One of the reasons I would rather not blog on the Kevin Jennings story is that, I believe, some social conservatives are using it to reinforce stereotypes about gay people. Yeah, there are gay people who have sex with minors. But, they’re also straight men who do the same thing–and women as well. as we know from a number of recent publicized cases of teachers seducing their students.
Despite misconceptions in some social conservative circles, most gay men don’t pursue teenagers. Indeed, of all the gay men I’ve met in the eighteen years that I’ve been out, I can only think of one who expressed an interest in teens and he gave no indication of ever acting on that particular desire.
A number of gay groups have also condemned NAMBLA. In 1994,
GLAAD “adopted a “Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA” saying GLAAD “deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association’s (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD.” Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: “NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization.”
I recall that about that time, Log Cabin also condemned the group (though I could find no record online).
And yet despite this condemnation, many gay people seem reluctant to talk about the problem (as, I would dare say, do many straights). When they hear of such conduct, they look the other way, rather than look out for the minor.
We should use this story as to borrow an expression from the President, a “teaching moment.” If we learn of an adult having sex with a child, we should act–and quickly–to stop it.
Let me repeat what most troubles me about this whole matter. It wasn’t just that Kevin Jennings didn’t try to stop the boy from sleeping with an adult, it’s that he wrote about the event long after it happened (talking about it on more than one occasion), conducing himself as if he had handled the situation entirely appropriately, as if he had done nothing wrong.
It’s not always easy to do the right thing, particularly when someone confides in us, seeking our support and/or counsel. In such situations, we frequently make mistakes. Sitting in our homes, reading about the Jennings’s conversation with “Brewster,” without a nervous teenager in front of us, it’s easy to say what we would have done in such a situation.
But, we weren’t there. It’s clear, as Jennings acknowledged only last month, he should have handled the situation differently. And the problem here is that while he talked about the issue repeatedly over the years, he didn’t say as much until his past actions appeared to threaten his political career.
Good post and I agree on all points.
Talking about these things, for all its seeming worthlessness on the surface, helps each of us “envision” what we ought to do – what would be the right thing. Hopefully, then, if and when we are confronted with the necessity to do the right thing, it will come a little more easily.
Of course the conservative social Right will make hay out of this. This plays right into their hands, even the President of the United States can’t find a gay man who doesn’t fall into the worst of gay stereotypes.
Here is a clip where Jennings is critical of schools for promoting the Heterosexual life style.
http://www.breitbart.tv/uncoverd-audio-obamas-safe-schools-czar-criticizes-schools-for-promoting-heterosexuality/
What Jennings regrets is that he must retract what he believes in. I’m hoping it is too late for that and that he is the next one under the bus.
Meanwhile, I commend you for speaking up, but it’s the big gay organizations that should be demanding his removal, as a way of distancing themselves from the worst that gay culture can produce.
If they don’t rest assured that the conservative social Right will be running with this big time, and to be honest – they should.
Conservatives have not been reluctant to criticize Roman Polanski, including his comment that everyone ones to do young girls.
These situations always force any “culture” to take a stand – ethically, morally and politically. The unfortunate stance that “Gay Groups” take with regard to this individual’s poor, unfortunate conclusion regarding adults taking advantage of teenagers sadly reinforces mainstream conceptions about Gay People – that they do not demonstrate morality in everyday life. Its all about their gratification to the exclusion of morality. They love to quote the Bible in this instance – Judge Not…forgetting to look at the context of living an ethical life. This is an excellent opportunity for “Gay Culture” to demonstrate their adherence to some type of standard – regardless of orientation.
NAMBLA should have no place in anyone’s life, gay or straight. If Jennings cannot *now* (2009) oblige those who question his appointment by stating his total rejection of NAMBLA, then he has no business being a “Safe Schools” czar; in fact, it would be a grotesque if he stayed on with that title. But if he can, then it’s a new day and reasonable people can take another look. That is Zombie’s logic and I think it’s good logic.
To social conservatives visiting:
Don’t overplay your hand. This isn’t about gays; this is about predators.
Gays don’t want their nephews, friends’ children, or their own children to become victim to some brute of a man they don’t know, or worse do know; and all because said brute had been preparing himself for this in the company of perverts.
