Absence of Remorse: Why Kevin Jennings’ Conduct Matters
There are times when a critic chimes in in a civil tone in the comment section, adding a wrinkle to the story under consideration (in the post at hand) that causes me to reconsider my conclusion. Such was the care Jody took in distinguishing the era when the teen confided in then-teacher Kevin Jennings that he had been having sex with an adult from the world today Then, there weren’t the support groups we now have. Had the boy reported this to the authorities, this might have forced the kid out, making his sexuality known and putting him in the spotlight.
Fair points. It may have hurt the teenager more had his case become public.
And while that comment (and others in a similar vein) have caused me to reconsider my view, after considerable thought I return to my original conclusion: Jennings should resign from his position in the federal Department of Education.
Had this story come out because a friend in whom he had confided revealed it, I might be less inclined to see him leave his current post. But, recall that he volunteered this information in a book and in a public conference. His references to the story indicate he thought he handled the situation properly. Not once in the statements he made before this week (that I could find online*) does he even say (or appear to suggest) that he should have handled the situation differently (as he did in his statement on Tuesday).
It is particularly troubling that he did not discourage the boy from having sex with adults. If reporting the incident might have created undue hardship on the student, why not then warn him both about the dangers of unsafe sex as well as about the perils of having sex with men you meet in public lavatories. He could inform the boy that men who have sex with teens usually take advantage of them, likely causing great emotional pain and creating psychological problems which may well plague him into adulthood.
That he would continue to write about the incident –sharing it with a mass audience — without showing any remorse, any second thoughts suggests he oblivious to the psychological issues. Such encounters leave emotional scars. And didn’t we read about those scars when the Catholic Church continued to allow priests who had molested altar boys to continue to preside over parishes?
We all make mistakes in life and often handle situations which, upon further reflection, we believe we should have handled differently. That Mr. Jennings didn’t reconsider his actions with the boy he called “Brewster,” while repeatedly talking about it until the publicity of those actions could hurt his career speaks to his unfitness to serve in the Department of Education.
It’s unfortunate that left-wing bloggers have been slurring those who have been criticizing Jennings’s conduct, calling them “anti-gay.” Hardly. Gay people should want our leaders to protect gay teenagers from predatory adults. We should want them to develop a healthy attitude toward sexuality. It’s not anti-gay to criticize Jennings’s actions. Instead, it shows concern for the welfare of a gay teen.
If it’s inappropriate or bigoted to criticize Jennings, then the whole hullabaloo over the Catholic Church’s failure to prevent pedophiliac priests from having contact with young boys was nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.
*If such a statement exists, it would make the case for keeping him stronger.
76 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hey, buddy. Good post.
Disagree with swaths of it — as usual — but I get your point. I actually agree with one of your comments below about Jennings apology striking you as hollow, as more politically motivated than personal. Me too. (Or maybe I’m thinking of your Clinton / Gay Marriage / nothing-at-stake post. I agreed with you there, also.)
I personally don’t think Jennings has anything to apologize for. I think he made a tough call in an era where there wasn’t much in the way of options, then spent the next 20 years creating the options that he’d wished he’d had. Two years after this incident, Jennings goes on to found GLSEN, an alliance of educators to bring the issues of gay teens to light. In 1993, he was instrumental in working with Republican Governor William Weld on creating the Governor’s Commission on Gay Youth, which led the way in changing hostile school and social services environments to account for and deal positively with gay teens. I think he really has spent his life trying to make things better, easier, safer for young adults who happen to be gay. In other words, he’s earned his job.
You write that “…it is particularly troubling that he did not discourage the boy from having sex with adults.” I can’t imagine that he didn’t do that. All of us working with teens were doing that. As a newly minted 23 year old AIDS Educator and, later, social worker, I was doing that. My boss was doing that. But we were also teaching young people about safer sex. They aren’t children. They aren’t full on adults either, but calling them “kids” or “children” isn’t accurate on any level. A teen is a different kind of headache altogether.
Sometimes, with some teens, in some situations, pointing out that they don’t have to have sex works like a charm. They’ll wait. Sometimes, with some teens, in some situations, all that you could do was be the voice saying “put a rubber on.” And that would work. There’s harm prevention and there’s harm reduction. Kids, typically, you can prevent harms from happening to them. Teens and adults, you are mostly working at reducing levels of harm, because so much is out of your hands.
That’s what Jennings did in 1988… reduce harm. From the reports I read today, it at least sounds like “Brewster” navigated the rest of his adolescence fairly safely and made it to adulthood reasonably well intact. That’s a damn good outcome, one I don’t think Jennings has to be ashamed of.
But I do understand your point and concern.
Comment by Jody — October 2, 2009 @ 5:07 am - October 2, 2009
The law regarding adult/child sexual conduct is black and white; usually one day separates completely legal from felonious activity. The reality is probably that there are shades of gray, but your comment that an older man met in a restroom is not likely to be one to build a future with is a good one–such relationships often feature power imbalances and manipulation (this is not necessarily just true with under-agers, of course).
However, Jennings was probably in a position where he wasn’t allowed (at least officially) to exercise discretion. He probably had a requirement to report illegal sexual conduct if he became aware of it. Take that plus the odious NAMBLA-esque angle and this makes him look completely unfit for his current position. His contrition now does not come across as particularly genuine.
Comment by Spectator — October 2, 2009 @ 6:28 am - October 2, 2009
Jody said what I was feeling better than I did. Thank you.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 2, 2009 @ 7:57 am - October 2, 2009
Starting in the late 1960′s, the Commonwealth of Virginia had a law requiring teachers to notify the designated person in the school of incidents like “Brewster’s.” It did not involve anything in writing and it did not go into any permanent record. It was handled by a psychologist who investigated and weighed the facts. Could the kid have been “outed” in the process? I can not say if would not happen, but it certainly was never part of the process.
Kids this age get into sexual messes with parents, relatives, neighbors, employers and a whole garbage truck full of possibilities.
Teachers would rather not have to deal with these things, but that is not the way the world works. What is certain is that no teacher has the experience and the innate common sense to get it right every time something comes crashing in from out of the blue.
I am no expert on 15 year old gays. But there are plenty of people trained to deal with this side of any 15 year old. More than one “straight” teacher has gone down in flames for mishandling some young stud or vixen. That should not be news to anyone.
OK, so Jennings was 24 and 1988 was supposedly the dark ages. That still does not mean that what he chose to do then has been valuable learning for qualifying him to be the “safe schools czar.”
How anyone can view his self promoted error a resume enhancement is beyond my understanding.
Comment by heliotrope — October 2, 2009 @ 7:59 am - October 2, 2009
The sex of the two people involved is completely immaterial. It is the age disparity, period. Children are not adults. They are vulnerable to being preyed upon by those who care only about their own desires.
Jennings has proven himself incapable of safeguarding students. He is therefore not competent to serve in this post – a post which falls completely out of the purview of legal federal authority anyway.
Comment by Obi-Wandreas — October 2, 2009 @ 8:06 am - October 2, 2009
+1 with Heliotrope here.
I mean if it were a young girl, would we be having this discussion? Yeah yeah, he survived, happy ending, blah blah blah. If he’d died horribly at the hands of the 50 year old, we’d not be cheering his decision.
