Thursday, September 01, 2016

Mr. Babbitt and his husband Matthew are dead.

Mr. Babbitt was a popular teacher.

He liked boys and young men.  Teen boys.  He and his husband Matthew both liked them.  In some ways, Mr. Babbitt, popular teacher, may have kind of groomed some boys?  I wonder?  One teen told police Mr. Babbitt was his teacher in grade school, then later, he was his mentor.  The teen was gay.  I'm sure Mr. Babbitt didn't make him gay - but he took a special interest in him because he is gay ...

Here's the story, Mr. Babbitt and Mr. Deyo killed themselves after police found out they were involved in sexual contact with a 16-year-old boy and at least two other boys.  They felt they had 'no way out' in the investigation.  That's an unfortunate decision on their part.  Murder suicide is a tragic end.

Teacher Aric Babbitt, 40, and Matthew Deyo, 36, were found dead Thursday on Lopez Island, in the San Juan Islands in the northwest corner of the state about 100 miles north of Seattle. They died of gunshot wounds.
Babbitt, a teacher at Lincoln Center Elementary since 2002, was put on paid leave by South St. Paul schools after the district learned of the allegations Aug. 17, Superintendent Dave Webb said.
According to Dakota County court documents released Tuesday, a 16-year-old boy and his parents went to police Aug. 14 to report “an ongoing sexual relationship” with Babbitt and Deyo.
Further investigation revealed other underage boys had experienced similar sexual activity with the pair, who hadn’t been charged with a crime.
[...]The boy reported that Babbitt had agreed to be a mentor for him when he came out as gay to his family and that the teacher gave him gifts of underwear and small yoga shorts and also asked for photos before he was 16. - Source

You can't call that pedophilia - it's gay - or perhaps ephebophilia.  Many gay men like young men and teen boys, 'young and dumb and full of c..' as they used to say.  This case reminds me of the Curtis Wehmeyer case - the former Minnesota priest who took an interest in young boys and had sex with them.  A gay priest in close proximity to students, just like a teacher and his husband - can be trusted to look after the best interests of those under their care.  Right?  With Wehmeyer they called it pedophilia - but it was unlawful gay sex.  The same is true with Babbitt.

Just think how huge a story this would be if Babbitt and Deyo were priests or religious.

They were teachers.  There is a whole gay lgbtq equality push in education - no bullying, and so on.  Interestingly enough, Mr. Babbitt's dad was involved in a court case in 2001 involving a student banned from wearing a 'Straight Pride' sweatshirt in response to 'Gay Pride' messages popular at the time.

On January 17, 2001, Principal Dana Babbitt met with Elliott and told him that he could not wear the shirt again in light of the offense taken by other students and the Principal's safety concerns for Elliott and other Woodbury students. - More info here.

I'm not implying Principal Babbitt's action has any relationship to the suicides of Aric and Matthew, I'm simply noting that the normalization of lgbtq-gay has been ingrained in public education for some time now.  Thus a gay couple mentoring, or just hanging out with young boys wouldn't, and shouldn't raise eyebrows ... or maybe it should?  But it doesn't - because pedophilia isn't gay and all of that PC stuff.  Hence gay is good but pedophilia is still bad.

Of course not all gay men and women, teachers or coaches or priests or religious, have these problems, proclivities - or sexual interests in young men.  Even if they did, they wouldn't act on it ... would they?   Oh, and some straight teachers and coaches and priests do exactly the same thing - fall in love and have sex with their underage students.  That's still bad, right?

I guess I was unfair in my assessment here then?

Public Service Addendum:  On open boundaries.

Many, many gay men, and I would suggest gay women, have a sort of 'open' boundaries issue when it comes to friendship, especially with younger people they may want to be 'buddies' with.   Not all gay people, but I suggest many do.  Especially regarding sexuality and sexual behavior and discussions with peers and younger people.  (Cam on 'Modern Family' has exhibited this 'over-sharing' tendency.)  Gay people often need to be 'with it' and need to easily relate to younger people.  Why?  Because I'm convinced they are emotionally stunted - aka, they suffer from a sort of arrested development syndrome.  Often innocently, and decidedly disinterestedly (in the other, that is), they can impose themselves upon those they seek to 'mentor' or help, or just be friends with.  The other person, younger or older, can interpret their interest - especially the over-sharing - as 'coming on' to them.

It has happened to me in the past.  Once, a younger relative (in his mid-late 20's) thought my 'over-sharing' was me trying to seduce him.  It was an embarrassing, unfortunate misunderstanding - and to be sure - I never had any prurient interest, whatsoever.  I was and continue to be totally disinterested, and never, ever would have been remotely interested.  That said, same sex attraction can intrude upon so-called normal, or regular friendship in a similar manner.  Especially if a straight friend or co-worker feels uncomfortable with a perceived familiarity.  



  1. Strange to read this. Lopez Island is one of the most beautiful places in the world. We have camped there every Memorial Day for over 25 years. I have nothing but happy associations with that cherished place.

    1. Whoa! Mark Shea comments on here .... Terry this is epic

    2. Meh ... Mr. Shea has commented on Terry's fine blog before. I always read his comments with great interest too.

      Lopez Island you say, Mr. Shea? Gonna check it out. 😆

  2. I'm grateful you can explain gay 'stuff' to me. I don't want to read the hellfire and brimstone of Rad Trads and I don't want to read the over accommodating claptrap of the liberals. I just want to try and understand the reality of the situation and the people involved.

    1. Yeah - there has to be straight, honest, candid talk about this stuff. It needs to be exposed.

      Another local story from just last week was about a 5 year old little girl abducted by her dad's coworker - 25 year old guy who stayed over night once in awhile - he took off with her in the night, assaulted and murdered her. The family was devastated. They are a good family and were just too trusting. They are from a small rural town.

      It breaks my heart. I couldn't post about it.

    2. I'm beginning to wonder if pornography and the prevailing attitudes of,"if it feels good, go for it" or "you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, with whoever you want as there is no right or wrong."

      How much longer before "anything goes" to include children?

  3. When I read about this I wondered which was the instigator and whether the murder suicide was about remorse at going along with molestation or simply horror at getting caught and outed as it were. I want to believe that the husband was the instigator and the teacher killed him and himself out of remorse, but cynical me thinks the murder suicide was because they didn't expect to be caught and hadn't thought through the teacher getting his name in the paper, everyone knowing what they'd done. No, it wasn't a fabulous idea, nor were they off the hook for waiting until the kds reached the age of consent.

    1. I think it was about getting caught. Is 16 the age of consent in Minnesota?

    2. Yes, but... You can't have any sort of position of authority of them. I live in South Dakota, but I remember reading in the Star Tribune about a Teacher (male) being charged with sexual contact with two sixteen year old girls. In that case, if I remember correctly (It was a couple of years ago now), the cops were trying to determine if the teacher could be charged because the girls were over the age of consent, and the teacher had moved to a different school and the relationship started after he moved. Or maybe the girls were eighteen (when they can make full consent according to the law), but officials had to determine if the relationship started before they turned eighteen.

      I don't remember all the specifics in that case, but applying it to this case, it wouldn't matter that the boy was of the age of consent if Mr. Babbitt was in a position of authority over the boy.


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.