Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. “Can I Kiss You?”

 

That’s what middle school girls were told to ask one another during an anti-bullying lesson at Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, NY.

The boys and girls were separated, and the girls were told to ask one another for a lesbian kiss while the boys were instructed on how to use a condom and how to tell whether a woman is a slut. They were also advised to always keep a condom in their wallet (something predicted by Rush Limbaugh in one of his parodies about sex education years ago!).

Parents were angry when their daughters were told that it was “perfectly normal for 14-year-old girls to have sex, and there was nothing their parents could do to intervene.”

“I am furious,” said Mandy Coon, whose daughter was in the class. “I am her parent. Where does anyone get the right to tell her that it’s okay for her to have sex?”

Coon told Fox News that her daughter was upset by the classroom lecture and was confused about why she had to ask another girl for a kiss. 

“She told me, ‘Mom, we all get teased and picked on enough – now I’m going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her,’” Coon said.

She said the school told her that the purpose of the lesson was to “teach girls boundaries and how to say no.”

“They also picked two girls to stand in front of the class and pretend they were lesbians on a date,” Coons said.

The superintendent, Paul Finch, said that the workshop focused on “improving culture, relationships, communication, and self-perception.” He also said that these were issues the school was required to teach under the state’s Dignity for All Students Act, which “requires schools to create a safe and supportive environment free from discrimination, intimidation, taunting, harassment and bullying.”

It seems words from the prophetic pen of Aldous Huxley are appropriate here:

In a little grassy bay between tall clumps of Mediterranean heather, two children, a little boy of about seven and a little girl who might have been a year older, were playing, very gravely and with all the focussed attention of scientists intent on a labour of discovery, a rudimentary sexual game.

“Charming, charming!” the D.H.C. repeated sentimentally.

“From a neighbouring shrubbery emerged a nurse, leading by the hand a small boy, who howled as he went. An anxious-looking little girl trotted at her heels.

“What’s the matter?” asked the Director.

The nurse shrugged her shoulders. “Nothing much,” she answered. “It’s just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play. I’d noticed it once or twice before. And now again to-day. He started yelling just now …”

“Honestly,” put in the anxious-looking little girl, “I didn’t mean to hurt him or anything. Honestly.”

“Of course you didn’t, dear,” said the nurse reassuringly. “And so,” she went on, turning back to the Director, “I’m taking him in to see the Assistant Superintendent of Psychology. Just to see if anything’s at all abnormal.”

“Quite right,” said the Director. “Take him in. You stay here, little girl,” he added, as the nurse moved away with her still howling charge. “What’s your name?”

“Polly Trotsky.”

“And a very good name too,” said the Director. “Run away now and see if you can find some other little boy to play with.”

The child scampered off into the bushes and was lost to sight.

“Exquisite little creature!” said the Director, looking after her. Then, turning to his students, “What I’m going to tell you now,” he said, “may sound incredible. But then, when you’re not accustomed to history, most facts about the past do sound incredible.”

He let out the amazing truth. For a very long period before the time of Our Ford, and even for some generations afterwards, erotic play between children had been regarded as abnormal (there was a roar of laughter); and not only abnormal, actually immoral (no!): and had therefore been rigorously suppressed.

A look of astonished incredulity appeared on the faces of his listeners. Poor little kids not allowed to amuse themselves? They could not believe it.

“Even adolescents,” the D.H.C. was saying, “even adolescents like yourselves …”

“Not possible!”

“Barring a little surreptitious auto-erotism and homosexuality—absolutely nothing.”

“Nothing?”

“In most cases, till they were over twenty years old.”

“Twenty years old?” echoed the students in a chorus of loud disbelief.

“Twenty,” the Director repeated. “I told you that you’d find it incredible.”

From Huxley’s Foreword:

As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.

Welcome to our Brave New World.

There are 89 comments.

  1. Crow's Nest Inactive
    Denise McAllister: From Huxley’s Forward:

    As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom….

    Well said.

    There is no faster way to distract the people from their rights and duties as well as no better-known method for stunting the growth of genuine eroticism, than to debauch sex.

    I suspect this school is not an isolated case, and its practice here is yet another reason that I would not send a child to a public school.

