Gateway Pundit falsely suggests Jennings' organization handed out explicit safe-sex booklet to children
The Gateway Pundit blog falsely suggested that the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, a group founded and formerly headed by Department of Education official Kevin Jennings, had distributed to children an explicit safe-sex booklet. In fact, a community health group -- not GLSEN itself -- reportedly said that it had mistakenly "left about 10 copies" of the booklet on an informational table it rented at a 2005 GLSEN conference at Brookline High School in Massachusetts; the group reportedly apologized for doing so; GLSEN stated that if it had known the booklets had been at the conference, it would have demanded they be removed; and the Brookline school superintendent reportedly said he believed no students had actually taken the book.
Gateway Pundit: "children who attended" GLSEN conference "left with their own" booklet
In a December 9 Gateway Pundit post -- subsequently reposted on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com -- Jim Hoft wrote:
But that's not all. The children who attended Kevin Jennnings' GLSEN Conference also left with their own "Little Black Book -- Queer in the 21st Century".
This book exposes the young teens to--
Rimming -- Fisting -- Water Sports (Pi$$ Play) -- Toys
It's what every teen needs to know...[...]
The page titled "How safe is dat?" introduces young teens to fisting, rimming, and watersports (pi$$ing on your partner). Shouldn't every teen know this?
And in case any of the teens got bored, GLSEN was also kind enough to include a list of the local gay bars in the booklet distributed to high school students.
Fenway Health -- not GLSEN -- mistakenly brought 10 copies of booklet banned under GLSEN policy to the conference
Fenway Community Health apologized for "accidentally making available a small number of copies" of booklet at GLSEN conference. In a May 19, 2005, article, The Boston Globe reported:
Fenway Community Health officials yesterday said they left about 10 copies of the ''Little Black Book" on an informational table they rented at a conference sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network of Boston. The annual event, held on April 30 at Brookline High School, was aimed at high school students, educators, counselors, administrators, and parents.
The ''Little Black Book," produced by the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts, is targeted at 18-and-older gay men, according to the committee. The book uses vivid descriptions and colloquial terms to describe the ways HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases can be prevented and spread.
A Fenway Community Health employee brought the pamphlets along with other materials and put them on the table by mistake, said Chris Viveiros, a spokesman for Fenway Community Health.
''Fenway Community Health regrets accidentally making available a small number of copies of the Little Black Book, an HIV-prevention publication for gay and bisexual men over the age of 18, at an event where young people were present," said Dr. Stephen Boswell, Fenway Community Health's president and CEO.
According to its website, Fenway Health "provides high quality, comprehensive health care" to "its community, which includes those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender"; its physicians "hold faculty appointments at Harvard Medical School"; and its "[r]esearch affiliations include Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Brown University Medical School."
GLSEN: Organization policy bans "sexually explicit material," book would not have been allowed if they knew about it. From the Globe article:
Sean Haley, executive director of the education network, which sponsored the conference, added: ''We have very clear policies that sexually explicit material of any kind will not be made available at the conference. Had I seen the book, I would have asked them to put it away."
At the start of the event, Haley said, network officials scanned each of the 10 tables it had rented, for $35 apiece, to outside groups. He said nobody saw the pamphlet at the time. ''We're just going to have to be more rigorous in our review of materials," he said.
Haley said that about 500 people attended the conference, roughly half of them students. He said only ''a handful" were younger than high-school aged.
Superintendent reportedly said he believed no students had received the book
On May 18, 2005, WHDH 7News Boston's Sean Hennessey reported that Brookline Superintendent of Schools William H. Lupini says that "none of his students, he believes, took the [Fenway] book home."
Gateway Pundit part of right wing's anti-gay war on Jennings
Gateway Pundit advanced smear that Jennings promoted "Child Porn in the Classroom." Hoft was the first of several conservative bloggers to claim Jennings is unfit as "Safe Schools Czar" because he supposedly promoted "child porn" by allowing GLSEN to recommend for students in grades 7-12 books that included sexually explicit content. The organization, however, specifically stated on its book list website that "some titles for adolescent readers contain mature themes" and recommended that "adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability"; further, schools regularly teach books that contain sexually explicit material.
Media conservatives attacked Jennings with homophobic, extreme rhetoric. In their attacks on Jennings, numerous conservative media figures have resorted to thinly veiled homophobic appeals to paint Jennings, who is gay, as a "radical" "gay activist" with an "agenda" of "promoting homosexuality in schools."
