Teacher-Approved High School Sex Obsession

By Bob Ellis on January 29th, 2009

springsawakeningWhat’s going on at Central High School in Rapid City?  Is one of our city’s high schools obsessed with sex? 

Last year, Central High School put on the pro-homosexual play “The Laramie Project.”  Now the Rapid City Journal reports Central plans to do a graphic play called “Spring’s Awakening” written by Frank Wedekind.  

The Journal article says the play “has been controversial and often censored because it discusses sex, abortion, suicide, masturbation, child abuse, rape and homosexuality.”

According to the article, Justin Speck, the director of ACTS (Advocates for Creative Theatre) and Central High School’s theater program, “said the play’s redeeming quality is the question it raises about communication between a parent and child about sexuality.”

Speck was also (ostensibly) the adult in charge when The Laramie Project was put on.

The study guide website GradeSaver describes this scene in the summary:

One day, Wendla searches out Melchior in a hayloft. She tries to get him to rejoin the others, but he refuses. Suddenly, Melchior starts making provocative statements to Wendla, but she tells him not to kiss her, for they don’t love each other. Wendla continues to protest, but Melchior grabs and rapes her.

Yes, this is wholesome material for high school age children.

As is this description with sado-masochistic overtones:

Wendla yearns to be beaten, but this desire for an intense physical experience is clearly linked to a yearning for sexual experience, or at least sexual knowledge.

The analysis at GradeSaver indicates this sex-violence message is not isolated:

Moritz’s obsession with the headless queen both foreshadows his own end and underscores the connection between sex and violence that is present throughout the play.

And still more sexual material:

Melchior says he doesn’t think that the tragedy has anything to do with sex. If Faust had just promised to marry Gretchen and then abandoned her it would have been just as bad. He seems almost disgusted by the fact that everyone around him seems obsessed with sex. Moritz admits that since reading the essay Melchior left him, he too feels that the world revolves around sex.

The major themes listed at GradeSaver indicate parental norms and authority may be undermined:

In Spring Awakening, relationships between parents and children seem fraught with danger. Almost no parent seems to be successful at bringing up their children to live as they did. Moritz kills himself, Wendla dies, Melchior must displace his parents with the man in the mask, Martha’s parents abuse her to the point where it seems she wants to kill them, and Ilse’s parents seem to be entirely absent.

And what modern educational exercise would be complete without a swipe at religious faith:

Organized religion is depicted in an extremely negative light in Spring Awakening. The town’s religious leader, Pastor Skinnytum, lacks sympathy for Moritz’s plight. Melchior, in some ways the most positive figure of the play, is an atheist, and his difficulties with religious belief are expressed in a believable and open manner.

As one parent quoted in the Rapid City Journal article indicated, the material in this play would merit an R rating for most movies. By her own testimony in the paper, this parent isn’t a conservative killjoy like me: “I’m very liberal, but this is off the deep end.”

The latest from the Rapid City Journal indicates the outcry which has already come over this has resulted in the play being moved from Central High school to some undisclosed off-campus venue.

However, it seems the students will still be involved in the play.

While this may be seen as some slight improvement, the improvement is so subtle as to constitute one of those “shades of gray” that liberals are so fond of.  

We’ve gone from “A taxpayer-financed government organization is going to corrupt the morals of your children in taxpayer-financed facilities” to “A taxpayer-financed government organization is going to corrupt the morals of your children.”

Yes, a huge improvement.

Parents should have said and done something last year when the pro-homosexual “The Laramie Project” play was put on.  When we let acts of moral turpitude pass unchallenged, more egregious acts almost always follow….and obviously they have.  Parental inaction last year has contributed to this.

The school system seriously needs to rethink the retention of Mr. Speck as a school employee.  And perhaps anyone else in the school system that has given Speck a free hand in these morally corrosive activities.

Most people don’t send their children to public schools specifically to obtain moral training…but neither do parents send their children to public schools to have their moral compass erased, either.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , , ,

  • Because this "you can't know it's a morally reprehensible play without seeing it" silliness is getting a little old (as if I'd need to actually jump into a septic tank to understand that it'd be filthy inside), I thought I'd go to the GradeSaver site where I read the most detailed review of the play and see just how many words their analysis is.