Social conservatives can help by standing their ground on “true love waits”. Surely this applies to homosexuals as well.
“Despite misconceptions in some social conservative circles, most gay men don’t pursue teenagers. Indeed, of all the gay men I’ve met in the eighteen years that I’ve been out, I can only think of one who expressed an interest in teens and he gave no indication of ever acting on that particular desire.”
All the women seducing minors in school were LGBT. Let’s not confuse heterosexual and bisexual behavior as the LGBT regularly does in attacking marriage and making excuses for LGBT behavior.
Gays don’t want their nephews, friends’ children, or their own children to become victim to some brute of a man they don’t know…
Except for Tim, who doesn’t see what the big deal is.
Which is exactly why the last thing you should do is stop blogging about Jennings. These stereotypes exist to the extent that gays downplay and try to ignore people like Jennings. And others are left to question why.
We shatter those stereotypes by attacking, not defending or remaining silent regarding those who espouse inappropriate interaction with minors.
IMO, anyone who doesn’t unreservedly condemn NAMBLA for what they are and what they want the law to let them do has a problem with his or her morals and ethics – whether left, right, gay, straight or somewhere in between – and certainly shouldn’t be part of an administration that would like to think of itself (or whose supporters would like to think of it) as being a moral rung or two above its predecessors.
This is quite separate from allowing NAMBLA the right to SPEAK of what they want to do (which in my mind they should get, if only because people need to know that slime like this exists), but NAMBLA members, supporters and apologists shouldn’t act surprised when civilised, decent human beings of any political or sexual persuasion tell them to go to Hell.
Perturbed (#10) makes an important point about the group’s free speech contentions. The "boy-lovers" would be on safe ground if they were just advocating for changes in the law, but that’s not really what they’re all about. Robert Hammer, the undercover FBI agent, recently wrote this at Big Hollywood:
"…The express purpose of the organization is to abolish age-of-consent laws and legalize consensual sex between men and boys. In reality, this group, hiding behind the First Amendment, uses the secret meetings as a networking opportunity to reinforce among themselves their criminal passions. I know because I was invited into the inner sanctum. I attended meetings, participated in their pen pal program, wrote for their magazine, and was asked twice to serve on the steering committee, their governing body. Not once during my three-year membership was there any effort to lobby any political figure at any level of government to seek to abolish or even to modify the age-of-consent laws. There was no talk of hiring a paid lobbyist in Washington; there was no organized letter writing campaign; there was no endorsement of candidates. For all intents and purposes these men meet to network with other child molesters on where and how to find and seduce boys…"
While my experiences largely track with Dan’s, I was once forced to leave a party in NYC when a couple recounted an Amsterdam bath house tryst with an eight-year old. The party-goers were rightly horrified, but it says something that these well-educated professionals felt comfortable enough to brag about it in a gay setting.
The 800-pound gorilla is that we really don’t discuss moral issues in this country. Societal change is often reduced to two asymmetrical forces: "If it feels good, do it" libertinism vs. the traditionalist "Ick" factor. (The Polanski mess is a great example of this kind of muddle.) In the 80’s, the gay community had an ambivalent relationship with NAMBLA, I suspect, because we were so often the victim of unthinking revulsion. I’m glad to see that thinking rejected in the last few decades and I’m even more cheered to see people like James Poulos trying to wrestle with the meta-issues involved.
Great post, Dan.
Best wishes,
-MFS
p.s. What does this site use for blockquote tags?
MFS – I can’t type in the blockquote tag directly because the comment facility will only think I’m trying to start a blockquote. But I’m looking at the comment window now. It says “Leave a comment” in bold print. Beneath that, is a list of allowed HTML tags. One of them is the blockquote tag. The cite= attribute may be omitted.
Ok, I’m done with this “blog”.
I once enjoyed coming here to read reasoned commentary and discussion from a unique perspective or gay people or gay friendly people who had conservative viewpoints. This is no longer anything resembling that.
EVIDENCE AND FACTS have come to light since the original post detailing that not only was this man not promoting any sort of deviant or child molestation. If this is not enough for you guys to reneg on your previous tirades of child molestation, I don’t know what is.