It boils down to he willfully violated a law meant to protect a minor. Now he’s sorry.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 2, 2009 @ 8:11 am - October 2, 2009
We don’t know if anyone died because of Jennings–whether they got AIDS or committed suicide or were beaten to death as the result of his advice. If this was a pattern, there is likely a whole bunch of kids who suffered due to his neglect. Why is it so hard for the gay community to admit that there are a lot of older guys who exploit young gays and even more older guys who look the other way? Exactly how is the gay community different than those in the Catholic Church who looked the other way?
Jennings and Letterman and Goldberg show me the amorality of the left, as if I needed a reminder.
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 2, 2009 @ 9:46 am - October 2, 2009
[...] then, left-leaning websites, some gay advocates (although a notable exception is Gaypatriot who says Jennings should resign) and CNN have commented further on the matter, defending Jennings. At issue is [...]
Pingback by Does Brewster’s age matter? — Warren Throckmorton — October 2, 2009 @ 10:34 am - October 2, 2009
We don’t know if anyone died because of Jennings–whether they got AIDS or committed suicide or were beaten to death as the result of his advice. If this was a pattern, there is likely a whole bunch of kids who suffered due to his neglect.
That’s a tough call, Ashpenaz. What if he reported the incident, and it led to the parents finding out, who then made it tough on the kid, and then he ended up committing suicide?
Why is it so hard for the gay community to admit that there are a lot of older guys who exploit young gays and even more older guys who look the other way?
No one here is denying this. What we don’t necessarily agree with is when you say “most” older gay men behave this way. In fact, you seem to be the only one who seems to find yourself surrounded with these predators, and with gay teens who become victims to these predators.
Comment by Pat — October 2, 2009 @ 11:10 am - October 2, 2009
I remember seeing it first from Gene. And, I disagree. As you acknowledge a few paragraphs later, Jennings should have instinctively explainedto the kid that the 50 year old was a predatory creep, that it wasn’t a good idea for the kid to be having sex with the predator and if the kid wanted out, Jennings would be there to help him. To the best of my knowledge, Jennings never took any of those positions.
All that is true… but it’s not the whole story. It subtly implies that, if the kid were to come through the relationship with the predator with no such damage, then it would all be OK. NO. It is wrong, IN AND OF ITSELF, for adults to be having sex with kids.
It doesn’t matter if the kid never got AIDS, never had her head chopped off by a psycho, or allegedly “liked it” or “took no harm from it”. The act itself is exploitation and a violation of what the relations between kids and adults are supposed to be. Show me a kid who “liked it” or “took no harm from it”, and I will show you a kid who in fact suffered the greatest harm of all: the destruction of his or her sense of morality and personal boundaries.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2009 @ 11:55 am - October 2, 2009
P.S. With all due respect: When Jody calls you “buddy”, that’s not a great sign.
I can’t imagine that Jennings did. I’m going by Jennings’ own accounts. He carefully, repeatedly framed his tale as one where he was 100% supportive of the kids actions and told him how to do it better (i.e., using condoms etc.), and was rewarded even years afterward with a big “smile” from the kid that reminded Jennings “why he had become a teacher” or some such. Believe me: if someone as boastful as Jennings had instead done the right thing with the kid (see my comment above), we would be hearing about that. The more so, now that Jennings is in the public line of fire.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2009 @ 11:59 am - October 2, 2009
Jody, your attitude is sick.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2009 @ 12:00 pm - October 2, 2009
Meanwhile, over on Planet Ash, it’s back with the Salem Witch trials.
1) There is no “gay community”…
2) Countless gays do easily and readily admit the existence in the world of older guys who are sexual predators – and who should be locked up for their actions…
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2009 @ 12:02 pm - October 2, 2009
Would any of the people here calling for Jennings’ resignation care to provide proof to all the harm he did? Honestly, what would you have LIKED to happened? Jennings outs the kids, takes him to the police, hopes the police care enough or are sensitive enough about gay issues to care enough to get the kid’s cooperation in going back to a bus station bathroom, finding the SAME guy who “raped” him, and putting him in jail??? The fact is, all but a handful of states have since changed their laws or no longer prosecute many of these sorts of cases. They see no point in committing resources to destroy people’s lives for actions by consenting persons.
A 15 yr old is now a “child”? Is this the major disagreement? Most 15 yr olds drive, have more tech savvy than most adults, are already thinking, planning and working towards college, most have tried drinking or drugs, a great deal are already knowledgeable about sex if they’re not having it on a regular basis, many even have children of their own. If it weren’t 1988 this same kid would probably already be on craigslist instead of the bus station bathroom lying about his age. This grand crime and storyline you have about Jennings not only harming others but being involved in NAMBLA because of a story he recounted about trying to help a young man is unbelievable.
There were resources in place? We need to take ourselves out of this narrow 2009 mentality of how things work. I doubt you could get a fair trial NOW with the lack of sensitivity of the media, cops, courts and all other parties involved. You’re going to tell me you could get a 15 yr old in 1988 who is trolling bus stations to testify in court against a guy he saw for 10 minutes? You’re going to hold Jennings to a standard of outing 15 yr olds who tell him stories in confidence to their parents, the school, the media, the law and more? Give me a break! This is the standard in which you want to disqualify him for a job 21 years later? This is beyond liberal esque in the witch hunting mentality of small statements ALLEGEDLY (you couldn’t prove any of this even happened if not by Jennings own admission) made 21 years ago? What other corrobating evidence do you have to even confirm any of this happened? Yet you want him to step down. C’mon. Have some sort of standard of proof and sanity here guys.
Also, what is with the gay bashing on this site by some? I would think at least the moderators of the site wouldn’t characterize or feed into the mentality that all gays are dumb, sluts, whores, pedofiles, drunks, drug addicts, etc? I come here for reasoned political discussion, not gay bashing and regurgitation of archaic stereotypes.
I live in a place where in 2009 I still live with sodomy laws on the books, where I can be fired from my job for being gay, can be kicked out of my home for being gay, still can’t give blood, still don’t have the thousands of marriage rights my neighbor does, etc. And you’re telling me 21 years ago this man should have outed students who tell him vague stories in confidence and subjected them to the firestorm of hyperbole, pain, anguish, and media firestorm that would have been 15 yr old “raped” in bus station in 1988??? Grow up.
Comment by Tim — October 2, 2009 @ 12:05 pm - October 2, 2009
Let’s send out a 15-year old with a hidden camera into the gay community. He tells various people he’s confused. Will the film show:
1. Caring adults who steer him toward a welcoming church community with a pastor and youth group who support him in a decision to wait for sex until marriage
or
2. A Gay Pride/PFLAG group who offer him a box of condoms and say, “Enjoy! Explore!” and then leave him to fend for himself
or
3. A bunch of creepy older guys who offer him drinks and drugs, and then “initiate” him
or
What else is there?
I bet every gay guy on this board, if he started coming out in his teens, was hit on by a lot of older guys, all the time. Tell the truth.
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 2, 2009 @ 12:09 pm - October 2, 2009
Could one of the witch hunters actually point to where this was a 50 yr old man? Since you’re so keen on people checking each other’s ID’s before fucking each other in public bathrooms, I see nothing other than “older man” to indicate this guy was 20 or 50.
