Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“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.
Published in General
“Can I kick yer ass?”
The culture war is a war of attrition. These stories have become so frequent and demented that I am no longer surprised or interested. I may be a casualty.
I am, still, surprised that people have children and subject them to this.
Sorry, the comments to articles I posted above seem to “disappeared” since I looked at them yesterday??? There were comments from parents, past students, etc. I’m sure it was a software glitch.
Reason # 15,798 why my kids will be Catholic educated K-12….
CJS—if I could afford it, I would do the same. alas…. Thankfully this kind of thing hasn’t gotten so bad in the south. These stories always seem to come from the northeast. But it’s just a matter of time before it’s everywhere. (There probably are examples from the south, I just can’t think of any right now)
I apologize, I have no excuse for my incoherence.
The first article has the comments. Both are worthless pieces of propaganda.
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2013/04/24/news/doc517740b37e8ea298279301.txt?viewmode=fullstory
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2013/04/25/news/doc5179964b7c202524816096.txt
Jeannebodine–thank you for the links.
I can’t help but think some 14-year-old boys did a little creative editing in the teacher’s editions.
I’ve gotten the impression that the big push for the anti-bullying campaigns is from more overt homosexuals. Speaking as someone who got picked on a lot as a nerdy kid in the ’80s, I find the whole exercise to be about 180 degrees away from what my parents taught me to do: stand up to the kid, hit him back, and they’d take my side in the principal’s office if I got in trouble for it.
These days, while I have seen some parents of similarly nerdy kids asking for an anti-bullying program in our school, I hear most of this being taken as anti-homosexual bullying.
Advocates of SSM on Ricochet think they are being open-minded, but they are the true dogmatists: dogmatic becausedogmatically skeptical about nature tells us. SSM exists because no one can tell the difference between a man and a woman anymore.
It’s been my experience that you can’t get homosexual advocates to engage in a discussion about moral truth and moral objectivity. They shut you down and say you’re not humble. They equate subjectivism with humility and dismissively state that any discussion about how we know right from wrong objectively is intolerably arrogant.
The homosexual advocates running these “anti-bullying” classes seem to see things only from a subjective perspective—it is indeed the basis for their entire worldview. Given this, they believe that if you can simply identify subjectively with another person then you will not disapprove of them, that you will accept them. They confuse love and grace with truth and law. Instead of teaching that you should be kind and loving to those you disagree with, they teach that you must accept them, identify with them personally, and even be like them. It is reflective of the whole mindset—don’t simply be nice to me and love me, approve of what I am doing and NEVER say I am wrong.
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.
Agree. Interesting that teachers and schools receive the blame for violent behavior, but parents don’t. Huh?
I am not a parent but a proud aunt of two aggressive teenage hockey players. They could even take on DocJay in a power play (!) but would never consider bullying any of their classmates (off the ice.) I credit their mother and father, their parochial school, and even their favorite aunt for laying down a strong moral code comprised of useful threats.
For example (and this from me) : “If you hit your little brother again, I will smack you senseless, send you back to your parents, and no Cheesecake Factory for dinner tonight.”
Works every time. :)
Why weren’t the boys told to ask each other for a gay kiss? Sexist haters!
It’s easy to wield authority when you bear no responsibility.
Exactly. And home-schooling will eventually be a thing of the past.
You and I pretty succinctly established in past conversation, the witting/unwitting essence of SSM is will to power. The essence of will to power is the break down in the distinction between public and private: the world has no objective meaning. “It’s easy to wield authority when you bear no responsibility.”
No responsibility means: If there is nothing like natural right, then we have no reasonable claim against those who may rule us in ways not to our liking. The rulers may not listen to us in any case, but there is no reason for them to accede to us if our claims merely reflect our idiosyncratic preferences. Might would then make right.
More here.
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. ·12 hours ago
As a resident of the even more liberal Arlington, Virginia, I agree.
“Ford forbid…”
Psychology, mass media, and so much more. “Polly Trotsky” is greatness. One last quote:
Can they have an NRA shirt. Good gravy.
Not even safe there anymore. The priest principal of a Jesuit high school in New York recently granted permission for two openly gay boys to go to the prom as a couple.
Getting phone updates Fricosis. Tied up baby.
I see that they also helpfully handed out instructional materials, including a page of specific definitions of LGBTQ..
“One parent commented that she didn’t even know the meaning of “pansexual.” Another pointed out that including the name of the organization ALLY in the title could mean that the school district had an agenda.”
Also, were you aware we had to pass laws to prevent the stereotype that guys never ask for directions?
“The school began the program this year in an effort to comply with the 2012 state law called the Dignity for All Students Act….
Part of the program’s purpose, according to LAMS Guidance Counselor Ryan Carney, was to confront gender stereotypes such as “guys never ask for directions,” and for the boys, to tell them “they really can express emotion.”
8th Grader Gender Workshop Ignites Furor
http://www.rhobserver.com/15564/8th-grade-gender-workshops-ignite-furor/
Oops, wrong thread and cannot edit. Sorry Denise. You know what bugs me here is not the gay sex but the presumption to raise my kid. We must destroy the teachers union.
“No slippery slope”, my you-know-what.
You want acceptance? You want people to view you as normal, this stuff has to stop. ·13 hours ago
EJ, I mentioned this very in my debate with GFL several days ago. His response was “so spend your time fighting this nonsense. I’ll join you.” The thing that he won’t see, is that SSM creates this “nonsense”. It imposes this “nonsense.”
Advocates of SSM on Ricochet think they are being open-minded, but they are the true dogmatists: dogmatic becausedogmatically skeptical about nature tells us. SSM exists because no one can tell the difference between a man and a woman anymore.
It’s been my experience that you can’t get homosexual advocates to engage in a discussion about moral truth and moral objectivity. They shut you down and say you’re not humble. They equate subjectivism with humility and dismissively state that any discussion about howwe know right from wrong objectivelyis intolerably arrogant.
Exactly. Invoking natural standards (none of my arguments against SSM derive from tradition or divine revelation) is reflexively seen as rationalization; bigotry. But the very attempt to secure homosexuals’ freedom will undermine it.
SSM advocates have no standard whatsoever.
The actual substance of their arguments is will to power — even of good people like Jospeph Eagar and Tom Myer. Spin out their unacknowledged presuppositions and all arguments for the domestication of homosexuality are inevitably Nietzschean: the full affirmation of individuality. Homo eroticism in ancient Greece was precisely the opposite; no society has ever attempted the domestication of “homosexuality” — a word of modern ideology.
DocJay —no worries, and you’re right. Rousseau’s philosophy to replace parents with the state is alive and well in our school system.
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;
Wow, published in 1955. It is amazing to see how quickly this came into the mainstream.
You’re exactly right, Katie. There is a direct link between the two, which supporters of redefining marriage will deny till the cows come home.
Another example of how public education is irredeemably and irremediably flawed.
The only solution is separating government funding of education from government provision. Give vouchers to parents so they can choose where their children go to school. It will make the school administrators actually accountable to the parents who would be free to take their children and funding elsewhere.
and people wonder why the home schooling moment continues to grow day by day…
Shouldn’t the girls have been asking “May I kiss you?” And doesn’t this further indict the school system? First things first.
The Left will not tolerate it much longer. Watch.
I’m going to start paying the my kids private school a little more each month.