Fox News, others ran with falsehood that Jennings "cover[ed] up statutory rape." Fox News and other media advanced the falsehood that Jennings, in the words of Fox News host Bill Hemmer, knew of a "statutory rape" and "never reported it." While pushing this attack on Jennings, these media figures ignored evidence that the student who told Jennings about his relationship with an older man was of legal age, and Media Matters for America has since confirmed that the student was of legal age and that these smears of Jennings were scurrilous and false. The former student at the center of the Jennings controversy, whom Jennings has referred to as "Brewster," provided Media Matters with a statement that he "was of legal consent at the time." Additionally, Media Matters obtained a copy of the student's driver's license, which shows that he was 16 at the time -- the legal age of consent in Massachusetts.
Media manufactured Jennings-NAMBLA link. The Fox Nation and The Washington Examiner linked Jennings to the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) based on a 1997 speech in which Jennings praised gay rights activist Harry Hay, who had spoken in support of the organization. But like many obituaries written about Hay upon his death in 2002, Jennings was touting Hay as a gay civil rights pioneer for his role in helping start "the first ongoing gay rights groups in America" in 1948, and Jennings' comments had nothing to do with NAMBLA.
Even if the charges were true, what's wrong with that?
This is like every time someone gets "victimized", conservative news outlets claim children or youth were affected...
----------------------------------------------------------
The Midnight Review
So effing what?
You people make WAAAY to big a deal out of BS like this.
It's called the INTERNET. The only thing a booklet like that would do for 99% of "children" 14 and up (HS aged = not children!) would confirm whether the "knowledge" they'd already acquired was accurate or not.
You conservtaives need to seriously GROW the F--- UP.
This is just one more of those completely harmless things that just looks bad. And it only looks bad because there are still a critical mass of people out there (on the Right) who are afraid of everything and everyone around them.
No demonstrable harm can possibly be done by this alone. Period.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teenagers reading about sex! Oooooo! Next there'll be dancing!
You liberals need to mind your own business.
Disseminating (factual and important) information isn't nosing into anyone's decision.
You nutjobs need to face reality.
And besides: no one is forcing anything on anyone. The information was their for someone to voluntarily pick up. It wasn't required reading for school course or anything, so there's no "parental rights" being denied here. This is not about me violating a parent's rights. This is about a parent trying to keep their "child" in childhood indefinitely. To keep them sheltered and ignorant out of nothing more than fear and superstition.
Obviously I have no right to FORCE the info on ANYONE. But that's not what's going here! OTOH, if I have information that someone is SEEKING FOR THEMSELVES, there is no reason they should not be able to access ACCURATE INFORMATION.
-------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the internet age, dude. Where a parent's goal of maintaining their child's innocence well into their 30's is just no longer practical.
And BTW... I had my first sex-ed class in a public school, in the 5th grade. That's age 10. And this was about 25 years ago, in the Red-State of Virginia, in a heavily Republican District. So my education on the matter was hardly the result of liberal interferecne or new-thinking.
I'm sure that the info in that pamphlet was far more tame (not to mention more accurate and objective) than what they'd find with 10 seconds to themselves and Google.
I suppose you rather a Gay teenager talk to their homophibic, hyper-religious, protect them from all that "evil knowledge out there," parents?
--------------------------------------------
Yeah... I'm sure they'd be real open-minded. A great source of information.
Tommy must think that just by talking about sex, these teenagers are going to organize mass orgies. He also must be ignorant to the fact that 14 year olds are having sex that produce babies.
I had sex ed taught to me in the 8th grade. My parents had yet to give me "the talk". I didn't immediately turn into a sex fiend.
Parents have every right to teach their kids that sex is dirty and naughty and something to fear and/or ignore. But, they cannot expect rational, adult educators to be complicit in this fairy tale. And, their future partners will probably not appreciate the awful sex they have to endure later, either.
Accurate information is what young men and women need more of, not less. If someone really chooses to shelter their children and protect them from a factually accurate education, then keep them home and home-school them. School should be a place of learning. This learning should not be halted or hindered because a few kids in the class have parents that don't want their kids to know why they were born with a "hoo-hoo" or a "ha-ha".
As usual, adults tend to completely underestimate the cognitive ability of young adults. Teaching young people about sex does not and will not encourage bad behavior. In fact, there is much more evidence that suggests it will encourage better decisions.