If the people in this blog would prefer to call anyone who they disagree with names like child molestor, pedophile etc, then go ahead. But I’m done trying to have any sort of reasonable discussion with children. I’ve made very clear points, and all evidence supports this man and his work.
I would strongly suggest all the “gay” people take a good look in the mirror and see what issues about this case are ringing for them, regardless of the parties involved. The rampant stereotyping, self-loathing, hateful, spiteful and generally mean spiritedness of this issue says far more about this blog and its participants than Mr. Jennings. When the best you can deal with is hyperbole, name calling and mud slinging, don’t expect any serious person to give you the time of day.
I used to really enjoy this blog for it’s insight, reasonable and logical nature of it’s discussions and the variety of opinions it presents from the FIVE authors listed as contributors. No more. It’s a one man show who refuses to see any sort of other position than his own, even when all the evidence that has come forward is to the contrary. If the primary contributor of this blog holds public officials to a no higher standard than the mud slinging false accusations slung at him by the far right to keep his job, I can see absolutely no reasonable course but to find a forum with people who stick to adult discussion. Why don’t most of you go get a membership at Nolan Chart or a similar service that has very high standards of discussion and prohibitations on continuous ad hoc attacks. In some circles reasonable arguments are actually encouraged, just not here apparently.
Ta ta, Dan, let me know if you ever let anyone else write anything, will you?
Fair post. Yet the leadership of GLAAD and any other gay group from that era should be condemned for taking this stance 8 years earlier when Hays made a big stink about NAMBLA during some pride parade. I heard about that one recently and if it was a big news story they should have taken a stand then. It’s disgraceful that they waited 8 years, and perhaps a change in leadership, before doing this.
Good riddance Tim,
Even if (big if) the boy was 16. YOU have argued that it would be fine if he was 15. I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but don’t let the door hit you on your child buggering ass.
Ditto, Livewire. Mature men who pick up underage boys in restrooms are predators. Period. And those who defend them are repugnant. Period.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I have been around almost as long as anyone (there have been a handful around longer), and this blog has maintained a consistent quality, tone and moral stance in all my years here. Tim, you’re full of sh*t and good riddance to you – although I am sure you’ll be back, under another sockpuppet.
EVIDENCE AND FACTS have come to light since the original post detailing that not only was this man not promoting any sort of deviant or child molestation.
Let’s take a look at that “evidence”.
Media Matters allegedly posted a driver’s license purporting to show “Brewster’s” birthday and gender. Problem is, it lacks several other things — like name, number, address, and photo.
Media Matters also posted a letter claiming the student was sixteen — from Jennings’s lawyer, with zero evidence included.
Media Matters supports outing and attacking conservative gays. It is beyond hilarious that they have redacted the driver’s license information of a “proud out gay man” to apparently protect their “privacy”. Given Media Matters’s support of forging information, as they showed during the Rathergate debacle, what they post should be considered at best suspect without such identifying information.
Even if “Brewster” was 16 and technically legal, the older man was still a deviant practicing child molestation. (Unless by “older” we mean that he was minor himself, say 16 or 17. And it’s pretty clear we don’t mean that.)
Hmm, let me try it…
…and to test…
It works! Thanks, ILC!
Best wishes,
-MFS
I would strongly suggest all the “gay” people take a good look in the mirror and see what issues about this case are ringing for them, regardless of the parties involved. The rampant stereotyping, self-loathing, hateful, spiteful and generally mean spiritedness of this issue says far more about this blog and its participants than Mr. Jennings.
Therein lies the problem, Tim.
You seem to believe that condemning a gay person who openly endorses and supports child sexual exploitation is “self-loathing”. You refer to us as being “gay” in quotation marks, indicating that we are not truly gay people, because we insist on holding Jennings accountable for his endorsement and support of child sexual exploitation.
In short, you are making a requirement of being gay that you endorse and support pedophilia and the people who protect and practice it.
In that case, count me out. But I am more than happy to tell the world that “real gays” like yourself support and endorse pedophilia and the people who protect and practice it.
Psychobabble: refuge of the scoundrel. (Along with ad hominem. Come to think of it, psychobabble is often just a form of ad hominem.)
