Just when did ‘progressive’ become a synonym for ‘perverted’?
Teacher has kids tasting flavored condoms
About the last thing I would expect a teacher to tell girls in the 9th grade is to put his condoms in their mouths. The New Mexico Health Department disagrees; they think it’s wonderfully appropriate.
According to a report in the Santa Fe New Mexican, parent Lisa Gallegos said that when her 15-year-old daughter balked at putting a condom in her mouth, instructor Tony Escudero told her, “Come on, sweetie, have a little fun.”
…
“I agree with sex ed 100 percent,” Gallegos, whose daughter attends Santa Fe High School, told the paper. “I also teach it here at my home. But I think that was inappropriate and wrong 100 percent.”
Dorothy Danfelser, deputy director for the public-health division of the state Health Department, said the incident was investigated and there was nothing improper about the lesson. After all, doing oral condom tricks is an important part of a parochial education. Girls who master even the basics can make hundreds of dollars a night, depending on how much their g-strings will hold.
The defense of the administration and the teacher is that this is all being done to destigmatize condoms and make teens feel comfortable handling and using them. I’m all for safe sex but when exactly do we pass the line of instruction and enter the realm of coaching?
(Tip credit to Jack Mitcham)
I hope what Dorothy Danfelser said (see above) doesn’t include the part about “doing oral condom tricks”. It is not clear from this posting.
This sounds fishy. I don’t know anyone who would support making kids taste condoms! Did this really happen? Or perhaps the administration and public health are saying that this didn’t happen the way the child claimed it did….. While we love and believe our kids, sometimes they do expand upon incidents.
barry
No, that was my own bit of snideness there, Barry. Although the officials support the condoms in the mouth portion of the lesson they stopped short of taking it to an unsavory conclusion.
What the…
I’d wonder if this was real, but you can’t make this stuff up, really.
Check out what goes on in MA. One district attorney glibly told a mother that MA schools, museums, and libraries were EXEMPT from state pornography laws when she complained about what she thought was a pornographic book on a required reading list at her son’s public high school. And people wonder why home schooling is growing by leaps and bounds? For a rather small state that has very restrictive homeschooling laws, there are about 50,000 homeschoolers in the state of MA.
Below is a fairly recent case from MA. (Massachusetts is also famous for introducing the homosexual agenda into its schools (want to learn how to “fist”?), but that’s another story.)
Many (not all) public schools today are useless at best and very detrimental to your child’s emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual health at worst.
The case:
Brown v. Hot, Sexy, And Safer Productions, Inc. (1st Cir. 1995)
The U.S. Court of Appeals For The First Circuit several years ago issued a decision calling into question whether a parent’s right to direct the upbringing of his child is protected by the Constitution. 53 F. 3d. 152 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied (1996).
On April 8, 1992, the Chelmsford (Massachusetts) High School held two mandatory, school-wide assemblies for ninth through twelfth grades. The school district contracted through the chairperson of the PTO with a performer, Suzi Landolphi, head of “Hot, Sexy, and Safer Productions”, to present an AIDS awareness program for $1000.
According to the Complaint, during her presentation, Ms. Landolphi: “1) told the students that they were going to have a ‘group sexual experience, with audience participation’; 2) used profane, lewd, and lascivious language to describe body parts and excretory functions; 3) advocated and approved oral sex, masturbation, homosexual sexual activity, and condom use during promiscuous premarital sex; 4) simulated masturbation; 5) characterized the loose pants worn by one minor as ‘erection wear’; 6) referred to being in ‘deep shit’ after anal sex; 7) had a male minor lick an oversized condom with her, after which she had a female minor pull it over the male minor’s entire head and blow it up;
encouraged a male minor to display his ‘orgasm face’ with her for the camera; 9) informed a male minor that he was not having enough orgasms; 10) closely inspected a minor and told him he had a ‘nice butt’; and 11) made eighteen references to orgasms, six references to male genitals, and eight references to female genitals.” 68 F. 3d at 529.
Before contracting with Ms. Landolphi, the school physician and PTO chairperson had previewed a video showing segments of Ms. Landolphi’s performance. School officials, including the school superintendent, were present at the assemblies. They knew in advance what she would say and how she would say it. But no advance notification of the presentation was given to parents, despite a school policy stating that written parental permission was a prerequisite to health classes dealing with human sexuality.
The parents of two students sued on behalf of themselves and their children, alleging that the school district had violated their privacy rights and their substantive due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, their procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, their RFRA rights and their Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment. The district court dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(6), and the First Circuit affirmed.
In its discussion of the substantive protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the parent’s right to rear his children, after discussing Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), the First Circuit stated in dictum:
“Nevertheless, the Meyer and Pierce cases were decided well before the current “right to privacy” jurisprudence was developed, and the Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the right to direct the upbringing and education of one’s children is among those fundamental rights whose infringement merits heightened scrutiny. We need not decide here whether the right to rear one’s children is fundamental because we find that, even if it were, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate an intrusion of constitutional magnitude on this right.”
68 F. 3d at 532 (footnote omitted)(emphasis supplied.)
The First Circuit then rejected the plaintiffs’ free exercise claim. First, the court questioned “whether the Free Exercise Clause even applies to public education.” 68 F. 3d at 536. Second, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that their parental rights were protected by the Free Exercise Clause under the “hybrid exception,” noted in Employment Division v. Smith, for “the right of parents, acknowledged in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) to direct the education of their children, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).” Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 881 (1990). The First Circuit stated:
“[A]s we explained, the plaintiffs’ allegations of interference with family relations and parental prerogatives do not state a privacy or substantive due process claim. Their free exercise challenge is thus not conjoined with an independently protected constitutional protection.”
68 F. 3d at 539.
Virtually all public school districts in the U.S. receive federal funds. So H.R. 1691 would once again level the playing field for parents who, for reasons of religious conscience, wish to have their child “opt out” of objectionable instruction such as this.
This story only made the papers when someone leaked a video to a local Christian radio station. The Boston papers later grudgingly covered the story, portraying the complaining family as “Christian fundamentalists.”
Forget the 1st amendment… I think the 9th amendment pretty much covers the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their own children. That is one of the most basic rights known to humans.
If attendance was compulsory, and enrollment is compelled by the state, how is it not “an intrusion of Constitutional magnitude”?
I’d agree about the 9th amendment, though. There were several allegations in her complaint which are severely problematic even without bringing religion into the picture, while casting this as a “free exercise” issue opens the door to exactly the sort of “fundamentalist loon” ad hominem that detracts from the merits of the argument.
The appropriateness (or lack thereof) of the presentation and the permissability of compelling anyone to attend it by force of law have nothing whatsoever to do with the parents’ religious beliefs.
Frankly this kind of outrageousness and stupidity is exactly the reason Danfelser was forced out as NM Human Services Department Secretary in 1996 by then governor Gary Johnson. In fact the New Mexico State Senate refused to confirm her as Secretary. She should not be in government and Johnson was quite correct in getting rid of her when he did - as is plainly obvious based on her backing the teacher the way she did. I hope Michele Lujan-Grisham wises up and sends Danfelser packing as well.