Children shown U of W lesbian masturbation videos
Norm Gall
PatersonREMOVETHIS <she...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 05:18:07 GMT, in
> <jsfY6.302344$eK2.61...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>, Squelch stated
> >The Ottawa Citizen has picked up the story, as well as the National Post,
> >and it has been a
> >topic of conversation on radio talk shows nationwide.
>
> And did the newspapers investigate the story themselves or did they just pick
> it up on the wires? Given what I know about newspapers, I suspect the latter.
Actually, the wire story was very balanced. CP reported facts, not
hyperbole and hysteria. They interviewed the president of the
university and others. The word puppet the Sun had peck out the story
wrote it the way he did because a) the Sun won't print articles that
aren't hysterical and b) the president of UW wouldn't give *him* a
telephone interview.
*I* suspect, but of course do not speak for her, that she knew the Sun
would print whatever tripe they wanted and she opted not to waste her
time.
ng
Sheila Paterson
<210620010100142063%ga...@mail.spookyhill.net>, Norm Gall stated
>In article <cPfY6.3504$yp1.1...@www.newsranger.com>, Sheila
>PatersonREMOVETHIS <she...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 05:18:07 GMT, in
>> <jsfY6.302344$eK2.61...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>, Squelch stated
>
>> >The Ottawa Citizen has picked up the story, as well as the National Post,
>> >and it has been a
>> >topic of conversation on radio talk shows nationwide.
>>
>> And did the newspapers investigate the story themselves or did they just pick
>> it up on the wires? Given what I know about newspapers, I suspect the latter.
>
>Actually, the wire story was very balanced. CP reported facts, not
>hyperbole and hysteria. They interviewed the president of the
>university and others.
Knock me over with a feather. I should have looked checked out the pieces
first. However, since newspapers often merely rewrite a wire story without
checking things out first, it was a reasonable supposition.
The word puppet the Sun had peck out the story
>wrote it the way he did because a) the Sun won't print articles that
>aren't hysterical and b) the president of UW wouldn't give *him* a
>telephone interview.
"Hysterical" is the word.
Sheila Paterson
Note: address transmogrified.
Norm Gall
Bernard <rbern...@home.com> wrote:
> I agree that they should mention that masterbation is good, but I don't
> think they need to show someone how to do it. More importantly I don't think
> they need to show 14 year old girls a movie of women masterbating with
> vegetables.
Well, you see, this is the problem. *Please* try to get _facts_ instead
of hyserical rants *especially* from a Sun newspaper.
No one was shown a video or film of anyone masturbating let alone
masturbating with vegetables.
ng
Norm Gall
<p...@se.ask> wrote:
> Sheila Paterson wrote in message
> <86fY6.3455$yp1.1...@www.newsranger.com>...
> >Given the source, I seriously doubt the accuracy of this article. I
> also have
> >some doubts about the administration's explanations. Be that as it
> may, these
> >students aren't children. Your subject header is misleading.
>
> Sheila, regardless of your sympathies, the parents and teachers were
> misled, I think deliberately. They signed up for a "Women in Art" course
> and they were shown videos teaching them how to masturbate with objects.
No. No, they were not. They were shown one video, among many videos, in
which it was implied that a woman could do so with a vegetable.
There were no 'how-to' clips.
> That seems to me to be objectionable and deceitful. You may, of course,
> disgaree.
>
> Re "chidren":
> The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "child"
> as "A person between birth and puberty."
>
> Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary defines "puberty" as "The
> earliest age at which persons are capable of begetting or bearing
> children, usually considered, in temperate climates, to be about
> fourteen years in males and twelve in females."
>
> I believe the students were 12-14 years old. So, yes, "teens" is better
> than "children" but not "children" is not wholly inaccurate.
But it is misleading. By using the term 'children' the reader is
invited to draw the conclusion that persons under the age of 12 were
involved. The term was used, I think, for rhetorical purposes and not
infomational. But hten that's the tried and true method of the Sun.
> BTW, the report is accurate,
The report in the Sun is almost _wholly_ inaccurate. About the only
thing the guy got right was where the class was held.
> though I don't know all the lurid details.
*I* do and the Sun article is almost actionable.
Norm Gall
<p...@se.ask> wrote:
> Sheila PatersonREMOVETHIS wrote in message ...
> Squelch stated
> >>Since when is a major newspaper chain a questionable source?
> >
> >When it's the Winnipeg Sun, for one.
>
> The Winnipeg Free Press also reported it. Does that count?
Of course. But *read* the Freep report. It followed up on the CP report
and was much more accurate.
> If not, what papers do count? And does the fact that the UofW admin
> admits it happened
*What* does the UW admin admit happened?
> but simple ridicules the idea it was wrong make any
> difference? Thanks.
> --
> Peter D
Peter D
<210620011437062625%ga...@mail.spookyhill.net>...
>> misled, I think deliberately. They signed up for a "Women in Art"
course
>> and they were shown videos teaching them how to masturbate with
objects.
>
>No. No, they were not. They were shown one video, among many videos, in
>which it was implied that a woman could do so with a vegetable.
>
>There were no 'how-to' clips.
My apologies, Norm. It seems like I've got caught up in the hysteria. I
think you know the facts of this case. Could you tell us simply what did
happen.
My major concern in all this is not the "sex thing", but the duplicity
in (as reported) using a "Women in Art" course to introduce the
material/issue. It's an "appropriate" and "informed consent" thing for
me.
--
Peter D
Clip Trimble
Philip Lewis wrote:
>
> > Phil, do you have any repressed homosexual desires?