I am neither gay nor conservative – more a Jeffersonian libertarian – so maybe I’m missing the issues on why gays should be reluctant to talk about Jennings. I don’t believe rational people see Jennings actions as those of a gay adult condoning another gay adult having sex with a minor, but as an adult who covered up information that another adult was engaging in sexual acts with a minor.
The fact that Jennings apparently does not, or at least did not, see the wrong in what he did is reason enough to provide him a map to the unemployment office on his way out the White House door. The fact that he hid information concerning an adult having sex with a minor certainly disqualifies him from holding the position of “Safe School Czar.” The fact that Jennings is gay is just not relevant to the analysis, least I don’t see the relevance.
Finally, I understand the concern of many of the commentators here that social conservatives will argue that Jennings acts are due to him being gay and not because he lacked judgment and reasoning skills as a person. However, I have to ask if this is a valid concern? I have not seen this, at least not on the stretch of Al Gore’s superhighway I travel. However, as I said, I am not a social conservative, so perhaps I missed social conservatives equating the acts of Jennings to being gay.
I have seen some blogs taking offense at Jennings wanting to supposedly introduce a curriculum about gay life in elementary schools, but I think this is a different issue then equating being gay with being a sexual predator. [My opinion on this issue is that elementary school students are too young to be introduced to any form of sex education (yeh, I am a dinosaur) – but, they should be introduced to the fact that not all families have a mom and dad, but some have one or the other, and some have two moms or two dads and none are better than the other as long as the parents love and protect their children.]
Like I said, I may have missed the issues, and if I did please forgive my rant, but felt I just had to throw in my two cents.
Er… I guess that’s true if you’re talking about teenage boys in the 13-16 range, and are excluding the “barely legal twinks” — ’cause there are definitely a lot of 35-and-older gay men who are very open about being interested in guys who have just recently become old enough to vote.
(Something I’ll never understand, because I was one of those gay teens who was totally DILF-obsessed — though the acronym hadn’t actually been invented yet back in the ’80s — and to this day I barely take notice of guys under 30. Because even though they may be very handsome young men, they’re just not GROWN-UP enough for me to find them sexually appealing.)
Hey, NorthDallasThirty — I’d rather you didn’t use “we” and “us”, superfreak. You’re among the least interesting and most repetitive spewers of over-the-top foam and strewers of sloppy strawmen that I’ve ever encountered in all my many years on the Internet. Why do assholes like you have to ruin the conversation for everyone else?
Just STFU, you hungry little energy-creature and attention-whore.
*waves bye to Tim*
guffaw!
To be clear: my comment at #23 was referring to Tim’s as “psychobabble”, and was in agreement with the first three paragraphs of NDT’s #22.
Why do assholes like you have to ruin the conversation for everyone else?
Because, Throbert, you don’t have the spine to stand up for what’s right and wrong, and you seem bent on allowing gay pedophile supporters like Jennings and Tim speak on behalf of “real gays” and the gay community out of some misguided sense of PR.
There are plenty of people on this blog who know me personally and what I’m about. You aren’t one of them, and as a result, I don’t really care what you think of me.
Dan, I have to disagree with that characterization of the situation. For 12 years, I worked in health fields full of people who were very concerned about the needs of the minors they encountered. Part of that time was in predominantly gay organizations, most of the time was in organizations full of gay men and women doing their best to help out young people, especially gay young people. Self-selecting sample, sure, but this were people very concerned about the health and well being of minors.
I pointed out in a different thread that, depending on the age, the situation and, at one time, the era, when dealing with young people your options change. A kid, an 11-year old, being molested by an adult is a hell of a lot easier situation to fix relative than a 15, 16 or 17-year old teen headed off to all the places where adults willing and interested in having sex with them abound, age of consent laws to the contrary.
Your options change again when one of those older teens who headed off to all the places where adults willing and interesting in having sex with them abound when one of those adults rapes them or gives them an STD. They change again when one of those adults is giving the kid more stability, love and affection than they’ve ever known before.
Sometimes all you can do is give a kid a condom and teach them how to use it and other times you can walk them through talking with the police and DA about pressing charges when they finally feel they’ve been taken advantage of. Sometimes they never get there; the Fates are kind and they get a good deal. Keeps workers up nights no matter what the outcome is.