    Conservatives have a window in the next election cycle to make a case to the American people of the need to break the public school monopoly on a large scale. I fear if we miss moments like this, if we fail to exploit the widespread frustration with the quality of public education to the end of resting it from the control of Progressive ideologues, these sorts of abuses will become routine.

    • #1
    • April 29, 2013, at 2:14 AM PST
    • Like
  2. EJHill Podcaster

    Reax.jpg.

    • #2
    • April 29, 2013, at 3:43 AM PST
    • Like
  3. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister Post author
    EJHill

    . · 8 minutes ago

    I’m guessing you’re a little upset, EJ?

    • #3
    • April 29, 2013, at 3:53 AM PST
    • Like
  4. Robert Lux Inactive

    The more we breakdown in the distinctions between the sexes, the more the sex act itself will take greater prominence within society. That’s the irony of all ironies.

    And women will be ever more objectified.

    “Raunch feminism” (Sex and the City, Exhibit A) teaches that loose women evade stigma so long as the women are choosers. But loose women are almost always looked upon as slavish women, having been conquered by too many men.

    The real cause of SSM is the denial of soul: that men and women are different in soul, not just body — the denial that girls’ and women’s best interest is not served by feminism but rather in being taught to be ladies and modest. And men’s best interest served in being taught to be gentlemen and brave.

    Advocates of SSM on Ricochet think they are being open-minded, but they are the true dogmatists: dogmatic because dogmatically skeptical about nature tells us. SSM exists because no one can tell the difference between a man and a woman anymore.

    Gee, and people keep demanding “a rational proof” for why we can’t make marriage subject to whatever the human will wills it to be

    • #4
    • April 29, 2013, at 3:59 AM PST
    • Like
  5. Brad B. Inactive

    I always thought Huxley was far more prescient than even Orwell. Orwell looked at the rise of fascism and saw that as the future, when in fact it was nearly gone in his lifetime. But Huxley, even in the 20s, saw exactly how psychology and mass media would evolve over the next century. That said, this only confirms the belief that democracies always get the government and society they deserve.

    • #5
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:00 AM PST
    • Like
  6. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister Post author

    Byron–while Orwell was the better writer and storyteller, I agree with you about Huxley having the superior view of the future, particularly the seduction of soft tyranny.

    • #6
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:00 AM PST
    • Like
  7. flownover Inactive

    I am somewhat relieved that I have but one child left in school, and that is a Catholic high school . We pay to go there, as were not Catholics. For years I would always do the introductory interview with the grade school teachers of all (3) the kids with a question as to what day they would be doing sex education . The teachers would always take the bait and ask why . I replied that I was positive the child would be sick that day. They got the picture. Kevin Jennings is actively sliming the future of America’s youth, under the guise of bullying, diversity, acceptance, and whatever semantic contortions they devise . That the teachers have drunk so deeply at the well of this poison is fairly shocking. Their NEA meetings must be some real corkers . 

    Absolutely shameful.

    We have ALOT of work to do. Thanks Denise, I was too busy worrying about the damned government trying to get us all killed. Instead they’re too busy foreclosing the future and killing a bunch of children on their own.

    • #7
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:01 AM PST
    • Like
  8. EJHill Podcaster
    Denise McAllister I’m guessing you’re a little upset, EJ? 

    Suffice it to say that if my child were a student at that school you would definitely want to accompany me to the Superintendent’s office the next day – with a video camera. (If not for evidence then at least the glory of the YouTube notoriety.)

    • #8
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:04 AM PST
    • Like
  9. KC Mulville Inactive

    Ah, you have to get out of the old fashioned notion that children belong to their parents. This is just an example of the community taking over and teaching values to the kids, trumping whatever the parents want.

    It’s easy to wield authority when you bear no responsibility. 

    • #9
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:20 AM PST
    • Like
  10. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister Post author

    KC—-so true. What, was it last week that the host from MSNBC said we need to stop thinking of children as belonging to their parents and that they need to be raised collectively? We’re turning into a sexualized version of the Borg.

    • #10
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:24 AM PST
    • Like
  11. VooDoo Inactive

    Our culture is sick, sick,sick. 