>
> The issue (seeing past your transparent and crude attempt to play the role
> of "shrink") isn't on whether aspects of gay sexuality should be taught or
> not - but that rather the clas was advertised as an ART CLASS and
What the hell would you know about 'art' Phil....my guess is jack squat.
>
> furthermore it wasn't just "masturbation" lessons - but also delivered with
> a message that "you don't need men".
So says you Phil, how the hell would you know?
> This was a class that brought a narrow
> gender political agenda into a class that was representing itself as
> something else -
Sure Phil can you say 'hysteria'?
> just ask yourself this - how would you react if an "art
> class" was devised where the students were told that gays are "bad" and that
> you "don't need them in your lives".?
>
Well you certainly haven't shown that any of this happened, except perhaps in
your own mind.
Clip Trimble
Norm Gall
<p...@se.ask> wrote:
> It doens't matter whether what they showed was hard-core, political,
> jolly good fun sex, or 'lesbian training videos'. What does matte ris
> whether the viewers (the students) and their guardians/netors
> (parents/teachers) were made aware of the content prior to the course.
>
> Once again for the factually challenged: The students went to a "Women
> in Art" class and were shown lesbian videos featuring explicit sexual
> content depicting masturbation with vegetables, etc.
It seems to me that it is you who is 'unfamiliar with the truth' here
Peter. The video in question is _one_ video, not a series of videos.
You will agree that video tape is an acceptable medium to use in an art
history class
The video was not a 'lesbian' video though it discusses lesbian issues.
You will agree that anyone with a hint of education would realise that
lesbian themes in Art would be discussed in a class on 'Women in Art'.
There was no content that 'depicted measturbation with vegetables'.
There was content that implied that a woman _could_ masterbate with
vegetables... it was a single-off hand remark in the video.
And my information on these points comes from no newspaper.
> Do you think it's appropriate to have a "women in Art" class, invite
> impressionable teens to it, and then show them sexually explicit videos?
> Thanks
Well, no. But then no one did that.
ng
Norm Gall
<p...@se.ask> wrote:
> dz...@home.com wrote in message ...
> >Schools etc. can't just hold a new class of subject matter without
> >passing through the proper channels. All subjects etc. have
> >disclosure as to the content being teached. In this case was it not
> >appearant to those taking the course?
>
> No. And THAT is the issue. The parents, teachers, and student did not
> give informed consent or informed participation. They were misled,
> duped, tricked, conned, and generally screwed around with by a publicly
> funded educational institution that apparently is quite proud of the
> fact.
No one was "misled, duped, tricked, conned, and generally screwed
around". The material presented was perfectly appropriate for the topic
being discussed. The issue is whether that material should have been
discussed with minors. *I* wouldn't jhave done so, but then that's me.
On the other hand, I don't teach art history. But if you don't think
that lesbian issues *won't* be discussed in a University level course
called 'Women in Art', you need an education far more than these
adolescents.
ng
Norm Gall
<p...@se.ask> wrote:
> Norm Gall wrote in message
> <210620011437062625%ga...@mail.spookyhill.net>...
> >In article <uxqY6.9609$Vf.10...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com>, Peter D
> >> the parents and teachers were
> >> misled, I think deliberately. They signed up for a "Women in Art"
> course
> >> and they were shown videos teaching them how to masturbate with
> objects.
> >
> >No. No, they were not. They were shown one video, among many videos, in
> >which it was implied that a woman could do so with a vegetable.
> >
> >There were no 'how-to' clips.
>
> My apologies, Norm. It seems like I've got caught up in the hysteria. I
> think you know the facts of this case. Could you tell us simply what did
> happen.
Take a look at my other posts this morning.
> My major concern in all this is not the "sex thing", but the duplicity
> in (as reported) using a "Women in Art" course to introduce the
> material/issue. It's an "appropriate" and "informed consent" thing for
> me.
First, let me say that lesbian issues are perfectly acceptable as
material for such a class as many 20th century female artists are
lesbians or part of that community and that experience is important to
understanding their art. This isn't brain surgery. If people don't like
it they can get rid of art history as a discipline at the next book
burning.
That is really only a side issue. The real issue is whether these kinds
of topics should be taught to minors without *explicit* permissions
form parents given the temperment of some parents. At a Parent -teacher
meeting, (I was the parent), I met another parent that was upset that
his daughter was being taught about the history of Great Britain. His
argument was that 'those damn Limeys fucked this country up until we
cozied up to the Americans -- I don't want my daughter wasting her
time'.
I personally think that parents should have next to nothing to say
about what *their* child is taught -- only about what all children are
taught. And then they provide advice. There are far too many parents
who are not in a poisiton to know what their children need to know or
what the mandate of the school is.
I've had various parents complain to me (as a parent) that the school
a) wasn't teaching enough sex educatiuon, b) was teaching too much sex
education, c) wasn't teaching penmanship (in grade 10!), d) didn't give
the kids recess (in grade 10!), e)taught too much mathematics (little
Johnny found it difficult to add 5 and 7 and it was hard on him), f)
didn't force every child to take physical education, g) spent too much
time wiht computers, h) spent too little time with computers, etc. etc.
I don't really care if a particular parents are pissed at what their
kid was taught -- there are all sorts of argument I propose in class
that upsets students, but that's life. However, I dont' teach
adolescents except in rare cases -- and those indviduals, in my
experience, are exceptonally mature.
All of that having been said, I don't think that kind of material
should have been presented on purpose in that class -- if merely by
accident (she'd forgottent those comments were present), it is
regretable.
As you suggest above, I think this has been blown way out of proportion
by a Sun reporter who was pissed off that the President of University
wouldn't give him an interview.