Part of that “ease” you talked about is thinking that you can stop a teen from doing anything you want them to do. You can’t stop a teen from doing anything they want to do. You might be able to make it damn hard for them, but stop them with any absolutely certainty? No. I’ll buy you a coffee and tell you example after example of that. I’m still amazed at what a kid in a locked and monitored psychiatric facility is capable of pulling off….
I know where you are coming from, but I just don’t see Jennings the way you do. This is a guy who spent 20 some-odd years creating options for gay kids where none existed before: trained counselors, made school systems ware, created safe meeting spaces for teens, and safer sex information to make sure that gay teens realized they were worthy of more than HIV and meeting guys in bus stops for a roll in the hay. Jennings telling Brewster, whatever his age — though it looks the kid was legally able to consent — to use a condom because his life was worth something seems to have had a powerful impact on that young man’s life. Whether Jennings believes it or said it to appease his critics, I don’t believe what he did was mistake.
This may come as an utter shock to Jody, Tim, and others but it is completely possible to give teenagers “love, stability, and affection” without buggering them.
And V, it may come as a shock to you but if a teenager is set on being or doing some buggering, there is bugger-all you can do to stop them from it.
Yeah, Jody, if there were only laws that, I don’t know, said it was a duty to report such issues…
Oh, wait.
(hit send too fast)
To clarify. Jody’s lamenting that ‘sometimes there’s nothing you can do’. Then he conviently ignores that there are laws that not only provide ‘something you can do’ but in Jenning’s anecdote, require you to do something.
This may come as an utter shock to Jody, Tim, and others but it is completely possible to give teenagers “love, stability, and affection” without buggering them.
True. But equally shocking is that all too often they don’t get it where they are supposed to.
By the way, this does not mean I support what Jennings (and, of course, the predator) did, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that Brewster as a 15 or 16-year-old did not get the support where he was supposed to get it.
We said if the President wants a gay education leader, he should choose Ellen.
I can’t believe he allows the most extreme personalities into these positions of power.
Anyway, the anti-gay agenda won’t gain much from this, it looks bad, but they won’t get to far. People just aren’t that stupid anymore.
Kevin Jennings, meet Frederic Mitterand. I’m sure you two have much to discuss.
And V, it may come as a shock to you but if a teenager is set on being or doing some buggering, there is bugger-all you can do to stop them from it.
You can enforce the law and have the adult men who prey on them put in jail. That’s what you can do about it. No one ever died from not having sex, or from waiting until they were 18 to have sex.
Coincidentally, I was just invited to participate in a mentoring program for youths in foster care. Contra Tim and Jody, I am not treating this as a dating opportunity.
And why is it V you are so high and mighty when you have a website with soft porn. . .the young woman you posted today barely looks of age.
Unlike the basketball game, the music competition or even a dramatic performance in HighSchool, most yout’ don’t really invite their parents for their ‘sexual encounters’. Should young people being having sex. . .well no, but they will and will continue to find ways to have sex. Should older adults be having sex with young adults/teens. . .absolutely NOT. But sometimes, just sometimes, young people use sex to find just simple companionship, an understanding person. Does this bring up the ICK factor. For me, yes big time.
Adults ‘preying’ on youth needs to be addressed by all in society. It doesn’t just happen with middle-aged men trolling bathroom stalls.
It happens in homes, schools, churches, political venues, etc. etc. etc.
From my short time of almost 30 years out of the closet. . . Men who actively seek sex with young men / teens usually aren’t boasting about it.
It you really want to help out gay youth and discourage such behavior. . .become a mentor at the youth programs, both straight and gay, volunteer to talk to students, become a role model. . .
just like V
[Looking at Jody’s webpage] Jody! JODY! Holy cow, I remember you from “Twenties Group” on Friday nights at St. Margaret’s in DC! I dunno know if you remember me; my real name is Rob McGee, and at the time I was attached to a super-geeky Puerto Rican guy named Juan, whom I originally met at a party hosted in the Chastleton by a Mr. Bill K–.
Does that ring a bell?