    • #11
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:25 AM PST
    • Like
  12. Front Ranger Inactive

    Bill Whittle says politics is downstream from culture, and therefore to change political outcomes we have to influence and change the culture. I think that’s true, especially if school is included in the latter broad category. This excerpt you cite from Huxley perfectly summarizes the college and post-grad culture I witnessed with at first numb acceptance and then horror: “In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.”

    Dragged down by the boredom of political correctness and the ennui of race/class/gender, all we talked about at college was pop culture and ways to blast our brain cells to smithereens. 

    • #12
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:35 AM PST
    • Like
  13. Anne R. Pierce Inactive

    SO depressing, and one of the things I learned when my offspring were in Middle School is that many students don’t mention this and other types of indoctrination to parents because they’re ashamed or traumatized by the experience.

    • #13
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:36 AM PST
    • Like
  14. Jim Ixtian Inactive

    Just another example of Cultural Marxism intended to poison the minds and souls of people. In this case it is our children. I refer back to one of the primary sources of the Sex-Positive/LGBQT movement, Herbert Marcuse and his text, ‘Eros and Civilization’ where Marcuse breaks down human sexuality into economic terms;

    But the liberation from this state seems to require, not the arrest of alienation, but its consummation, not the reactivation of the repressed and productive personality, but its abolition. The elimination of human potentialities from the world of (alienated) labor creates the preconditions for the elimination of labor from human potentialities.

    What Marcuse argued is for “liberating” men and women from their traditional and natural sexual (and in his view inherently capitalist) roles as a way for them to embrace economic Marxism down the road. 

    More from ‘Eros & Civilization’, Chapter 10;

    “In the societal relations, reification would be reduced as the division of labor became reoriented on the purification of freely developing individual needs; whereas, the libidinal relations, the taboo on the reification of the body would be lessened.

    No longer used as a full·instrument of labor, the body would be resexualized.

    • #14
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:36 AM PST
    • Like
  15. Roberto, Crusty Old Timer Member

    How is this anything other than solicitation of child pornography?

    I assume the suspects involved have been arrested, correct?

    • #15
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:36 AM PST
    • Like
  16. Profile Photo Member

    Going to have to wash out my mind after that one…Scripture Study chapters, here I come…Oh, and, thanks, I think…(Just kidding, keep ’em coming, friend!)

    • #16
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:37 AM PST
    • Like
  17. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister Post author

    Nanda–I know, I wish these stories weren’t out there, but I can’t let Nathan Harden have all the fun writing about this kind of sick stuff.

    • #17
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:37 AM PST
    • Like
  18. Jim Ixtian Inactive

    cont.

    Regression involved in this spread of the libido would best manifest itself in a reactivation of all erotogenic zones consequently, in a resurgence of pregenital polyamorous sexuality and in a decline of genital supremacy. The body in its entirety would become an object of cathexis, a thing to be enjoyed- an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lend to a disintegration of the institutions in which…interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly, the monogamic and patriarchal family.”

    I don’t care if the following gets the RINO’s all wee-wee’d up. The Homosex/LGBQT/Sex-positive ideological movements are not merely ideologies, but evil.

    • #18
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:39 AM PST
    • Like
  19. EThompson Inactive
    Robert Lux:

    …the denial that girls’ and women’s best interest is not served by feminism but rather in being taught to be ladies and modest. And men’s best interest served in being taught to be gentlemen and brave.

    I couldn’t have expressed it better myself. I would only add that conflict arises between the sexes when there is a disparity of power. The feminazis choose to describe power in strictly male terms, but we all know that in successful unions, men and women exercise distinct forms of influence. Vive la difference!

    • #19
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:41 AM PST
    • Like
  20. Valiuth Member

    So how does this prevent bullying? I think that is what I would like to know. Because I’m not really following their master plan here. If a bully starts picking on you are you supposed to contracept a banana? Or is the defense for girls against teasing makings out with their friends? In my experience I don’t think any of those are really going to work.

    Frankly, bullying occurs not because children are intolerant, but rather because children are undisciplined selfish little savages, that are deficient in their empathy glands. Strict order and drilling manners into them is what keeps them in line, and for those that fail a swift switching reminds them of proper behavior. 

    • #20
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:41 AM PST
    • Like
  21. EJHill Podcaster

    ME.jpg.

