Youngkin is a book banner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Graph depictions of how to how have anal sex is not ok for school children at school. Sorry, OP.

If you choose to instruct your children about that, it can certainly be done in your home. No one cares.

I dispute your premise. This doesn’t exist in school materials and you know it.

Sorry, Snopes tells us it’s true - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tampa-school-sex-book/

Meh. Sounds very clinical. And the book makes a point — we tell children how to have heterosexual sex. Why is it wrong to clinically explain gay sex? Especially if the point is to protect children from harm?

In what world do we explain heterosexual sex to 11 year olds? If that is what is going on in public schools, that is wrong too.

It is not clinical. You can view the pages if you watch the DeSantis clip. It’s vile.

+1
I truly feel like I'm living in the Upside Down, where parents are actually advocating for pornographic materials to be available in school libraries. What the actual f*ck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We teach kids about heterosexual sex so that they understand reproduction and how to prevent it for themselves as teenagers. Parents aren’t asking schools to teach their kids to masterbate, perform blowjobs, or participate in anal sex. These subjects do not belong in schools.

If you want to share that information with your children, go right ahead. But it doesn’t belong in the school system.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of Youngkin but totally agree with the book banning.

Imagine standing up and saying, "Yes, I support banning books."

You do realize all these sexualized books that you so want your kids exposed to are available at your local public library, bookstore, or Amazon - right? No one is banning anything. Making sure these books aren't available in public SCHOOL libraries is not banning them, you dolt.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of Youngkin but totally agree with the book banning.

Imagine standing up and saying, "Yes, I support banning books."

Imagine standing up and saying, “Yes, I support exposing children to anal sex.”

Exactly. I can't even bother with the deliberately obtuse trolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of Youngkin but totally agree with the book banning.

Imagine standing up and saying, "Yes, I support banning books."

Banning certain books in schools?
Absolutely. There is no reason to have books that encourage heterosexual or homosexual sex through graphics.

Someone referenced Romeo and Juliet earlier...... If you have actually *read* Romeo and Juliet, you would know that Shakespeare did not graphically describe what they were doing.

I think people who believe some of these books should be available in schools are in the very small minority. And, most probably don't have children.

Totally agree. The LWNJs who dominate DCUM make it seem as if everyone is a LWNJ - but of course, they're not. This is a very, very narrow sliver of liberals, many of whom just post over and over. Not representative in any way of normal people and real life. Thankfully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of Youngkin but totally agree with the book banning.

Imagine standing up and saying, "Yes, I support banning books."

Banning certain books in schools?
Absolutely. There is no reason to have books that encourage heterosexual or homosexual sex through graphics.

Someone referenced Romeo and Juliet earlier...... If you have actually *read* Romeo and Juliet, you would know that Shakespeare did not graphically describe what they were doing.

I think people who believe some of these books should be available in schools are in the very small minority. And, most probably don't have children.

Well, there's an odd idea.

Does Peanuts encourage pulling the football away from someone about to kick it, through graphics? Does Good Night Moon encourage painting your room green, through graphics? Does Where The Wild Things Are encouraging letting the wild rumpus start, through graphics?

Speaking of odd... you have no point, so why waste our time?
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry, all of these porno books are available for you to buy your kid on amazon. Keeping age inappropriate books out of schools and libraries is not book banning.

Truthfully, at what age are these books appropriate for YOUR children?

We aren’t talking about “porno books” so your comment is irrelevant.

Sadly we are. I genuinely don’t understand why some people are pushing for books that depict sex acts to be in our school libraries but they are. When you go against community standards, don’t be surprised when the community pushes back.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

So has anyone on this thread actually watched the clip that DeSantis showed? No? Didn't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

So, obscenity. Are you saying that (for example) a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel appeals to prurient interest and is patently offensive lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore Governor Youngkin should be able to ban it? That's certainly an interesting point of view.

Of course not you halfwit. Youngkin nor any other politician should not be able to ban books. Youngkin is not banning the book, nor is he banning adults providing sexually explicit books to their children. He is banning the use of taxpayer dollars to provide sexually explicit content to children in public schools.

Why are you so invested in the state funds being used to provide sexual content to other people children?

"Providing sexual content to other people's children" is a super weird way to describe having books in school libraries.

If you dislike Gender Queer, here's what you can do: don't read it. Libraries are full of books you haven't read. This can be another one.

And no one is stopping you from reading genderqueer to your children.


I noticed that you failed to explain why you are fighting so hard to have schools provide sexual content to other people’s kids. Why is that?

Why would I read Gender Queer to my children? My children can read it for themselves, if they want to. Or not, if they don't. Why are you afraid of your children having access to the book Gender Queer in their school library?

This sentiment is very frightening and sad. These poor children.

This is about not exposing children to very graphic sex.

I will start asking parents before play dates if they give kids sexually graphic books or endorse them. I need to screen for creepers. I don't want my child near your house.

[Anonymous]

and I don't want hypersexuslized kids spending time alone with my child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:and I don't want hypersexuslized kids spending time alone with my child.

I guess you’re home schooling for high school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ban the Bible. It’s filled with absolute filth.

Sure, Jan. But even if the kids started fighting over who gets to check out the Bible at the school library, and ogling the Bible with their friends after school, the kids are statistically unlikely to be able to read or comprehend it. That's why nobody's worried about the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Graph depictions of how to how have anal sex is not ok for school children at school. Sorry, OP.

If you choose to instruct your children about that, it can certainly be done in your home. No one cares.

I dispute your premise. This doesn’t exist in school materials and you know it.

DP. So you clearly haven't bothered to watch the video that was put out with actual pictures from these books, found in school libraries.

EXACTLY. There’s NOTHING ok about graphic depictions of sex.

Some people here apparently have an inappropriate agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban the Bible. It’s filled with absolute filth.

Sure, Jan. But even if the kids started fighting over who gets to check out the Bible at the school library, and ogling the Bible with their friends after school, the kids are statistically unlikely to be able to read or comprehend it. That's why nobody's worried about the Bible.

Kids these days aren’t into fairy tales.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban the Bible. It’s filled with absolute filth.

Sure, Jan. But even if the kids started fighting over who gets to check out the Bible at the school library, and ogling the Bible with their friends after school, the kids are statistically unlikely to be able to read or comprehend it. That's why nobody's worried about the Bible.

Kids these days aren’t into fairy tales.

Kids are primarily into fairy tales these days. Poof! You're a girl now.