The simple fact is that these homosexual organizations are two-faced. To the public they talk about equality, tolerance, safety, etc. In private they are pushing deviant, dangerous behaviors on ever-younger children because they enjoy young boys. Say whatever you want, but the evidence is out there for anyone seeking it.
However, I would not say that this is porn, if that is what you are inferring. At least, not good porn.
Also, gay men do not "enjoy young boys". Those are pedophiles. The fact that you do not see or know that there is a difference, tip your hand. This pamphlet is actually warning young gay men on how to be safe. If you were able to read it rationally without letting your personal morals get in the way, I think you would see that.
And I hope no one thinks I'm saying that it was GOOD that this info was being handed out. I'm not suggestig that "fisting" (or whatever) should be part of the standard sex-ed class. I'm not. But I DO say that:
1) There no harm in knowing what ANY given terms Means, what the associated risks are, waht % of people prctice it, and why someone might, provided that the info is accurate.
2) That the Right is going WAAAAY out on a limb here, blowing it out of proportion, and then trying to pin it all on Jennings, as if he thinks this is something that shoudl be taught to kindergarteners or something.
And what's worse? Handing a "child" (and again, 14-18 is no longer a child) a booklet or THIS STUFF?!
-------------------------------------------------
The Right's house is far from clearn here, and I hat hypocrisy far more than any other vice.
The group admitted that they made a mistake in having the pamphlet available at the event. They admitted their mistake so I don't know why you defend them when they don't defend themselves.
It's not the end of the world.
My points are merely as follows:
1) You lot always blow this kind of stuff way out of proportion, and hypocritically so.
and
2) This has nothing at all to do with Jennings. This is guilt by association, by asscociation, by association with someone who made a mistake.
There just nothing here to run with. It's a non-story, at least on the national level. And even at a local level, this is STILL just not that big a deal. To make a BIG STORY out of this is to be stuck in an idealized version of the 1950's.
--------------------------------------------------
But the mole is getting out his rope and pitons anyway!
Does that fall under the no harm clause?
Besides: How much you want to bet that 99.9% of "children" (again, I'll keep saying it, 14-18 are not children) that see something like that, conclude, "Holy S#!t, I'M sure as hell never doing that!" And the remaining 0.01% are the ones who would have done it anyway.
Rather than ask me rhetorical questions, why don't you answer mine: How is a "child" harmed by looking at a picture, or even seeing a movie for that matter?
Let's stop taking your conclusion as a given in this discussion. Tell me how they are HARMED.
And don't weasel out of this by going off-topic! In asking the question, I'm not advocating that they ALL be shown this stuff. Is it "inappropriate?" Of course it is. But HARMFUL? You'll have to convince me of that.
--------------------------------------------------
IMHO no one has ever been harmed by looking at a picture.
Please, point us all to your evidence that you on the right are doing such a good job at educating / protecting children from the dangers of sex.
It's NOT WORKING!!! Ask Bristol Palin . .
I bet the chapter on reproductive anatomy in my 10th grade biology text book was just as explicit.
But dishonest posters try to veer the discussion to that to soften what they first poster, and some other wack jobs here think is perfectly acceptable for underage minors.
Grow up.
I followed the thread of the discussion and I think I overlooked the first two or so posts. I was under the impression that the topic of conversation had shifted. My bad.
But I also think people need to stop being so paranoid about sheltering teenagers from the reality of sex. Whether it's a positive thing or not (and I happen to think it's not so positive) kids have sex in high school, regardless of whether they're prepared. And 90% of the reason they do it is because it's "forbidden". Human beings are sexual creatures from the day they're born. We start masturbating as infants. We shouldn't be afraid to have open, honest conversations with teenagers about sex, as if we might somehow corrupt them.
And I do think it's dishonest of these pundits to suggest that GLSEN or Kevin Jennings bears the responsibility for this incident. I hope you'll agree.
I also don't think I deserved that "grow up".
And sex education should be a part of every middle school curriculum. We should not shy away from teaching facts because they are uncomfortable. Having said that, I completely agree that this pamphlet is not written for children. Just using some of the terms they do, it seems pretty clear to me it was written for young adults to read.
Yet earlier, you posted...
You are on record.
I asked for clarification of your aparent contradictory statements. I have not stated my view on the appropriatness of the pamphlet in question. And as far as that goes, I would be ok with SOME minors receiving that information as there are SOME minors who get involved in some wild stuff at an early age.