Anyhew…
Well, I beg to differ on that point, Jody. And while it was a forgivable mistake for Jennings to have made when he was 24 — just recently out of college and only a few years past being a teenager himself — let’s also keep in mind that this whole story about Brewster came from a book that Jennings wrote in 1994. In other words, about six years after the original incident, when Jennings was around 30, and should’ve been six years wiser. But did Jennings, writing in 1994, say “D’oh, in hindsight that was actually kinda terrible advice I gave the kid, and I’m still kicking myself over it”? Nope, he patted himself on the back.
And what was terrible about Jennings’ advice? Here’s the thing: “Use a condom” should be the LAST suggestion on the list, coming right after “Oh, by the way, if you’re going to ignore everything else I’ve already said, then for chrissake at least remember to…”
Before bringing up the subject of condoms, you oughta start with reminding the kid about the time-honored tradition of jacking off alone in the safety of his own bedroom — which is, needless to say, the safest and healthiest and most responsible way for any 15-year-old boy or girl, straight or gay, to express their raging adolescent sexual drives.
Then, as a “backup plan,” you might say to young Brewster, “But if you do decide to fool around sexually with another guy, remember that it’s almost impossible to catch any kind of STD from giving each other handjobs — don’t be like those dumb girls who let a dude talk them into going all the way to home plate.”
(As VtK can attest, it’s a frequent peeve of mine that most gay male “safer sex educators” do a totally shitty job of selling mutual j/o and frot as hot and intimate and orgasmic approaches to M2M sex.)
The witch hunt going on against Jennings is disgusting. Not only do you LIE about the young man’s age (as Faux News has programmed you to) to also LIE about Jennings’ record of service and dedication to creating safe schools for all students.
This man has served for years to protect GLBTQ and straight youth from just the type of hateful bullying and bigotry the right is currently engaging in – all because the homophobes Hannity, Malkin, the Family Research Council, and their ilk told them to.
Now you slander the man and equate him with NAMBLA – a completely baseless claim.
The politics of personal destruction that the right embraces should make each and every one of you deeply ashamed no matter what your orientation. You are what is wrong with this country.
P.S. The teen involved in the so called “scandal” was of legal age and did not have sex with anyone:
“I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a 16-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’s 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
There was nothing to report AND in the late 80s you told everyone to use a condom -remember what was going on then? Remember being 16 year old men with fully functioning and attention demanding dicks? We need to be telling more kinds to use condoms. Somebody should have told Levi and Bristol to wrap it up as well – but oh, Palin was a good woman who can’t be held responsible for the actions of her own teen daughter!
Hypocrites!
Liberal, since you attach your comment to my post, I think it’s a pretty safe bet you’re taking issue with my post. Only problem is you don’t seem to be taking issue with anything I’ve actually said, only what you think I said.
Wow, you do have a narrow-minded image of the right. And you’re throwing out the same kinds of attacks you accuse them of leveling.
No, I did not equate Jennings with NAMBLA. Please read this and my prior post on the topic. I made clear to say the just because he spoke highly of a NAMBLA supporter doeesn’t mean he supports tha organization.
Do you read the posts to which you attach your comments or just rant, rant, rant against the right? If FoxNews “lied” aboout “Brewster”‘s age, it’s ’cause they were basing their report on what Kevin Jennings said in the past. He had said the boy was 15.
All you do is attack and attack and attack. You really do hate conseratives. So, Libera, why do you hate so much? Why is it so incumbent upon you not to address my points but to level accusations and attack the right?
Somehow, I think this is your angry form response to conservative posts on Keving Jennings because, let me repeat, it doesn’t address the points of the post to which y0ou attach it.
So, LiberalGayPatriot also comes out in favor of adult men preying on underage boys.
So glad I’m not a liberal.
And the liberal double standard is pretty glaring, isn’t it? “He was 16, that makes it all right.” Which I find a disgusting standard. No one older than, at most, 21, has any business cruising teenagers. Much less men in their 30s and 40s.
Also, where we these “it’s technically legal, so it’s okay” liberals when Mark Foley was texting (not touching) teenage pages?