Just as I’m sure Jennings didn’t check this sophomore’s ID at the time he came to talk to him. So if he was a sophomore he could easily have been 16, and above the age of consent at the time in Massachusetts. But then again, in this new Orwellian world where you have to check every kid’s ID who walks into your classroom to have a talk, I suppose this isn’t an unusual request for you guys???
Comment by Tim — October 2, 2009 @ 12:12 pm - October 2, 2009
Ash, I love how the only option you can see as “caring” are the religious fundamentalists who’ve been filling his head with visions of hellfire and torment for years before he realizes he’s gay. Somehow telling him if he doesn’t keep it in his pants he’ll suffer eternal pain and damnation from his loved ones doesn’t qualify as “caring” in my book.
Who’s to say the PFLAG people aren’t just as caring? There are many friends, family, counselors, professional associations, meetings, etc that are far more caring and supportive who don’t tell him to have promiscuous sex or do drugs or drink.
Your characterization as caring religious fundamentalists or evil condom distributors is projecting at most, narrow minded in the least.
Comment by Tim — October 2, 2009 @ 12:16 pm - October 2, 2009
That says it all.
Your options 2 and 3 are really the same option – i.e., depraved hedonism. Thus, you see only two options: (1) religious belief, combined with absolute abstinence until a “MARRIAGE” (your word, Ash) that the kid is legally enjoined from ever getting; or else (2) the most depraved hedonism.
As I’ve been saying: It’s the Salem Witch trials, over on Planet Ash.
Not a problem.
1) As a teen, I was never hit on by an older guy, that I know of.
2) As an adult, I was – but so what? I was an adult. And you know what else? I exercised my God-given, adult power to say ‘no’. (Hint. Hint hint hint hint hint)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2009 @ 12:23 pm - October 2, 2009
Clarifications for the record:
- “Not a problem” was in response to Ash’s “Be honest”, which I had meant to include in the blockquote.
- Just because Tim is right at #16, doesn’t mean Tim has been right elsewhere on this issue. Tim’s comments in the other thread have tended to excuse Jennings in a manner that I found sickening. (And I said so.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2009 @ 12:27 pm - October 2, 2009
Ok, so what happens to your 15-year old reporter? What does his film show?
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 2, 2009 @ 1:02 pm - October 2, 2009
That’s a tough call, Ashpenaz. What if he reported the incident, and it led to the parents finding out, who then made it tough on the kid, and then he ended up committing suicide?
So let’s keep our mouth shut and let a fifteen-year-old continue to have promiscuous unsafe sex with much older men in the era during which people were dropping left and right from AIDS.
But that definitely has an advantage in the mind of a gay leftist and antireligious bigot like Jennings; we don’t have to confront the gay community’s morality and behavior and we can blame the child’s eventual death on religious people and the child’s parents for them not being as accepting of children having promiscuous gay sex as they should be.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 1:08 pm - October 2, 2009
I live in a place where in 2009 I still live with sodomy laws on the books, where I can be fired from my job for being gay, can be kicked out of my home for being gay, still can’t give blood, still don’t have the thousands of marriage rights my neighbor does, etc.
Given your attitudes towards promiscuous sex and exploitation of children, your hatred of the police, and your complete opposition to some of the most basic societal mores, I can certainly see why those laws are there.
And if your attitude is typical of the vast majority of gays, Tim, those laws are completely justified.
Now, do you want to stop hiding behind the gay community and admit that you support promiscuous teenage sex? Or would you like to drag the rest of the gay community down with you?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 1:12 pm - October 2, 2009
Run the experiment, Ash. You’re the one who thinks you’ll get something meaningful from it. And don’t give us “probably” or “I expect” or “Most gays”. In other words: Don’t give us your imaginary bullsh*t. RUN THE EXPERIMENT, if you care as much as you say.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2009 @ 2:05 pm - October 2, 2009
(Or find someone else who has done something like it, and provide the link. NDT is a master at that. NDT’s statements about “the gay community” are also often too sweeping for my taste; but I give him a pass because many, many times I have seen him get specific about what he means, then back up his specific with evidence. Even when I disagree with him, I respect him for making that effort. Ash, it’s what I don’t see with you.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2009 @ 2:13 pm - October 2, 2009
So let’s keep our mouth shut and let a fifteen-year-old continue to have promiscuous unsafe sex with much older men in the era during which people were dropping left and right from AIDS.
The first thing he told the kid was to use a condom. This guy had a close friend die of AIDS less than a week before the incident, and you’re chastizing him for not calling the cops.
Given your attitudes towards promiscuous sex and exploitation of children, your hatred of the police, and your complete opposition to some of the most basic societal mores, I can certainly see why those laws are there.
And if your attitude is typical of the vast majority of gays, Tim, those laws are completely justified.
I would love to see you back one of those statements up. You are just beyond the pale, buddy. So now gays should have rights to housing, jobs, giving blood, etc because we’re all so promiscuous and exploitative??? Back one of those statements up. Please, do. I have a degree in fucking policing and have worked in police departments, yet I hate the police.
Now, do you want to stop hiding behind the gay community and admit that you support promiscuous teenage sex? Or would you like to drag the rest of the gay community down with you?
Is there a reason you can’t just see the other side of the argument, and instead must resort to straw man theatrics about how I’m going around promoting teenage sex?
Comment by Tim — October 2, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - October 2, 2009
So let’s keep our mouth shut and let a fifteen-year-old continue to have promiscuous unsafe sex with much older men in the era during which people were dropping left and right from AIDS.
NDT, what’s your point? That it’s horrible if a gay teen dies because he has sex with older male creatures, but it’s okay if a gay teen commits suicide, because his parents treated him poorly for being homosexual. Anyway, this is all speculative, because at the time, we have no way of knowing what would have happened. It did turn out that this kid was okay, and wasn’t damaged by this predator (and perhaps others), and that’s great. But in no way shape or form does this excuse the predator’s actions. I also stated that Jennings was wrong for his silence, but…read Gene’s comments for perspective.
My other point (I think on another thread), is that we excuse behavior that is also bad, and sometimes worse than what Jennings did. Where is the same condemnation of parents who treat their gay chidren as inferiors or worse? Where is the condemnation of the silence when we let this happen?
we don’t have to confront the gay community’s morality and behavior and we can blame the child’s eventual death on religious people and the child’s parents for them not being as accepting of children having promiscuous gay sex as they should be.
For the record, let’s not confuse parent’s acceptance of their children having promiscuous sex with parent’s not accepting their children’s sexual orientation.
Anyway, I would help that the parent’s would accept their child, and explain to them why having sex with older men is wrong and insist it not happen again, and be accepting of their sexuality. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case like it would be for a straight teen.
Comment by Pat — October 2, 2009 @ 2:33 pm - October 2, 2009
Disagree; gave my reasons at #10.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2009 @ 2:41 pm - October 2, 2009
What is the with the inability of anyone on this blog to see any grey area?