And who do you think you are to state something like "You are on record" when I haven't addressed the actual pamphlet at all.
And reflexively disagree with you? Wow, somone's full of themselves, cause yeah, I never reply to anyone else here.
So then you won't start going off on me when I try to clarify your posts which are not really that clear as to their meaning.
If you support "information such as this" being distributed to children on fisting and rimming and you agree with t-man, then just say so. Stop being such wimps and trying to tell me I meant something else. You, and the others, look like fools.
Enjoy your day.
Besides, you followed up the post in question with:"Explicit safe sex booklets to children who are not your own?" You didn't mention the fisting and other acts at the time, because those specifics were not part of the conversation then. You only started harping on those once they were later brought up. It seems sort of hard to believe that you didn't think it was relevant to mention those specifics originally in response to Niceguyeddie's post, while you do so repeatedly later on.
I'm going to bet you're stretching the truth. If your tenth grade biology text had examples of rimming and fisting, then no wonder we're in such bad shape in this country.
No one was handing any explicity safe-sex booklets to children under 18.
See, I WISH parents would give age appropriate information (facts) to their kids regarding sex/reproduction. That does not appear to be happening as often as it should given the rates of STI and unwanted teen pregnancies. So in the absence of responsible adults, schools seem like a good place to fill that information void.
When you are left of MMfA on these issues, I'd suggest a little therapy is in order, or at least stay away from children. Even MMfA calls them children because in the eyes of the law, they are.
Anyway, I think the responses you received is due to the fact you have left the impression that educators should have no role in sex education when you post things like this (which is what I was actually responding to)...
So that was what I was addressing, not the pamphlet per se, but your contention that educators have no role in disseminating this info.
And then you post something like this above here..
After posting this...
In a reply to this from Bruce...
Which I read as bruce conflating the Fenway Community Health with GLSEN. Which is exactly what Gateway Pundit appears to have done.
Anyway, carry on in your bubble where teenagers never have sex.
"GLSEN stated that if it had known the booklets had been at the conference, it would have demanded they be removed."
I do appreciate your correction.
Well I was.
Care to address the fact that you approved of bruce making an erroneous statement? Just glossed over that, didn't you Tommy? I mean at least bruce realized his error.
Massachussets News--Fistgate Archive
MassResistance
------------------------------------------------------
IMHO
All attacking Jennings within 24 hours. Coincident? Coordinated?
Did I miss the memo about this being "Destroy Kevin Jennings Week"?
Just asking.
-----------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Come on, the dirty airport B-A-F-F-R-O-O-M ??
YUCK . .
I mean, you actually want 14-year-olds to be able to learn how to urinate on someone??!! Just because it's ON THE INTERNET, as if THAT MAKES IT OK??!! And then comparing fisting and "water sports" to DANCING??!! Not to mention making the moronic claim that 14-year-olds pay taxes!!! Come on, people!!! Where do you draw the line?? Do you think 14-year-olds should be able to learn about S&M? Or cunnilingis, or any other perverted act??
PLEASE!!!Some of you people need serious help (especially NiceguyEddie, who I wouldn't be surprised if he was a NAMBLA member)!!!
The women must love you!
Cunnilingus is a perverted act?
Do you think for one moment that a child, any child past the age of two has to be taught that he or she can urinate ON something or someone?
Teens under the age of 18 know more about sex these days then their parents can teach them. TV, movies, internet, and books contain all types of things that kids' parent deem inappropriate.
It all goes back to sex education and explaining to the children about sex. Of course age does come into question when parents deem it appropriate to talk about sex. All kids need to understand sex from the point they start puberty.
Abstinance will not do it, parents need to be smarter and come to reality and teach their children about sex, because they will be surprised to know what their children already know before the parents get the chance to teach them!
Media Matters and the readers who accept this nonsense are promoting the idea that elementary school children should be having sex in the bathroom (an except from a book promoted by GLSEN). The teeny tiny explicit content warning does not change the fact that the content is perverted. Why are they suggesting that children read this? To goal of this organization is to NORMALIZE this behavior. To claim that this is a small part of what they do is to ignore the fact that for them to do this AT ALL is unacceptable. It is only a small part of what they do because otherwise they recognize they would be called out on it.
And that's why Jennings should NOT be in charge of education.
Now, do you have any proof that Jennings knew about the pamphlet and it's presence at the conference?