    Adding up the word counts of their Short Summary, About, Major Themes, and Summary and Analysis pages, it comes to 18,979 words.

    Eighteen thousand nine hundred seventy nine words. If you can't figure out whether something is good or bad in 18,979 words (and there was stuff in the Summary and Analysis pages I didn't even quote in the my article), then you may just create a new level and definition for obtuseness.
  • Bill Knight
    Bob,

    This isn't a matter of liberalism or conservatism, but a classic case of fascism. This play was written to teach parents that it is important to have frank discussions about sex with your kids. The play was written in a time period in which it was considered unnecessary to have discussion with children of sexual matters and they had to figure it out on their own. That is why some of things in the play happen, because the had to figure it out on their own. All of the scenes in the play are done very tastefully and done in a way to teach.

    This is a great play. Now, there is a play being done that talks about a character who falls in love, stalks his lover outside her house, kills a bunch of people in anger, then commits suicide. Where is the outcry over this? It's Romeo and Juliet.
  • Spoken like a true liberal, Bill. Liberals love to throw around that term "fascism" any time they want to excuse the morally reprehensible. Sorry, we're not buying any of that here.

    You also seem to contradict yourself--and Mr. Speck--when you said "The play was written in a time period in which it was considered unnecessary to have discussion with children of sexual matters and they had to figure it out on their own." By your own admission that is not the case today, so why are we showing this piece of filth, other than for the sake of gratuitousness?

    As I've said here before, if we insist on teaching about sex publicly when it should be taught in the home by parents, there are a myriad of healthy and wholesome materials available. No rational person teaches children what is normal and healthy by showing them scenes of masturbation, child abuse, rape and other sexual violence, distorted parent-child relationships, disrespect for religious morality and obsessions with sex.

    Finally, we're not buying your juvenile comparison to Romeo and Juliette, either. That one is as old-and-tired an excuse for promoting immoral displays as liberalism itself.

    Why don't you try acting like a grownup and start putting the welfare of children and the moral fiber of the community ahead of your acquiescence to moral turpitude?
  • Bill Knight
    Well, actually, I am a Libertarian.

    I did not contradict myself at all, you assumed that I contradicted myself base on your own assumption on what the world is. You assume that we live in a time where that type of conversation between parents and children exists all the time. That is simply not true. Unfortunately, I don't have a Utopian view of the world that you may have. These conversations need to actually happen, and because you and I are actually having these conversations, proves that you have the Utopian view that these conversations between parent and child happen all the time. Quite simply, they don't.

    Unfortunately, your view and perspective is akin to when they decided that it is necessary to ban the book Huckleberry Finn because of the language involved.

    I was using Romeo and Juliet as an argument to show that every classic play has potentially controversial subjects that exist. It is just a matter of public opinion on whether or not it is accepted. Unfortunately, public opinion as a whole is not necessarily a justification for believing something or not. I personally am more interested in the truth.

    I am a adult, I am a human, I am not flawless, but I also will allow others to do what thou wilt as long as it does not impede on my ability to do what I shall.
  • You said, "The play was written in a time period in which it was considered unnecessary..." That implies that today that is no longer the case. Further, with the proliferation of sexuality in pop culture, and sex ed in school, it would seem that children are getting more than enough discussion of sex--whether it's at home or not, where it should be.

    I always love how you liberals (if you espouse a liberal philosophy, I'll call you a liberal) seem to think it's soooo impossible to uphold a moral standard of good behavior. We did so for centuries, until the last few decades.

    Why? Because we wanted to. Because we considered it important. Because we recognized that even in a free, limited-government society, a free and healthy society can survive only as long as they are willing to restrain themselves and act in a moral fashion. We recognized that there are public consequences when we are apathetic about moral standards, and when we allow the impressionable minds of young people to be corrupted.

    Now we whine that we "can't", when in reality it's just a matter of being too lazy to put out the effort, and too afraid someone will make fun of us.

