was that none of the adults seemed to be bothered by any of it. In fact, there was an eerie sense of solidarity in the air, against "those bigots, those homophobes who would stop our progress."
After our paper was delivered to 250,000 homes across the Commonwealth and after our Internet site carried the news around the country, many citizens expressed their shock and anger. When talk show host, Jeanine Graf of 96.9FM, spent three hours every evening for two weeks on the issue, many more expressed their outrage. When all of this pressure hit, the Dept. of Education terminated the two employees and apologized to the state. But the homosexual activists did not want copies of this tape to be heard by the public. So they went to a judge in secret the night before a rally of parents was to be held and asked him to issue an emergency order stopping anyone from talking about the scandal or distributing a tape recording of what had happened. The unconstitutional order that was issued shocked the entire nation, but not Massachusetts.
The following stories were on the daily Internet site of Massachusetts News
After receiving terrible publicity from across the country, Judge van Gestel removed the press from his unconstitutional Order, but he did not remove Brian Camenker or Scott Whiteman. This is an editorial that was written by Massachusetts News.
Judge van Gestel Please Read the Constitution
Judge van Gestel said yesterday that he saw the editorial in the Boston Herald on Tuesday which questioned whether he’s read the Constitution lately.
Although the judge assured everyone that he has read the Constitution, it isn’t only the Herald that is wondering.
The judge told lawyers for FOX News that if they didn’t like the wiretap law, they had to go back to the state legislature. He said the language of the law was very broad and could be understood to include the press. "That is the law they gave me to uphold."
What a Dumb Statement!
That is not the law they gave him to uphold. It is only because of how he has interpreted the law that makes it facially unconstitutional.
There are two elements that he must decide. 1) Did the law forbid what Scott Whiteman did? 2) If the law does forbid it, is the law permissible under the First Amendment?
#1 Does Law Prohibit Scott Whiteman from Taping?
As to issue #1, it is not at all clear that the legislature intended to stop Whiteman from taping this public Conference. It is very clear in the Preamble that the law was enacted primarily to protect the public against organized crime and to allow the police to wiretap their conversations. At the same time, the legislature was not opening the door to unlimited wiretapping by anyone.
The lawmakers said they were concerned about the "uncontrolled development and unrestricted use" of "modern electronic surveillance devices." (This hardly sounds like a pocket tape recorder.)
Clearly, this law does not stop anyone from taping a public meeting such as a town meeting, a school board meeting or similar event. But a judge could look at the explicit words of the law and say that it does prohibit taping those events if the judge doesn’t have any common sense. And one of the first things most people learn in law school is that a judge has to construe a law so that it will not be unconstitutional if it is possible for him to do so.
But Judge van Gestel is construing the law in defiance of common sense and with a determination to make it unconstitutional. He told FOX News, "That is the law they gave me to uphold." But that is not true. He is totally misconstruing what they gave him.
There have been very few court opinions on this particular law, but the few that we have indicate that what Whiteman did was not unlawful. But Judge van Gestel did not encourage any discussion from the attorneys before making his decision. Very few judges are so authoritarian as to enter a Restraining Order like this before any trial has been held without meticulously discussing the law and the facts of the case with the attorneys.
#2 If Law Does Forbid Whiteman, Is It Unconstitutional?
If the judge is correct that this law does prohibit what Scott Whiteman did, it is clearly unconstitutional.
This was a public meeting where everyone had been invited to hear public employees instruct teachers and students. Even the judge agrees that Whiteman had a right to be at the meeting and to report what was said. The only problem is that no one believed what he told them. He (and many other parents) had been rebuffed time and time again by state and local employees.
It was necessary that he report this information totally and accurately. The judge agrees Whiteman could have gone to shorthand class and then transcribed the session and no one could complain. He could have hired a court stenographer and no one would have complained. But neither of those would have been as accurate as a tape recording.
Judge’s 17-Year-Old Daughter
This judge was a member of a silk-stocking law firm for 35 years before becoming a judge and obviously has very little contact with the real world.