Rob, I remember 20s Group. I should, I was a frakking moderator for years. 😀 Didn’t you go to Russia? Or was it still the Soviet Union when you went? Many fond memories of the Chastleton: ordering Chinese and watching Deep Space 9, political debates til 5AM, bringing condoms from work to refill the bowl beside Bill’s front door.
Again, I’ll disagree. When you have a teenager talking about picking up / being picked up in bathrooms / busses etc. and going back to bonk at some guys house, you are a little past the whole “just jack off” window of opportunity. You are now in the Wear A Condom To Stay Alive To Live To See Another Day Zone.
Rob, when we ran in the same circles, for the first few years, I was one of those “gay male safer sex educators.” We -did- talk about mutual masturbation and being perfectly safe. I can’t speak for every last educator out there, but at Whitman-Walker, we sure were. It was a key lesson for the adults going through it, along side a whole host of other information about risk reduction and safer sex.
Even the initiative I worked on, adapting the adult peer education focused LIFEGUARD PROJECT HIV prevention curriculum into the teen centered PROJECT: LIFEGUARD which used older teens to teach information, had masturbation as a key element, along side condom usage and just waiting. Teens tend to listen to other teens before they listen to adults — or even 20soemthing educators.
The real important element though, at least in the stuff that I worked on, was that we spent a lot of time teaching teens directly and teaching peer educators specifically, about how to say “No” to partners, about countering their partners’ objections and about how to say “Yes,” but to only those activities they were comfortable with and with taking the appropriate protection. Oh, we also told them that slipping into DC on a fake ID and going home with someone they were in lust with, wasn’t exactly a -brilliant- move.
One of my coworkers was another 23 year old educator. He was from a very conservative Christian family — no talking about sex, gay = bad, etc. Genius smart. He was also HIV positive. Had been that way since he was 14. As best as he can, tell he got infected from a rest-stop encounter from a ride to band-camp. As someone who wasn’t sexually active as a minor teen, I asked him how you stop minors from having sex. “You can’t. If they want to f*ck they’ll f*ck. But here’s how to get them to use protection….” He was really good at it, too. His Ultra Conservative Christian mother was even better at it. I believe Danny died at 29.
If you are just starting to talk about sex with 14, 15 or 16 year old, you’ve waited too long.
Rob, send me an email through my contact deets. I’d love to find out how life’s treated you so far.
Actually, the way to stop the minors from having sex with older men is to prosecute the older men. Police crackdowns on rest areas and restrooms are helpful in that regard, but gay activists oppose these measure as “oppressive.”
I don’t see why people are making excuses for this. Over the years, I’ve had several 15 or 16 year old kids become infatuated with me. And just last winter, one of my son’s friends told me he thought I was “adorable.” But I never did anything remotely inappropriate with any of them. We’re not animals. We have control over ourselves. Why is it too much to expect people to have some self-control?
In full disclosure, I spent more than two years doing the Larry Craig tappity-tap-tap thing every Friday and/or Saturday night in a certain men’s restroom at the University of Virginia. Unlike Sen. Craig, I never managed to get myself arrested; I just had lots and lots and lots of sexual encounters with strangers, nearly all of them at least 10 years older than me, and some more like 20 years older. (When I was lucky — ’cause I was a ravenous horndog for DILFs.)
Mind you, the very first time I ever did this was a few weeks after my 19th birthday, which is to say sometime in early December 1990.
And in those whole two+ years during which I fooled around with dozens and scores of anonymous older men, I never ever “used a condom” — because I had very little interest in anal sex at all, and I certainly wasn’t about to try it with a stranger I met in a restroom. And the honest truth is that of all the guys I was with, only two or three of them at most even brought up the topic of fucking (and they didn’t press the issue when I said I wasn’t into that).
What we did, instead, was lots of mutual j/o and “swordfighting”, and sometimes blowjobs, and with BJs there seemed to be a universally-observed rule among the “tearoom” guys that you NEVER ejaculated in a dude’s mouth without his prior permission to do so. And in fact, there were a number of these older men who made a point of encouraging me to spooge on their chest, rather than in the mouth, and likewise they shot their loads ON me, not IN me.