    That's a pretty juvenile approach to life.
  • Bill Knight
    "The play was written in a time period in which it was considered unnecessary..." does not in fact imply that it is no longer the case. There are still many people out there that do not have these discussions.

    As for the rest of your post, you did not reply to any of my arguments and used the rest of the space as a method to espouse your own personal beliefs that are NOT conservative.
  • The rest of your arguments weren't worth responding to, Bill.

    And I doubt you'd have the foggiest idea what conservative values are because you don't even understand libertarianism versus liberalism. Libertarianism is essentially based on a belief and pursuit of liberty--liberty with responsibility, as the Founders understood it. Liberalism is based on license, from which we get we get the term "licentiousness," meaning "lacking legal or moral restraints," or a license to do whatever enters our head without regard to the morality or consequences.

    That is the philosophy you espoused when you defended and advocated the corruption of young minds with garbage like this play. An attitude all about license and zero about responsibility.
  • Bill Knight
    Unfortunately, you are misunderstanding my argument. You assume that since I advocate this play, I want to corrupt minds. You have not ever taken into consideration my own viewpoint and are always trying to show that I am trying to "corrupt minds".

    HAVE YOU READ THE PLAY? Twice, you have admitted that you have not read the play. How can one make an assumption on a subject matter if they have never actually studied the subject? To allow yourself to be influenced by a review of something when you actually haven't read it is NOT looking for truth (Direct quote from your contribute page: "We do not pretend to be unbiased, but rather have an allegiance to the truth where ever it is found, regardless of what political party it benefits or indicts."

    You are like Ingrid Newkirk from PETA, you create something that you believe is constructive, but actually is destructive.
  • Sorry Bill. You don't get off that easy.

    This play is clearly--from the non-partisan, objective, and very detailed summary that I read about it (i.e. they aren't a conservative or Christian website, so they have no reason to put an inordinate moral slant on it) is absolutely a moral cesspool. It would be corrupting to the mind of an adult, much less a teenager.

    If you advocate children being shown this rot and being involved in this play, then you clearly advocate the corrupting of their minds. That's another predilection of liberals: advocate access to moral decadence, then refuse any moral responsibility for the corruption of character of another person. You're not fooling God and you're not fooling me.

    I don't need to try meth to realize it's destructive, and I don't need to go watch this play to figure out that everything I've read about it is accurate.

    How profoundly sad that you are so oblivious to any of this.
  • Spin
    Bob,
    I respect your opinion and your strong stance with morality, but what bothers me most about your particular level of conservatism is that you believe that only you have the right opinion. This material doesn’t offend me and I am still a good person. I believe differently than you. It is my opinion that this could be a venue that could be used to educate. Not that it is the only way to educate, but A way to educate. I don’t believe that I am wrong and I also don’t believe that you are wrong, simply that we have different opinions.

    My problem with what you have written here is that it seems that you are so offended by the material (that you admit to not even having read) you want to control how it is viewed. You are allowing YOUR opinion dictate how others live THEIR lives. You seem to forget that people are different than you, that they can see something for themselves and then make up their own mind about how to handle the material.

    It’s not up to you to say what I, my children or my mother for that matter get to see. It’s been said before; if this type of thing offends you, then don’t go. You have absolutely no business telling other people what to do.
  • Chop
    Here here!
  • A legitimate way to teach young people about sexuality would be one that approached the issue factually and with recognition that sex is a very special thing.

    This piece of rot displays many of the ways in which sexuality is misused--grossly misused.

    You said "you believe that only you have the right opinion." That is patently and demonstrably false; in fact, it's a cheap liberal objection to being called out when you're wrong. The fact that others in the Journal--even a self-professed liberal--and here at Dakota Voice recognize this filth is inappropriate for children illustrates that I am not the only one with the right opinion--and I am obviously aware of that fact.

    Whether you like it or not, there are rights and wrongs in the universe. Whether Coke is better than Pepsi is an opinion. Whether involving school children in a portrayal of rape, masturbation, toxic parent-child relationships, disdain for religious morality, and obsession with sex is not a matter of "opinion" but of what is right and what is wrong. And it is clearly wrong, and it is clearly unhealthy to involve young people with it, much less even let them watch it. How profoundly sad that you just don't get this.