He said at the hearing that he has a 17-year-old old daughter and, "I feel very strongly about someone secretly taping my daughter and selling it on the State House steps."
He obviously has no idea what went on that meeting. Perhaps he should listen to the tape before he rules on it. Wouldn’t that be a sensible idea? This was criminal conduct by public employees who were corrupting the morals of children by promoting dangerous and harmful practices to their bodies. This was not instruction about AIDS prevention. The practices of fisting, oral sex and many others that were promoted would cause disease, not prevent it. And it does not bother this judge that other people’s 12-year-olds are being subjected to this without their knowledge or consent? In addition, the tape has been altered so that no voices are recognizable.
Is the judge really so naïve that he would believe Camenker and Whiteman are making money from this? What a stupid idea!! These people are parents who are making a tremendous sacrifice to alert other parents including Alan van Gestel, parent as to what is happening in the schools of Massachusetts.
He doesn’t have the common sense to believe them even with the tape. We’re lucky that most parents are smarter than he.
Why Didn’t Boston Media Complain?
It’s strange that the Boston media did not complain about this serious abridgement of their First Amendment rights. Many people across the country are worried about this historic infringement upon the rights of the press. And yet the media in Boston were strangely silent.
One possibility or explanation that anyone must consider is that they knew the judge was going to rule in their favor and lift the ban. Their reporters certainly have contacts and friends all across the city, including the courthouse. And they have lawyers who are probably friends with this judge.
If they did know in advance, it would certainly explain their lack of concern.
Even the state Senate was forbidden by Judge van Gestel from
discussing what had happened at the sex conference, one of the most bizarre occurrences in the Constitutional history of our country. Yet, almost no one in the state knows it occurred.
Judge Forbad Debate by State Senate
As a Result, Senate Refused to Cut Gay Funding During Yet Another Nighttime Session
While an Emergency Restraining Order was in effect, which prohibited anyone from discussing the graphic sexual instruction given to school children by Department of Education employees at a Conference in March, the state Senate refused on Monday night to discontinue the funding of homosexual programs in the state’s schools.
The entire legislature was sent an email by Rep. Jarrett T. Barios (D-Cambridge), an open homosexual, warning them that they could not mention anything that had occurred at the March Conference that has led to the firing of two state employees.
The Senate session was labeled an "emergency."
The judge who issued the Order last week was scheduled to consider lifting the Order yesterday, the day after the emergency Senate action.
The radio talk show host who had alerted the state to the problem was scheduled to go on the air at 7 p.m. on Monday to warn the state that the Senate was moving to consider this matter. Therefore, the Senate called an emergency and passed the measure shortly before the time when Jeanine Graf was scheduled to begin broadcasting at 96.9FM.
Press Does Not Report It
Even though Attys. Alan Dershowitz, Harvey Silverglate and many other lawyers denounced the court’s attempt to muzzle the legislature, neither the Boston Globe nor the Boston Herald reported anything about the unusual and historic, unconstitutional event.
The Globe reported on Tuesday that, "The state Senate yesterday rebuffed an effort to slash funding for gay and lesbian teen suicide programs…" It said the action came on the first day of debate on the Senate’s debate on the budget.
But it did not report that the Senate had been unconstitutionally gagged by a state judge from debating the subject.
The Globe wrote that Sen. Edward J. Clancy Jr. (D-Lynn) wanted to cut the item from $1.5 million to $1 million but was satisfied when the money was specified for suicide prevention and not for sex education.
But Brian Camenker, President of the Parents Rights Coalition, which has been spearheading the parents’ outrage over the scandal, said, "This is a lie. The same funding remains. There was no ‘gay sex education’ money to start with. All of it that was used to pay for the March 25 Conference was so-called ‘suicide prevention money.’ This won’t change a thing."
Camenker also noted that it was a lie that the Conference was not funded by the state. "Through various sources, it was almost entirely state funded," he said.
The Boston Herald noted that the Senate had banned the use of money in sex education workshops but it did not report anything about the ban on debate that the court had imposed.
Con't..... |