    • #21
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:42 AM PST
    • Like
  22. Sandy Member

    This was an “anti-bullying session?” If the kids learned anything about bullying it was that Linden Avenue Middle School is a very big bully. Their parents might take the opportunity to teach something important: if you get into the bully’s face, he tends to back off. And good for them for taking this to Fox News. The taxpayers in Red Hook may not be amused.

    • #22
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:45 AM PST
    • Like
  23. EJHill Podcaster

    If Gay Freedom Lover is in the house, this is exactly makes people want to dig their heels in and tell the Homosexual-Hypersexual lobby to go to hell and take their “rights” agenda with them.

    “No slippery slope”, my you-know-what.

    You want acceptance? You want people to view you as normal, this stuff has to stop.

    • #23
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:47 AM PST
    • Like
  24. Sisyphus Member

    Bullying in the name of an anti-bullying curriculum. I hereby nominate these vile and sadly unidentified buffoons for Ricochet’s hopefully to be momentarily instituted Orwell Award for 2013. Linden Avenue Middle School is an edifice, somewhere in the site linked hide the real perpetrators. I wonder how many parents there are genuinely aware, and how they are responding. 

    • #24
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:52 AM PST
    • Like
  25. M.D. Wenzel Member

    Seems like there is potential here for criminal charges. The girls being only 14

    • #25
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:55 AM PST
    • Like
  26. Profile Photo Member

    I enjoyed how the local rag (very appropriate here) downplays any problems with the lesson and any recklessness on the part of the school in presenting the lesson to middle-school children without their parents’ knowledge and consent.

    http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2013/04/25/news/doc5179964b7c202524816096.txt

    http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2013/04/24/news/doc517740b37e8ea298279301.txt

    And as a final bonus of double-plus-good irony, note in the comments sections how the people who object to lesson on bullying are bullied for being prudes. I’m beginning to think neither Orwell nor Huxley went far enough.

    • #26
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:57 AM PST
    • Like
  27. Flyondawall Inactive

    Glad I am not raising kids in this day and age. Sorry that the task has fallen on my children. Hope the pendulum metaphor is in play…

    • #27
    • April 29, 2013, at 4:58 AM PST
    • Like
  28. Mafuta Kizola Inactive

    My first reaction is to reach for someone to punch, preferably the teacher or principal.

    But this is really expected because these people believe that being gay is genetic and that the biggest sin a gay person can do is to stay “in the closet” instead of flying the rainbow flag high. So of course they gotta ask the girls to kiss each other so they can find the “closeted” ones and make them come out. These people are insane.This borders harassment of children, can’t someone just have his privacy in this anymore ?
    • #28
    • April 29, 2013, at 5:01 AM PST
    • Like
  29. Robert E. Lee Member

    I can’t figure out what these “lessons” have to do with bullying?

    I’m not a prude, when I was growing up I wanted to meet as many “loose women” as possible. When I was 14 if someone asked me about sex my answer then, as now, is “yes! please!” That said, this doesn’t meet any description of education I’ve ever heard of.

    My suggestion for sex education is to call the parents to school and give them information on the subject (if you can find an education system willing to cough up factual information sans agenda…good luck) and let the parents decide how much or how little their child needs to know at any given point in their life.

    The fact that sex is inevitable is no excuse for a “so lets do it now” attitude from “educators.”

    The only hope I see is educating your child before the “educators” get to them.

    • #29
    • April 29, 2013, at 5:06 AM PST
    • Like
  30. Sandy Member
    jeannebodine: I enjoyed how the local rag (very appropriate here) downplays any problems with the lesson and any recklessness on the part of the school in presenting the lesson to middle-school children without their parents’ knowledge and consent.

    http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2013/04/25/news/doc5179964b7c202524816096.txt

    http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2013/04/24/news/doc517740b37e8ea298279301.txt

    And as a final bonus of double-plus-good irony, note in the comments sections how the people who object to lesson on bullying are bullied for being prudes. I’m beginning to think neither Orwell nor Huxley went far enough. · 7 minutes ago

    Nice. The local rag doesn’t even tell the basic facts, although we do learn that the program was constructed by Bard College students. Even in very liberal Alexandria, Virginia, where I live, this would have been covered better.

    • #30
    • April 29, 2013, at 5:08 AM PST
    • Like