    And frankly, I find your accusations that I want to control what is viewed and dictate how others live their lives the height of hypocrisy.

    Someone doesn't have to watch this piece of filth being passed off as a play if they don't want to...but neither does anyone have to listen to what I say about it, either. Mr. Speck, you and others who see no problem with promoting this moral rot to our community have no problem foisting your views that sexual depravity should be put on display as commonplace...yet get all indignant when someone calls it out for the moral corrosive that it is. Do you realize how hypocritical that is?

    You want society to accept the contention that sexual violence and depravity on display is morally acceptable, and you want society to accept that it is morally upright to involve school children in this display? Yet I should not have the right to solicit society to retain the historic understanding that both this display and the involvement of children in it are reprehensible? That is the epitome of hypocrisy.

    You have the right of free speech to solicit the degradation of public morality, and I have the right of free speech to oppose it. I also have the responsibility as a citizen--and Christian--to point out this error and encourage society to take the more noble path, the "high road" if you will, that safeguards our children and the moral fabric of our society.

    The adult, mature and responsible thing to do would be to protect our children from decadence like this. Grownups used to understand this responsibility and rise to it. Apparently that is too much to ask of many people these days who grew up physically but never did intellectually or emotionally.
  • betty76
    How do you know you're right, Bob?

    I want some proof. Prove to me that you are right and those that disagree with you are wrong.
  • Betty76, if you don't understand after everything I've said here how I know I'm right about this, and that I am right about this, nothing more I could say would make a dent in your delusion.
  • Footloose
    did I miss the citywide tantrum had over Central's production of Miss Saigon? You know ... with the soldier in VIetnam and the geisha?
  • Practically everyone agrees that parents should talk with their children about sex in age-appropriate terms.

    Rather than allow them to pick up messages and form conclusions from poison like this play, information about sex should come from parents and from wholesome sources that stress healthy, normative information about human sexuality.

    Such information and advice is available for parents and children. For instance, there's this from Probe ministries entitled "Cool Stuff About Love and Sex." Some excerpts:

    - Solomon's ancient love sonnet, the "Song of Solomon," is one of the best sex manuals ever written. It traces the beauty of a sexual relationship in marriage and is an openly frank description of marital sexual intimacy

    - Another purpose of sex is to develop oneness or unity.

    - A third purpose for sex is procreation.

    - The qualities that contribute to a successful sex life are the same ones that contribute to a successful interpersonal relationship. Qualities like love, commitment, and communication.

    - Premarital sex can detract from a strong relationship and a fulfilling love life. Too often, it's merely a self-gratifying experience.

    - As one TV producer told me, "Frankly, I think the sexual revolution has backfired in our faces. It's degrading to be treated like a piece of meat."

    - A nationwide survey of teens asked the question, "When it comes to your decisions about sex, who is most influential?" Forty-nine percent of teens responding said it was their parents. The next closest response was "Friends" (16 percent).

    - What can a parent do to help their teens develop positive, healthy sexual attitudes and behavior? Here are some ideas: Develop close, loving relationships with your kids from the time they are young; Model the types of behavior and attitudes you wish them to emulate;

    Of course, if you want your children to be familiar with all the sexual positions, run drills of how to put on a condom (never understood why this was rocket science???), and be well-versed on ever sexual deviancy known to the modern world, this type of material probably won't cut it.

    But I think most parents would settle for the basics of human sexuality and a tone that conveys a healthy message about the importance and specialness of human sexuality.