What I’m trying to say is that if these 40-year-old “predators” were “preying” on my 19-year-old self, then as predators go, some of them were actually rather passive, and even conscientious enough to role-model safer sex practices like ejaculating externally.
Of course, all that having been disclosed, even at 19 I would’ve said the same thing to 15-year-old Brewster that I said in my previous comment (#42), written a couple hours ago as I sit here approaching my 38th birthday. So at 19 I already had more sense than Jennings did at 30.
The initial post addresses Jennings and then goes on to discuss NAMBLA. Is it a stretch for me to think you are making a comparison? I think not. Not to mention the myriad of vitriol and unjustifiable bias against Jennings for doing absolutely nothing wrong that is evident in this thread.
I do not write the laws in Massachusetts but apparently the people of that state do feel it is fine for 16 year olds to make sexual decisions (aren’t you cons all about state’s rights?). In this case the 16 year old DIDN’T have SEX – doesn’t the story stop there? It should but now the meat-heads at Faux ‘News” and hate radio are competing to destroy another member of the Obama Administration.
It is sickening. No lie is too disgusting or depraved for the smear machine of the rovian right.
I don’t hate you – I pity you and I pity those like you who are so easily lead by your corporate masters.
And note that in my case, the F in DILF stood and stands for “fellate.” Or “frot,” or even “frig” or “French-kiss” or “fondle” — but definitely not “fuck” in any literal sense!
Liberal, my corporate masters?!?! LOL, ROFLMAO!!! How revealing this comment about your prejudices against conservatives.
Here’s what I said about Jennings and NAMBLA:
Indulge in name-calling all you want, but you don’t address my point that FoxNews was merely repeating what Jennings himself had said–that the boy was 15 at the time. And while you accuse the right of hate, your very language suggests you’re the one filled with bile and animosity.
Maybe you don’t hate me, but you do hate. And you are narrow-minded.
There is nothing hateful in my posts – I am merely calling it like I see it. To deny that cons are not pro-corporate is disingenuous.
You started this by stating:
“One of the reasons I would rather not blog on the Kevin Jennings story is that, I believe, some social conservatives are using it to reinforce stereotypes about gay people. Yeah, there are gay people who have sex with minors…”
In one breath you go from Jennings to child molesters. You are, whether you admit it or not, drawing a parallel between this man and those who prey on children.
If Jennings wrote the wrong age – fine that is his crime. Shame on him! SHAME on a so called “news” organization for not checking the facts before slandering a man’s good name (and continuing to draw those same erroneous connections).
As for me being hateful or narrow-minded all I can say is you do not know me. I am neither of those things. I am quite open minded. I know where you come from by reading your posts which are very narrow minded and often quite hateful (and resort to name calling often). You have painted liberals with the same broad brush you accuse us of using on your kind. You should be careful throwing stones in your glass house!
If Jennings wrote the wrong age – fine that is his crime.
Actually, his crime was bragging, for years afterwards, how he helped a 15 year old kid get molested by an older man he met in a public bathroom.
Just curious V, how are you planning on prosecuting these men without a complaining witness? Or even a name?
I just want to attest that Jody is telling the truth here, at least about himself and presumably other Whitman/Walker staffers of that time — I remember his safer-sex presentations at “Twenties Group” and they were certainly comprehensive and went way beyond “use a condom!” sloganeering.
You and your damn Vulcan logic, Jody!
Anyway, I guess I owe you an email… coming soon.
Like I said, stings, raids, decoys, whatever it takes. Maybe not all the boys want to prosecute, but I bet the parents would in most cases.
I am gob-smacked that there are so many gay men who have no problem with older man preying on young boys. Congratulations, you’ve just validated the right-wing stereotype of the predatory homosexual. Well done.
Little naive there, V. This isn’t about some dude swooping in and stealing away some straggling teen as he falls behind on the walk between classes. This is about those teens that decide for a whole host of reasons that they are interested in men and don’t see why they have any need to pause, reconsider or deny themselves what ever man they can get.
Yeah, that’s really what I’ve been talking about here…. [shakes head]
Heh. Forgot about that. Most of my memories of TTG are about the sheer impossibility of trying to get a room of 50 young gay men to decide on where to go after for dinner. “Not there again!”
Look forward to catching up.