Here’s your premise: Kevin Jennings had a legal obligation to report what you believe to be statuatory rape to authorities. If he doesn’t he’s complicit in rape, abuse and mistreatment of a minor, and the fact that he is indicates the gay movement as a whole is also accepting of the behavior. You’re drawing all of this out of a brief memory of an encounter he had 21 years ago with a student.
A)You have no proof of any legal status, age, or actions of any of the above participants. Jennings never ID’ed the student (to ask him to do such is unreasonable.) Jennings was a teacher, not a lawyer, and a teacher long before teachers were debriefed daily on statuatory rape laws, in an age where he could have been fired for being a gay teacher and probably would have been imbroiled in controversy if not lose his job merely for revealing his sexuality, much less being any sort of mentor to a student.
B)Kevin Jennings had in the past 7 days lost a close friend to AIDS and when confronted with a 15 yr old practicing unsafe sexual behaviors, gave some advice. Granted, not the advice many people, now in hindsight 21 years later, would have given, but advice nonetheless that would have helped him and validated that he wasn’t alone, worthless, and any other self destructive thoughts he was obviously displaying by his bus statement incident. To expect him to be asking details about the kid’s age, the age of his partner (who so magically became a 50 yr old man who preys on children, despite any evidence, just assumption based on projections of members of this blog’s own prejudices) or other details is unreasonable. He wasn’t a counselor, therapist, cop etc.
C)Second assumption is that Kevin Jennings should have immediately gone to the police with this knowledge to let the law do it’s work. Number one, no one can prove he knew this was a crime. No one can prove the age of the other participant apart from “older.” No one can prove Jennings wouldn’t have lost his job by coming out, or the kid wouldn’t have faced adverse consequences by being FORCED out. No one can prove the police would have any care, would have had sensitivity, would have even been interested in prosecuting, would have had any way to even find the guy, would have had a cooperative 15 yr old, or anything else. Expecting Jennings to know all this, expect it all to work out for the best, considering the age and climate, is unreasonable. Holding him accountable for not taking this path is also unreasonable. He had his entire career, his reputation, the life and trust of this kid, the community etc. to all lose, just one short week after losing a close friend to the same behavior. Give the guy a fucking break.
D)Kevin Jennings should step down and resign his post because of this incident. I disagree. Jennings has apologized and said he could have taken appropriate action. He was trying to help this kid out, not harm him. You have no proof of his advocation of sleeping with older adults. He now contends he thought the kid was 16, which is a reasonable assumption for a high school sophomore, and is the age of consent in Massachusetts. Apart from the pack that the right has seen time and time again their leaders witch hunted for off handed comments or “offenses” from decades ago, this is relatively MINOR. We can’t simultaneously hate the left for going after people like Trent Lott for off handed remarks at Strom Thurmond’s birthday party, forcing him to step down, and then try to chew the jugular off gay leaders on the left because they didn’t hold a teenagers hand all the way to the police department 21 years ago in a more hostile climate. He’s apologized. You have no evidence any harm was done then, or since. You have no case except Jennings’ own vague recollection of the incident for a book to try and help gay youth. If this is not good enough for you, maybe you should start examining what axe you have to grind here.
For some reason, many of this blog have taken this as an “example” of how all gay people are whores, drunks, drug addicts, predators or the like. Really, this is one isolated incident 21 years ago and reinforces NOTHING. If you need to drag it out on your own and prop it up as an example of your own prejudices, that indicates more about you than Kevin Jennings or the left. I would really love to see some discussion on this blog about gay people instead of just sniping Obama comments. I come to expect a higher level of discourse on conservative websites, but this post in particular has been very little more than ad hoc attacks and mimics the screams of “RACIST!” and “BIGOT!” I see thrown around left wing blogs in response to reasoned arguments. Charges of advocation of child abuse and molestation for disagreeing with cries for his head aren’t rebuttals, they’re knee jerks reactions born from personal prejudices.
Comment by Tim — October 2, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - October 2, 2009
Disagree; gave my reasons at #10.
ILC, I’ll concede somewhat. I do agree with your comments. Especially in light of that I don’t believe anyone under 18 should have sex with anyone else, predator or otherwise. However, (and this is pure speculation), this kid was harmed at the time by this predator for the reasons you said. It appeared that, like many victims, he was able to overcome it, and appeared to be doing well and adjusted as an adult (again, it’s possible I’m wrong about this, and Jennings could have lied about the later meeting, or Brewster could have lied about how he was doing).
But while we’re disagreeing, let me go one further.
24.(Or find someone else who has done something like it, and provide the link. NDT is a master at that. NDT’s statements about “the gay community” are also often too sweeping for my taste; but I give him a pass because many, many times I have seen him get specific about what he means, then back up his specific with evidence.
It appears to me that NDT and Ashpenaz are betting on the same horse on this. Also, links are fine. But when one makes a claim about a “community” or about “most” and they provide a link to three articles that show that ten endorse some ugly opinion, you’ve only demonstrated that some hold that opinion.
Comment by Pat — October 2, 2009 @ 3:15 pm - October 2, 2009
ILC, my first parenthetical remark “and this is pure speculation” should be deleted.
Comment by Pat — October 2, 2009 @ 3:17 pm - October 2, 2009
Conceded.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2009 @ 3:23 pm - October 2, 2009
NDT, what’s your point? That it’s horrible if a gay teen dies because he has sex with older male creatures, but it’s okay if a gay teen commits suicide, because his parents treated him poorly for being homosexual.
My point, Pat, was this: neither outcome is acceptable, but one was actually happening. However, you used the theoretical other one to avoid dealing with the one that was actually happening.
My other point (I think on another thread), is that we excuse behavior that is also bad, and sometimes worse than what Jennings did. Where is the same condemnation of parents who treat their gay chidren as inferiors or worse? Where is the condemnation of the silence when we let this happen?
The problem here, Pat, is that your jihad against religious people and parents that you don’t like is taking precedence. This forces you to make the ludicrous statement that parents being opposed to their child’s sexual behavior is equivalent to physically raping them.
This is avoidance and rationalization, pure and simple.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 3:27 pm - October 2, 2009
My point, Pat, was this: neither outcome is acceptable, but one was actually happening. However, you used the theoretical other one to avoid dealing with the one that was actually happening.
Actually, NDT, I was speculating in response to someone else’s speculation. But I’m glad you agree that neither outcome is acceptable.
The problem here, Pat, is that your jihad against religious people and parents that you don’t like is taking precedence.
Not quite. My “jihad” is only against religious people who use their religion as an excuse to behave poorly and to parent atrociously. Most religious people I know don’t behave that way. Maybe your experience is different, and that most religious people you know are anti-gay and treat their gay children’s sexual orientation as inferior or worse. As for the latter comment, you’re partly right. I don’t like parents who excoriate their children for being gay. For absolute clarity, I am not talking about parents who don’t want their kids to have promiscuous sex, so that red herring doesn’t show up again.
This forces you to make the ludicrous statement that parents being opposed to their child’s sexual behavior is equivalent to physically raping them.
It couldn’t possibly have forced me, because I never said this. I have never said I opposed parents who don’t want their children to have sex, especially when I said several times that I don’t think children should be having sex. period. I have stated that I oppose parents who excoriate their children simply for being gay. I don’t think I can be any clearer. Please don’t misrepresent me on this point again.
This is avoidance and rationalization, pure and simple.
Not on my part. I think you are projecting. I believe that older persons having sex with children is wrong, and they should be arrested and spend some time in jail. I also said that approval, and even silence on this issue is wrong. I also said that parents who excoriate their children for being gay (again, orientation, not behavior) is wrong. You have failed to do so. Instead, you made up an incorrect claim about what I stated, and repeated it when I corrected you. Talk about avoidance.
Comment by Pat — October 2, 2009 @ 4:18 pm - October 2, 2009
[...] Reflections on what we share in common Posted on October 2nd, 2009 by David Blakeslee (This post from occasional contributor, clinical psychologist David Blakeslee, covers some similar territory as conservative gay blogger, GayPatriot.) [...]
Pingback by Reflections on what we share in common — Warren Throckmorton — October 2, 2009 @ 4:30 pm - October 2, 2009
I don’t think I can be any clearer. Please don’t misrepresent me on this point again.
Ah yes, the Obama method; your quoting me is misrepresenting me.
My other point (I think on another thread), is that we excuse behavior that is also bad, and sometimes worse than what Jennings did. Where is the same condemnation of parents who treat their gay chidren as inferiors or worse? Where is the condemnation of the silence when we let this happen?
You are demanding the same condemnation of religious people and parents as you do of those who support, facilitate, and practice the sexual exploitation of children — and saying that what they do is worse.
Your words are meaningless, Pat. Religious people and parents had nothing to do with Jennings’s behavior. Your attempt to divert and blame others is nothing more than a means of protecting the liberal gay left that Jennings represents and the pedophilia-supporting values of the gay community and gay organization that he leads.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - October 2, 2009
That’s not how I read Pat’s comment. He said, “sometimes worse”. Not worse all the time, i.e., when we’re talking about religious parents in general. But worse some of the time, i.e., when we’re talking about exceptionally bad parents. The extreme cases, where the deciding factor is their badness as parents (not their religion).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2009 @ 5:03 pm - October 2, 2009
Thanks, NDT. Instead of apologizing for your mistake, you chose to mischaracterize me several more times. Yikes! Obama has nothing on you.
I do give you props for actually posting what I did quote. And you still managed to mischaracterize what I said, and make up stuff that I didn’t say.
You are demanding the same condemnation of religious people and parents as you do of those who support, facilitate, and practice the sexual exploitation of children — and saying that what they do is worse.
Where do you make up this stuff? Where did I even mention religious people in my quote that you copied?
Your words are meaningless, Pat.
No, NDT. Your words mischaracterizing what I said and making up stuff that I never said are meaningless.
Religious people and parents had nothing to do with Jennings’s behavior.
Really? No kidding.
Your attempt to divert and blame others is nothing more than a means of protecting the liberal gay left that Jennings represents
Not quite. But I did question why we are condemning Jennings’ silence (which is fine) when we don’t condemn other bad behaviors. And you just proved my point, and diverted.
and the pedophilia-supporting values of the gay community and gay organization that he leads.
That’s pretty vicious.
Anyway, since you did post my quote, let me explain. First of all, I believe that I have about the same low opinion of the predator as you. Now we have Jennings who I agree was also wrong. Now onto the parents. I’m not saying that parents are perfect, nor that I believe every mistake they make is abominable. Also, I am also not saying that all parents who have issues with homosexuality deserve the same condemnation. However, when a parent continually excoriates their child for being gay (orientation, not behavior), I do believe that these parents have done more harm to their child than what Jennings did. Also, we’re not talking about 24 year old and a one-time thing. A parent of a gay teen would most likely be at least mid thirties, and we’re talking about continuing a bad behavior.
Now you may disagree with that statement and that’s fine. And I’ll even concede that you could make a good argument that I’m wrong and you’re right. And I have no problem being criticized for what I wrote.
But that’s not what happened here.
You stated that I have a jihad against religious people. I don’t see where that could possibly have come from in that comment. You also stated that I oppose parents who don’t want their children to have sex. While I don’t think I ever implied that, I clarified that that was not the case. And yet you still repeated it.
So instead of criticizing what I said, you tried to rewrite it in uglier and inaccurate terms, and swat that argument down. Fine, you succeeded. Now try arguing about what I wrote, and not what I didn’t write. Thanks.
Comment by Pat — October 2, 2009 @ 5:27 pm - October 2, 2009
Good point. I myself had ‘read in’ a bit of that, and I probably should not have. I’ll shut up
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - October 2, 2009
I am with Pat here. Extremely rational, thought-out and spot-on. This was 21 years ago, and it’s not like this guy was the perpetrator like Polanski. If this is the best you’ve got to crucify the guy with then I’m afraid it’s very little. It’s not like Van Jones, where you’ve got him saying dumb things on tape. This was not an act of evil. Maybe he did the wrong thing, but do we make this the sum total of the man’s work, one questionable act 21 years ago?
Comment by richard — October 2, 2009 @ 7:07 pm - October 2, 2009
I remember the “dark ages” when coming out was quite likely to bring awkward moments, anxiety, emotional pain, and quite often, acceptance (my reaction). I also recall working in a world re-knwned laboratory researching the links between virus and liver cancer. In fact the director of that lab won a Nobel for identifying Hepatitis B, and linking it to liver cancer. While the global population at risk was hetero, the US population was gay. So – when news of AIDS exploded, there was a much worse situation. Coming out could be traumatic. Denial, secrecy, and sex in bus stations were lethal.
And gay teacher Jennings, 21 years ago, knew these risks and chose NOT to protect a fifteen year old child, approving lethal behavior. And pedophilia. Jennings still is not repentant. He has self-excused his abhorrent tossing away of a student only because he got caught. Unacceptable in a teacher. In adult. Or a Safe Schools Czar.
Comment by MrsH — October 2, 2009 @ 8:56 pm - October 2, 2009
If I’m following Tim’s logic correctly…
Tim drives through a school zone at 8am at 70 mph, kids flee left and right. “It’s ok officer, no one got hurt.”
Tim runs a red light, causing others to slam on their breaks “No one hit anyone.
Tim yells ‘fire’ in a crowded theater “No one died or anything.”
Tim Waterboards a priest a rabbi and an abortionist “It’s jsut a little water…”
Tim picks up 15 year olds in bathroom stalls “He’s not that much younger than I.”
Comment by The_Livewire — October 2, 2009 @ 9:25 pm - October 2, 2009
The first thing he told the kid was to use a condom. This guy had a close friend die of AIDS less than a week before the incident, and you’re chastizing him for not calling the cops.
That would be because his friend’s dealing with the ultimate consequences of promiscuous and irresponsible gay sex had nothing to do with the fact that a kid was being molested. The fact that he thinks child molestation is a normal aspect of gay sex is his problem, not society’s.
I have a degree in fucking policing and have worked in police departments, yet I hate the police.
Lots of people hate where they work. That you do is obvious from your statements like this.
No one can prove the police would have any care, would have had sensitivity, would have even been interested in prosecuting, would have had any way to even find the guy, would have had a cooperative 15 yr old, or anything else.
Jennings outs the kids, takes him to the police, hopes the police care enough or are sensitive enough about gay issues to care enough to get the kid’s cooperation in going back to a bus station bathroom, finding the SAME guy who “raped” him, and putting him in jail???
I doubt you could get a fair trial NOW with the lack of sensitivity of the media, cops, courts and all other parties involved.
And then the final one:
He had his entire career, his reputation, the life and trust of this kid, the community etc. to all lose, just one short week after losing a close friend to the same behavior.
How? Reporting that a child is being sexually molested to the police says nothing about YOUR sexual orientation.
And notice how you state that, by reporting the sexual molestation of this child, he would have lost the trust of the gay community.
That. Is. DISGUSTING.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 11:19 pm - October 2, 2009
The first thing he told the kid was to use a condom. This guy had a close friend die of AIDS less than a week before the incident, and you’re chastizing him for not calling the cops.
That would be because his friend’s dealing with the ultimate consequences of promiscuous and irresponsible gay sex had nothing to do with the fact that a kid was being molested. The fact that he thinks child molestation is a normal aspect of gay sex is his problem, not society’s.
I have a degree in fucking policing and have worked in police departments, yet I hate the police.
Lots of people hate where they work. That you do is obvious from your statements like this.
No one can prove the police would have any care, would have had sensitivity, would have even been interested in prosecuting, would have had any way to even find the guy, would have had a cooperative 15 yr old, or anything else.
Jennings outs the kids, takes him to the police, hopes the police care enough or are sensitive enough about gay issues to care enough to get the kid’s cooperation in going back to a bus station bathroom, finding the SAME guy who “raped” him, and putting him in jail???
I doubt you could get a fair trial NOW with the lack of sensitivity of the media, cops, courts and all other parties involved.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 11:19 pm - October 2, 2009
The first thing he told the kid was to use a condom. This guy had a close friend die of AIDS less than a week before the incident, and you’re chastizing him for not calling the cops.
That would be because his friend’s dealing with the ultimate consequences of promiscuous and irresponsible gay sex had nothing to do with the fact that a kid was being molested. The fact that he thinks child molestation is a normal aspect of gay sex is his problem, not society’s.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 11:20 pm - October 2, 2009
I have a degree in fucking policing and have worked in police departments, yet I hate the police.
Lots of people hate where they work. That you do is obvious from your statements like this.
No one can prove the police would have any care, would have had sensitivity, would have even been interested in prosecuting, would have had any way to even find the guy, would have had a cooperative 15 yr old, or anything else.
Jennings outs the kids, takes him to the police, hopes the police care enough or are sensitive enough about gay issues to care enough to get the kid’s cooperation in going back to a bus station bathroom, finding the SAME guy who “raped” him, and putting him in jail???
I doubt you could get a fair trial NOW with the lack of sensitivity of the media, cops, courts and all other parties involved.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 11:20 pm - October 2, 2009
And then the final one:
He had his entire career, his reputation, the life and trust of this kid, the community etc. to all lose, just one short week after losing a close friend to the same behavior.
How? Reporting that a child is being sexually molested to the police says nothing about YOUR sexual orientation.
And notice how you state that, by reporting the sexual molestation of this child, he would have lost the trust of the gay community.
That. Is. DISGUSTING.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 11:20 pm - October 2, 2009
Finally, I will point out one thing; we have a police associate (Tim), a social worker (Jody), and a teacher (Jennings), all saying that, when it comes to a child being sexually molested by a gay person, their sexual orientation prevents them from following the law and reporting it — and indeed they will not do so, because it would cost them their careers, their reputations and the trust of the gay community.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 11:23 pm - October 2, 2009
I have a degree in fucking policing and have worked in police departments, yet I hate the police.
Yes; that much is obvious from your statements.
No one can prove the police would have any care, would have had sensitivity, would have even been interested in prosecuting, would have had any way to even find the guy, would have had a cooperative 15 yr old, or anything else.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 11:25 pm - October 2, 2009
And since we’re all waiting for this, I can find not one, not two, but three examples of the gay community advocating that sexualization of children is not only common in the gay community, but supported as an educational activity.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 11:30 pm - October 2, 2009
However, when a parent continually excoriates their child for being gay (orientation, not behavior), I do believe that these parents have done more harm to their child than what Jennings did.
Let’s see; parents who don’t want their child to end up supporting child molestation, insisting that sex with underage children is not only normal, but an educational experience, and unable to do their job and follow the laws when it involves another gay person because the gay community will ostracize them for doing so.
Monsters. Truly.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 11:37 pm - October 2, 2009
If the gay community adopted a zero tolerance policy about older men having sex with minors… the harm of that would be what, exactly? Even supposing there are minors who want to have sex with older men, the harm in telling them to wait until they’re at least 18 is… what, exactly?
Did anyone ever die from *not* having sex?
Comment by V the K — October 2, 2009 @ 11:47 pm - October 2, 2009
Ooh, ooh…I know….it’s racist!
No, no, wait….it’s homophobic!
Um…well…..you’re self-loathing and unauthentic for even asking!
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2009 @ 11:53 pm - October 2, 2009
And by the bye, I believe one of the arguments that Jennings and his syncophants are using to explain his endorsement of promiscuous sex and not doing anything to stop the molestation of a child was that doing so would have outed him and ruined his career.
Pity that Jennings states this in his own book.
I had come to Concord from Moses Brown in search of a place where I could be more open about who I was. I wore a ring that symbolized my commitment to my partner, and students like Brewster started asking me what it meant. Confused, I went to the head to ask how I should respond. “Tell them it’s a gift from someone you love,” he said.
Incredulous, I replied, “Do you say your wedding ring is a ‘gift from someone you love’?” I answered Brewster’s question about my ring honestly. To my surprise, he and the other students who asked didn’t turn away from me, unlike my peers who had turned away from Mr. Korn in 1978. They didn’t seem to care much at all about my being gay.
Toward the end of my first year, during the spring of 1988, Brewster appeared in my office in the tow of one of my advisees, a wonderful young woman to whom I had been “out” for a long time. “Brewster has something he needs to talk with you about,” she intoned ominously. Brewster squirmed at the prospect of telling, and we sat silently for a short while. On a hunch, I suddenly asked “What’s his name?” Brewster’s eyes widened briefly, and then out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice.
Seriously. Do Obama gays like Jennings and their supporters think we can’t read? You have to wonder if they think we all had teachers as incompetent as GLSEN and Jennings are.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2009 @ 12:11 am - October 3, 2009
Again, your whole argument is based upon your assessment of the situation as “child molestation,” of which you have no proof and completely glossed over my argument as such. Go back, and address what I said. Stop repeating child molester over and over until people give up trying to have a discussion with you. Ref post #28.
all saying that, when it comes to a child being sexually molested by a gay person, their sexual orientation prevents them from following the law and reporting it
No one is saying that at all. We’re asking you to PROVE that it was molestation. We have chosen not to do so, instead of simply repeating yourself over and over. Try to join the world of adults where not everything is black and white. When people answer your argument over and over, simply repeating it and then attacking us doesn’t make your point, just shows your inability to have a reasoned discussion.
Comment by Tim — October 3, 2009 @ 12:36 am - October 3, 2009
Perhaps you’re not familiar with Massachusetts law, Tim.
By definition, having sex with a child under the age of 16 counts as abuse and is punishable by imprisonment. Jennings himself stated the boy was 15.
Moreover, by law, teachers are required to report any such activity for children under the age of 18.
Be honest, Tim; you don’t want to follow the law because of your sexual orientation, and you think Jennings didn’t have to follow the law because of his sexual orientation. Make it clear that you, Jennings, GLSEN, and the rest of the “authentic gays” oppose age-of-consent laws and mandatory reporting.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2009 @ 1:08 am - October 3, 2009
Furthermore, from GPW’s original post:
Had the boy reported this to the authorities, this might have forced the kid out, making his sexuality known and putting him in the spotlight.
As I cited above, it seems the kid was already out.
Toward the end of my first year, during the spring of 1988, Brewster appeared in my office in the tow of one of my advisees, a wonderful young woman to whom I had been “out” for a long time. “Brewster has something he needs to talk with you about,” she intoned ominously.
So it appears that both the student and the teacher were “out”, and in fact had been for a long time.
This has nothing to do with “protecting” the person’s sexual orientation. This has everything to do with a gay adult encouraging, supporting, and promoting the promiscuous behavior of an underage child.
This is what Jennings does and this is what GLSEN does. They support and endorse promiscuous sex by underage children, they oppose age-of-consent laws, and they oppose laws that mandate the reporting of adults having sex with underage children.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2009 @ 1:13 am - October 3, 2009
Brewster Speaks, LINK
” Since I was of legal consent at the time, the fifteen-minute conversation I had with Mr. Jennings twenty-one years ago is of nobody’s concern but his and mine. However, since the Republican noise machine is so concerned about my “well-being” and that of America’s students, they’ll be relieved to know that I was not “inducted” into homosexuality, assaulted, raped, or sold into sexual slavery.
In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence. I find it regrettable that the people who have the compassion and integrity to protect our nation’s students are themselves in need of protection from homophobic smear attacks. Were it not for Mr. Jennings’ courage and concern for my well-being at that time in my life, I doubt I’d be the proud gay man that I am today.
– Brewster
‘
Comment by Tano — October 3, 2009 @ 1:39 am - October 3, 2009
I thought someone would be coming by with pedophile protector David Brock’s purchased pap. How singularly appropriate that it would be Barack Obama and Roman Polanski supporter Tano.
Let’s see, here’s Brewster’s testimony:
In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it.
Indeed. And how did Mr. Jennings report this conversation?
“I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’ He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old’ I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’”
So let’s see:
1) Jennings unequivocally states that this was a school night, not a weekend.
2) Jennings unequivocally states that this individual was 15 years old.
3) Jennings unequivocally states that this child needed to use a condom.
All of which directly contradict the statement by “Brewster”, an unidentified individual reporting to Media Matters, a site purchased and paid for by the Obama administration and its supporters.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2009 @ 2:05 am - October 3, 2009
ND, take your pill. The voices will quiet for a while and you can sleep.
Comment by Jody — October 3, 2009 @ 2:44 am - October 3, 2009
What is this I hear about Jennings praising a member of NAMBLA????
Comment by American Elephant — October 3, 2009 @ 6:08 am - October 3, 2009
And leave it to Tano to ignore the law, and Jody to support it.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 3, 2009 @ 7:01 am - October 3, 2009
NDT, we all know that too people like Tano and Tim, supporting ‘The One’ and the gay agenda will always take priority over the health and mental well-being of young gay adolescents. Just as supporting ‘The One’ will always trump supporting what is best for the American people.
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2009 @ 8:50 am - October 3, 2009
And since it’s the official position of Tim and Tardo that it’s perfectly fine for older men to cruise younger men for sex in bus station bathrooms, I assume Larry Craig is off the hook now?
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2009 @ 9:11 am - October 3, 2009
Let’s see; parents who don’t want their child to end up supporting child molestation, insisting that sex with underage children is not only normal, but an educational experience, and unable to do their job and follow the laws when it involves another gay person because the gay community will ostracize them for doing so.
NDT, if that’s what this is all about I would agree with you. But do you really think that’s what I meant? Especially when I have repeatedly stated in this thread and in the past that I don’t think children should have sex, and that an older person having sex with a child is criminal.
Why can’t a parent accept their child’s sexuality, straight or gay, and simply impart the same expectations on their gay child that they would on their straight child? Is that really too much to ask?
If your point is that parents disapprove of their gay children’s sexuality, because they believe their child is destined to have a life of sex, drugs, pedophilia, etc., then just say so. I’ll disagree with that point, but at least you wouldn’t be making up stuff that I didn’t say. And while that may be some parents’ motivation, the problem is that still too many would disapprove of their child’s “lifestyle” even when their (now) adult child is in a monogamous relationship. Heck, many even refuse to meet their child’s partner/spouse.
Comment by Pat — October 3, 2009 @ 9:30 am - October 3, 2009
And since we’re all waiting for this, I can find not one, not two, but three examples of the gay community advocating that sexualization of children is not only common in the gay community, but supported as an educational activity.
NDT, the first two links are a good start. About a million or so to go, and you will have proved your point. As for the third link, who knows? The advocates claim that it is not about sex, while the anti-gay opponents claim it is.
‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’”
So let’s see:
1) Jennings unequivocally states that this was a school night, not a weekend.
2) Jennings unequivocally states that this individual was 15 years old.
3) Jennings unequivocally states that this child needed to use a condom.
For the first two points, there is a clear discrepancy as to the events of 21 years ago. Obviously, both accounts (of the age and day of the week) can’t both be correct.
As for the third point, that’s not the way I read it. The sex already took place. It’s more than bad enough it happened in the first place. It would have been even worse if, in addition, Brewster did not protect himself.
Comment by Pat — October 3, 2009 @ 9:39 am - October 3, 2009
That’s not how I read Pat’s comment. He said, “sometimes worse”. Not worse all the time, i.e., when we’re talking about religious parents in general. But worse some of the time, i.e., when we’re talking about exceptionally bad parents. The extreme cases, where the deciding factor is their badness as parents (not their religion).
Thanks, ILC. That’s what I meant. In all honesty, I thought it was clear.
Comment by Pat — October 3, 2009 @ 9:42 am - October 3, 2009
If the gay community adopted a zero tolerance policy about older men having sex with minors… the harm of that would be what, exactly? Even supposing there are minors who want to have sex with older men, the harm in telling them to wait until they’re at least 18 is… what, exactly?
Exactly, V the K.
Did anyone ever die from *not* having sex?
No, while a lot of people have died from having sex. However, sex, like many other things, is a want for most people, and a pretty powerful one at that. In fact, it seems to be hardwired (or whatever you call it) into our being. The key is to channel it in such a way that it is healthful and helpful, not destructive. I obviously encourage those to wait to have sex until the right time. And I respect those who have chosen to never have sex. But just as I believe that a person should not have sex for the wrong reason, I also believe that a person should not be celibate for the wrong reasons as well. As for me personally, I would have done just fine if I never had sex. But I would have regretted for not having had the experience at least one time.
Comment by Pat — October 3, 2009 @ 10:00 am - October 3, 2009
I find this entire discussion (not meaning to single you out, V) senseless.
1) In reality, there is no “gay community”, any more than there is a “white community”, “male community” or any other type of “community”. People like to speak as if there is. But in reality, communities don’t decide things. Individuals do. Communities don’t act. Individuals do. Communities are but mathematical aggregations of individuals; they are not entities that exist or act on their own. Even an election is only a formal process of counting individual votes. Even the passage and/or enforcement of a law rests entirely on individuals to make it happen. The fact that many individuals may be involved in a large project or chain does not alter the fact that individuals are the entities involved, who did things. When we speak of some community doing or not doing this or that, we are speaking metaphorically, and probably wrongly.
2) I, and the majority of gays I know, already have “adopted a zero tolerance policy about older men having sex with minors.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2009 @ 1:49 pm - October 3, 2009
And Tim’s comments are, of course, even more bizarre. Jennings has repeatedly stated the kid was under 18 – either 15 or no more than 16 – in other words, A CHILD.
Tim, just curious: How do you feel about Roman Polanski? Do you believe his excuse, “She didn’t look 13″ – when there are court transcripts of Polanski admitting that he did know the girl was 13 when he rape-molested her?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2009 @ 1:55 pm - October 3, 2009
P.S. I am aware that various States set the age of consent as low as 14, 15 or 16. That only means the laws are wrong. Those ages are too low. If the person isn’t old enough to vote, or to stand trial as an adult as a matter of course, he or she IS A KID.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2009 @ 2:05 pm - October 3, 2009
Actually, it’s a two fold issue.
1) The law says anything under 18 needs to be reported. Jennings broke the law there.
2) The age of consent is (allegedly 16) is Tim advocating transporting the minor from the bathroom stall across lines to where it’s ‘legal’ is fine?
Comment by The_Livewire — October 3, 2009 @ 3:54 pm - October 3, 2009
Jennings comment to “Brewster” was terrible for an authority figure, that’s obvious. His failure to express any remorse until recently is pathetic and perhaps on that point he could be skewered. Yet I’m still not clear on what the outrage is beyond these two points. I seriously doubt that a closeted 24-year old teacher in 1988 would have fully understood Massachusetts law as Livewire gives it in #69. I know I wouldn’t and I was closeted at that age, though of course I wasn’t a teacher like Jennings. If “Brewster” were 16 at the time (i.e. legally able to give consent in MA) and had anal intercourse with this older stranger, he could have been charged as a minor at least with sodomy. Would this have been a registered sex offense that isn’t sealed after age 18 or in 1988 was this prior to when such changes in laws took place? I really don’t remember. Is 16 too young IMO to give consent? Yes, I agree with ILC on that one. Yet that was apparently the law in MA at the time.
I’m seeing nothing more here than a liberal Obama supporter being made a convenient target because he gave stupid advice when he was 24, something I have no doubt I’m guilty of too. I certainly have no problems with taking down those Obama Administration officials and supporters who are true nutjobs, guilty off rank hypocrisy or corruption (helllllooooo ACORN), etc. Yet in this case I’m not seeing much here. Will it work? I believe it probably will eventually but this isn’t a bandwagon that has enough for me to be willing to jump on.
Comment by John — October 3, 2009 @ 5:35 pm - October 3, 2009
I seriously doubt that a closeted 24-year old teacher in 1988 would have fully understood Massachusetts law as Livewire gives it in #69.
But John, Jennings made it clear in his own statement, as I quoted above, that he WAS out at the time.
I had come to Concord from Moses Brown in search of a place where I could be more open about who I was. I wore a ring that symbolized my commitment to my partner, and students like Brewster started asking me what it meant. Confused, I went to the head to ask how I should respond. “Tell them it’s a gift from someone you love,” he said.
Incredulous, I replied, “Do you say your wedding ring is a ‘gift from someone you love’?” I answered Brewster’s question about my ring honestly. To my surprise, he and the other students who asked didn’t turn away from me, unlike my peers who had turned away from Mr. Korn in 1978. They didn’t seem to care much at all about my being gay.
Toward the end of my first year, during the spring of 1988, Brewster appeared in my office in the tow of one of my advisees, a wonderful young woman to whom I had been “out” for a long time.
And really, what’s to understand? Student under the age of 18 tells you they are having sex with older man they met in a bus station restroom. Only in the gay community are any of those components ambiguous.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2009 @ 10:20 pm - October 3, 2009
Wow! I have learned a great deal about some parts of the gay world in this discussion.
I just happened to be in Christopher Park in NYC this afternoon and I had an intense conversation with a 50+ gay man who was working his way through a bottle of Johnnie Walker (red label) and keeping an eye out for a hook up. He told me his age preferences and how many times a day he would like satisfaction. It reminded me of a driver I hired in Bali who could not believe I was not interested in a succession of 13 year old girls who were for sale by their desperate parents.
When your life is addicted to sex of any given nature, you are not (in my mind) so much human as you are trapped by your own nymphomania.
David Letterman and Roman Polanski can find acceptance from Whoopie, Madonna and Reprobates-R-Us because they are poster children for moral relativism.
I accept the plea of committed, monogamous gay couples who desire the legal benefits of marriage. I would accept civil unions for them. But too many libertine gays demonstrate that “gay marriage” is just an in-your-straight-face demand for social equality. Since I am part of the majority part of the 95% of the straight population that does not have any conflicts with the present marriage laws, I can only say to the libertine gays: “screw you and the mule, little boy or gang of cross dressers you rode in on.”
Those who know me on this site, know that I am thoughtful and patient. But, darn it, you can only spread manure so far. Sooner than later even the densest person in the crowd knows when he is up to his chin in offal, that some clown in a wave making boat is a dangerous threat to the status quo.
Those who think that experienced gays “mentoring” emerging gays is a fine social construct need to rewrite Oliver Twist and clarify Fagin’s role with all those little boys.
Comment by heliotrope — October 3, 2009 @ 10:54 pm - October 3, 2009
This will be my last comment on this thread. NDK and the rest, if you really can’t see a difference between a 15 yr old engaging in consensual sex and a much younger child being molested, you need to adjust your moral compass. Even when the “victim” came forward and said he of age, you still just say he’s a shill for the Democratic party. Even when it’s pointed out other states have lower age of consent laws, you say the law is wrong, when 10 minutes ago it was your justification for the “molestation.”
Could you maybe just accept this had nothing to do with you, no parties were harmed, no laws were broken, and there is nothing here that feeds into your preconceived notion of the gay community and it’s supposed encouragement of child predation?
Try to just make a straight argument about your beliefs instead of latching onto a situation that more and more has nothing to do with your beliefs or supports them. If you think gay people are predators and child molestors, just make that point. It really, once the evidence and reason is presented, has nothing to do with this alleged incident.
Comment by Tim — October 5, 2009 @ 1:13 pm - October 5, 2009
[...] this statement is a bit too little too late. As gay conservative blogger, B. Daniel Blatt points out, the issue is how could anyone in counseling the boy neglect to give the obvious advice [...]
Pingback by Someone Here is Lying « The Rutherford Lawson Blog — December 16, 2009 @ 1:28 pm - December 16, 2009