    There's simply no excuse for falling back on garbage like this play for "communication" and instruction when there is so much healthy, sound information available.
  • Craig Ericks
    Moral coruption has been the downfall of every prominent civilization throughout world history. Why can't the people in the U.S. learn from history and learn how damaging this kind of play and this kind of mind set will be to our once great country. I pray that God will spare this country on behalf of the remnant who still believes that this country was founded on Christian principles and who still believe that God is in controll. May God bless America
    Craig Ericks
  • Bob Hayford
    It's time we take a stand against immorality, especially in our public schools. Thank you to the many people who have been vigilant in pointing out what this play is all about. Instead of having a play of this nature let's have one that focuses on the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus - a true story that inspires and presents man's only real hope. What a learning tool and motivator for our youth and their parents.
  • cinemaphile85
    I'm sure Jewish, Hindu, and Muslim parents would have a problem with that.
  • No school should advance a physical, emotionally, and spiritually destructives lifestyles to students. Sounds to me like our school administrators are failing many of our students mirerably. If you can't diagree with something wrong and harmful to children because someone yells "First Amendment right" we become slaves real fast.
  • cinemaphile85
    There is no evidence suggesting that the school was forcing its students to participate.

    If a parent is doing his or her job well, then what they say to their own children should trump anything that the school system promotes. Nobody said being a parent was easy, but you can't cheat your way through it by preventing the parents who do want their kids to see this play from doing so.
  • The school doesn't have to force the children to participate for it to be reprehensible. Merely exposing them to it and making it available in a nonjudgmental fashion is reprehensible.

    Would you want someone offering your children drugs, even though they didn't force them to use the drugs?

    Would you want someone offering alcohol to your children, even though they didn't force them to drink it?

    Would you want someone offering pornography to your children, even though they didn't force them to look at it?

    The last thing a school employee should be doing--in any way, shape, form or fashion--is making a parent's job harder.

    Our society used to understand "corruption of character," or the act of attempting to corrupt the good character of someone, especially children. We used to understand universally that it was one of the most morally reprehensible things an adult could do.

    How profoundly sad--and damning--that such a concept is so alien to so many these days.
  • cinemaphile85
    Thanks for at least explaining your point without resorting to toilet "humor", Bob.

    And you do realize that by drawing our attention to this play and encouraging such a lively discussion, you're probably making people more likely to see it, right? I'm sure Frank Wedekind appreciates the free publicity!
  • The journal had already done two articles on it, so there was already plenty of publicity.

    Sorry, I don't fall for the "you'd better keep your mouth shut and don't publicize it" ploy to silence moral truth.

    It needed to be denounced, some people had already denounced it in the Journal articles, and they deserved to be commended and affirmed.
  • I bet you believe you can pick up a turd from the clean end too, right?
  • Alice
    It makes me "sick" to see the government (schoolsin this case) trying to take the place of parents. I'm tired of always fighting the government to have the right to raise my children the way that the Bible and I see as right. We as Parents have our children. We don't need government (schoolsin this case) countering what we want our hildren to learn. Leave us parentsalone, these are our children NOT your children.
  • Si Issler
    Thank you Bob, for posting my first comment and others that see different sides. (I am sometimes a little impatient and wish computers move faster than they aready do.)
    So you are willing to admit you found ONE resource and are OK with just that? How can you consider your comments to be credible? You're not doing the footwork- you're just judging something you don't fully understand. You're sitting at a computer, use Google! See how many other productions have gone up! Where they were performed! Some actually WERE performed BY high school drama departments! That's 3 seconds of legwork right there.
    And, what are you so afraid of? What is the worst outcome, in your fearful mind, that will happen in this town when this show is performed at the end of February?
    Maybe, and hopefully, a couple of less-educated teenagers will think twice about doing something that could change the course of their lives forever in a very detrimental way. Maybe one or two teenage girls won't end up scared and pregnant in the Planned Parenthod office. Maybe a few parents will be relieved when their teenagers want to have an adult conversation with them instead of sneaking out of the house one night.
    Maybe you'll like the play. Anything is possible.
  • Si Issler, I think I've been clear about why this is a terrible thing to expose school children to. If you don't get it by now, I don't think anything else I have to say will help you.
  • Si Issler
    Well, Bob, I'll try one more commment since you have chosen not to post my other one.
    ACTS did in fact, put out a bulitin that was posted in the RC Journal, at the Arts Resource Center, and at all the High Schools, and other online venues. Mr. Speck, nor the Central High School Drama Department, did not solicit anyone- every actor that was cast AUDITIONED. And those student actors that are in the show were asked before casting that they talk with their parents and get approval from them before accepting any role.
    Not all the actors are from Central HS. Stevens and St. Thomas Moore are also represented in the cast.
    Also, there are about 13 adults in this play. We are there because we think it is important that this show be done tastefully and that the students involved in any way have a safe environment to develop their craft and tackle a hard piece of literature.
    And no one is forcing anyone to see this show, at school or anywhere. The tickets must be purchased and the money goes towards scholarships.
    Just giving you some more information.
  • If it was posted and solicited at school, it was improper. Education authorities should not be involved in any way in enticing or soliciting school children to be involved in a production as morally desolate as this.

    People used to understand that adults--especially authority figures such as those at schools--have a responsibility to safeguard the moral sense of children.
  • cinemaphile85
    Ok, to all you parents out there who have a problem with this play, I want to suggest a REALLY radical and outrageous idea. Stifle your victimized tears for just a minute while I explain...

    If you don't like the play, then don't see it. And if you don't want your kids to see it, then do your job and don't let them see it.
  • And who cares if the other kids are corrupted, or if taxpayer funds are used to promote this moral rot.

    See no evil, hear no evil, right?
  • cinemaphile85
    That's the beauty of personal freedom - a parent who doesn't think it's "evil" to discuss sexuality in an open way can choose to let his or her kid see this production. Meanwhile, you act as though you can police the world. I'm sure you're only trying to help, but in the end you just come off as a bothersome fly that needs swatting.

    And I'm willing to bet that the kids whose parents do let them see this play will be more inclined to have frank and honest discussions about sex.
  • Yes, and I have the freedom (and duty) to denounce it for what it is. Those parents will have to answer for what they've allowed their children to be exposed to, but I won't have to answer for standing by and saying nothing while the moral fiber of my community--and the children in it--is under assault.
  • Si Issler
    Honestly, Bob, how much research have you actually done on this play? Reading the Cliff-Notes of one website does NOT make you informed. Read the actual play, talk to the participating actors, (adults and students) read more than one outline, call the Pres and VP of ACTS, come see the show, and stay for the forums, where we would all be happy to talk to you when you are more informed.
    No one seems to realize that this play depicts the horror of the situations at hand: it does not glorify sex or rape- the teenagers are lost, experimenting, and ultimately horrified by their actions. It does not glorfy abortion: Wedela DIES BECAUSE HER MOTHER ORDERED THE ABORTION. It does not applaud the act of suicide- the point is that Moritz is still DEAD at the end of the play. It does not make fun of parents or Christians, it depicts an expressionistic view of how teenagers view adults when they are not willing to talk to their children about difficult issues.
    Also, again, as so many peole have stated, this play is NOT A CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL PRODUCTION. Neither was Laramie Project.
    Your uneducated, small minded comments fuel anger and do not make things better. The world is not a better place because of your ignorant comments.
    I would look forward to a conversation with you if you would take time to do more research on this play, the production and the producers, just like the artists that are working very hard to produce this piece and present it to the community as well as we possibly can.
  • I think the excerpts I provided--from a nonpartisan, nonjudgmental source--speak for themselves. It's rot.

    And if you expect me to believe that it's just a co-incidence that Central High School students are involved in a play being led by the Central High School theater director that was originally going to be held at Central High School--yet there was no school encouragement in these kids' involvement and they simply found out about the play at a website somewhere or on a bulletin board at Burger King...well, go pull my other leg now.

    I also don't need to try meth or cut off my leg to surmise that both are a bad idea.
  • Spin
    There is no involvement with this play and the school system only that it was going to be performed on the Central High stage. Last I checked that venue was open for rent and could be used for non school related activities.

    Mr. Speck chose that venue because he was familiar with it and because it was convenient. Students in his class are not required to try out and auditions were open to anyone who wanted to attend.

    You are arguing that a play not be performed by a group of people who have all consented to perform it. That sounds like censorship to me. Shall we burn all of the scripts in the parking lot instead?
  • Mr. Speck is a school employee, is he not? He solicited school children to participate in the play, did he not (or are we expected to believe the students found out about the play from a notice on the bulletin board at the Family Thrift store?)? It was originally going to take place at a taxpayer-funded school facility, was it not?

    Sounds like a school function to me, and, I would think, to any reasonable person.

    School employees should not be leading, encouraging or facilitating children in activities involving morally corrosive material such as this play.
  • Spin
    There are students in this play from all of the High Schools in Rapid City including St Thomas More. Justin did no more "soliciting" than to put a call out for actors. Much in the same way any other theater company in town does. Believe it or not there is a network of people who are excited to be in any show, including this one.

    The theater is a taxpayer-funded school yes but ACTS was intending to rent it, meaning they were going to pay for it themselves, at no expense to the tax-payers.
  • Did he do so in his capacity as the school theater director? Or did the kids find out about it on their own from a magazine, newspaper article or maybe in the bulletin at church?

    And Mr. Speck did not invite or encourage these kids to be involved while on taxpayer-funded school time, and will not work on the play on taxpayer-funded school time?

    I hope I don't look as stupid as you seem to think I am.
  • Spin
    Actually Bob, I got about 3 emails from all different people in the community and from ACTS announcing the auditions not one from Justin. ACTS is an organization with a network and its own method to promote itself. It was open to everyone in Rapid City. Students at Central were invited to audition via ACTS the same way members of the community were invited.
  • It still stretches credulity to believe these students didn't find out about it at school through Mr. Speck.

    And it still doesn't change the fact that the material is morally reprehensible and not something that school children should be involved in.
  • cinemaphile85
    I just want to say how wonderfully appropriate it is that your alias is Spin! Thanks for balancing out this article with some facts :-)
  • betty76
    This discussion that you are skirting around... the discussion that this play addresses... needs to take place between parents and children, and the societal taboos associated with the discussion need to be diffused.

    All of those excerpts, all those lewd behaviors, are products of that discussion NOT taking place.

    This play isn't pro-sex, it's pro-communication. It doesn't encourage indecent behavior, it encourages the audience to prevent indecent behavior by talking with young people about sex. It's like an anti-meth ad that depicts teenagers ruining their lives on meth. Do you also disagree with those ads? Do they encourage children to do meth?

    If you can't see that, I have pity on you and those like yourself who close themselves off and avoid difficult emotional situations. The dialogue needs to be opened and condoned by society, Mr. Ellis, or we will continue to have underage sex, pregnancy, sodomy and rape in our society
  • You said it well, betty76, when you said discussions about sex "needs to take place between parents and children."

    A school play does not in any way, shape, form or fashion constitute " tak[ing] place between parents and children."

    Rather, it is a dramatic presentation putting a number of dangerous and immoral sexual behaviors on public display.

    I also don't see from the very lengthy and detailed summary about this play that any moral guidance is provided within the play about these behaviors.

    Rather, it seems to portray extra-marital sexual behavior as normal, sexual violence as normal, and dysfunctional relations between children and parents as normal. It would be hard to imagine a more harmful message to send to young people.

    Meth ads have a clear and unmistakable message that meth use is wrong, criminal, and very destructive. I don't see anything even approaching such a message from this play.

    If you want to encourage age-appropriate parental discussions about sexuality with the parent's children, I'm with you. We are already having those in our home, and my daughter isn't yet a teenager (unfortunately in today's hyper-sexualized culture, I have to talk about things with her that she shouldn't even hear about until late teens or adulthood).

    This play, however, is inappropriate moral and cultural rot which isn't fit for adult consumption, much less consumption and participation by teenagers.
  • cinemaphile85
    If we don't want to expose high school students to literature that discusses sex, abortion, suicide, masturbation, child abuse, rape and homosexuality, one could make a compelling case for why the Bible should be banned too. I mean come on, the Old Testament has to be one of the nastiest and most brutal documents ever written!
  • I think you and I both know that the Bible is nowhere near as graphic as this rot.

    The Bible also teaches that such behavior is wrong...which means our school children must not be exposed to it. What a horror it would be for school children to learn right from wrong.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »