Youngkin is a book banner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

Why do kids need sex manuals?

Teens might have questions about logistics that are maybe not covered in FLE.

No, kids don’t need logistics about how to use butt toys. They also don’t need public school instruction or materials regarding the use of other sex toys or techniques or fetishes. They do need information about STD’s, pregnancy, and how to avoid those.

It's not "public school instruction". These are books available to teens who are interested in a high school library.

You think the books are about butt plugs and fetishes? You should read them before spouting off your ignorance.

The “teen” book Let’s Talk About It does in fact have sex instructions, including graphic instructions for using butt toys and for manually stimulating your own anus or a friend’s “hungry heinie”. If it makes you uncomfortable, and it sounds like it does, you probably don’t want your kid to read it. You should really try and educate yourself about what we’re talking about.

You are missing the main message of the books, including this one. It’s not sex toys.

Go re-read them.

NP
If they mention sex toys, I don’t care what the main message is.

Why? What’s wrong with sex toys?

For me? And adult? Nothing. But my kids don’t need to learn about them in school. Learning to jot impregnate your girlfriend is one thing (this is basic biology). Helping a kid self pleasure or pleasure another person in ways other that straight up sex is quite another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

Why do kids need sex manuals?

Teens might have questions about logistics that are maybe not covered in FLE.

No, kids don’t need logistics about how to use butt toys. They also don’t need public school instruction or materials regarding the use of other sex toys or techniques or fetishes. They do need information about STD’s, pregnancy, and how to avoid those.

It's not "public school instruction". These are books available to teens who are interested in a high school library.

You think the books are about butt plugs and fetishes? You should read them before spouting off your ignorance.

The “teen” book Let’s Talk About It does in fact have sex instructions, including graphic instructions for using butt toys and for manually stimulating your own anus or a friend’s “hungry heinie”. If it makes you uncomfortable, and it sounds like it does, you probably don’t want your kid to read it. You should really try and educate yourself about what we’re talking about.

You are missing the main message of the books, including this one. It’s not sex toys.

Go re-read them.

NP
If they mention sex toys, I don’t care what the main message is.

Why? What’s wrong with sex toys?

For me? And adult? Nothing. But my kids don’t need to learn about them in school. Learning to jot impregnate your girlfriend is one thing (this is basic biology). Helping a kid self pleasure or pleasure another person in ways other that straight up sex is quite another.

^*not impregnate. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

Why do kids need sex manuals?

Teens might have questions about logistics that are maybe not covered in FLE.

No, kids don’t need logistics about how to use butt toys. They also don’t need public school instruction or materials regarding the use of other sex toys or techniques or fetishes. They do need information about STD’s, pregnancy, and how to avoid those.

It's not "public school instruction". These are books available to teens who are interested in a high school library.

You think the books are about butt plugs and fetishes? You should read them before spouting off your ignorance.

The “teen” book Let’s Talk About It does in fact have sex instructions, including graphic instructions for using butt toys and for manually stimulating your own anus or a friend’s “hungry heinie”. If it makes you uncomfortable, and it sounds like it does, you probably don’t want your kid to read it. You should really try and educate yourself about what we’re talking about.

You are missing the main message of the books, including this one. It’s not sex toys.

Go re-read them.

NP
If they mention sex toys, I don’t care what the main message is.

Why? What’s wrong with sex toys?

For me? And adult? Nothing. But my kids don’t need to learn about them in school. Learning to jot impregnate your girlfriend is one thing (this is basic biology). Helping a kid self pleasure or pleasure another person in ways other that straight up sex is quite another.

Even my junior high school health class in the rural Midwest in the 1980s taught about stuff that wasn't "put slot a around tab b".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

Why do kids need sex manuals?

Teens might have questions about logistics that are maybe not covered in FLE.

No, kids don’t need logistics about how to use butt toys. They also don’t need public school instruction or materials regarding the use of other sex toys or techniques or fetishes. They do need information about STD’s, pregnancy, and how to avoid those.

It's not "public school instruction". These are books available to teens who are interested in a high school library.

You think the books are about butt plugs and fetishes? You should read them before spouting off your ignorance.

The “teen” book Let’s Talk About It does in fact have sex instructions, including graphic instructions for using butt toys and for manually stimulating your own anus or a friend’s “hungry heinie”. If it makes you uncomfortable, and it sounds like it does, you probably don’t want your kid to read it. You should really try and educate yourself about what we’re talking about.

You are missing the main message of the books, including this one. It’s not sex toys.

Go re-read them.

NP
If they mention sex toys, I don’t care what the main message is.

Why? What’s wrong with sex toys?

For me? And adult? Nothing. But my kids don’t need to learn about them in school. Learning to jot impregnate your girlfriend is one thing (this is basic biology). Helping a kid self pleasure or pleasure another person in ways other that straight up sex is quite another.

Ok. Kids don’t “need” to learn about it at school — it’s not part of the curriculum. These are books available in a high school library. A teen would have to seek them out.

Sex toys are briefly mentioned in one of these books. Is that really the only book you want to ban?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

Why do kids need sex manuals?

Teens might have questions about logistics that are maybe not covered in FLE.

"Logistics?" Why do they need information about "logistics?"

Have you ever had trouble working through your own sexuality or gender?

Have you ever come out?

Have you ever had gay sex?

1) It's helpful to have those things normalized.
2) Some tips might actually be helpful.

Normalizing teens having gay sex, or any kind of sex, is not something that schools should be doing.
If you want your teen to have sex, gay or otherwise, go for it.
Let's have our schools teach English, mathematics, history, science, etc.

See, that's where you're completely wrong. Your opinion about this isn't valid. In fact, it's your invalid opinion that completely validates WHY schools need to intervene in this area, otherwise they're getting their (misinformation) or no information from people like you. And then you end up with your 17 yo son knocking up his 15 yo girlfriend and you're forced to go out and profess that this disaster is a blessing for your family.

Careful, next thing you know she's gonna call you a fascist...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

Why do kids need sex manuals?

Teens might have questions about logistics that are maybe not covered in FLE.

"Logistics?" Why do they need information about "logistics?"

Have you ever had trouble working through your own sexuality or gender?

Have you ever come out?

Have you ever had gay sex?

1) It's helpful to have those things normalized.
2) Some tips might actually be helpful.

Normalizing teens having gay sex, or any kind of sex, is not something that schools should be doing.
If you want your teen to have sex, gay or otherwise, go for it.
Let's have our schools teach English, mathematics, history, science, etc.

See, that's where you're completely wrong. Your opinion about this isn't valid. In fact, it's your invalid opinion that completely validates WHY schools need to intervene in this area, otherwise they're getting their (misinformation) or no information from people like you. And then you end up with your 17 yo son knocking up his 15 yo girlfriend and you're forced to go out and profess that this disaster is a blessing for your family.

Careful, next thing you know she's gonna call you a fascist...

Bigoted, ignorant parents shouldn’t be making decisions around education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

Why do kids need sex manuals?

Teens might have questions about logistics that are maybe not covered in FLE.

"Logistics?" Why do they need information about "logistics?"

Have you ever had trouble working through your own sexuality or gender?

Have you ever come out?

Have you ever had gay sex?

1) It's helpful to have those things normalized.
2) Some tips might actually be helpful.

Normalizing teens having gay sex, or any kind of sex, is not something that schools should be doing.
If you want your teen to have sex, gay or otherwise, go for it.
Let's have our schools teach English, mathematics, history, science, etc.

See, that's where you're completely wrong. Your opinion about this isn't valid. In fact, it's your invalid opinion that completely validates WHY schools need to intervene in this area, otherwise they're getting their (misinformation) or no information from people like you. And then you end up with your 17 yo son knocking up his 15 yo girlfriend and you're forced to go out and profess that this disaster is a blessing for your family.

Careful, next thing you know she's gonna call you a fascist...

To be fair, that is not an uncommon political position for people who want to ban books.

[Anonymous]

This is the kind of crap going on in schools. Sure, it was Oregon this time. But, don't think similar stuff isn't going on in a school near you.

The Eugene School District 4J said it has since pulled the assignment from its syllabus, but further scrutiny into the health class revealed that students also had been given the “With Whom Would You Do It?” assignment.

That February assignment involved a virtual spinning wheel labeled with sexual categories that students needed to respond to when the wheel stopped.

“My daughter was very, very, very uncomfortable in the classroom,” dad Justin McCall told KEZ of the February classwork. “Especially when [the teacher] put up the generated spinning wheel, and it had anal penetration and oral sex up there. Her and her best friend did not participate in that. But they still got graded.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the kind of crap going on in schools. Sure, it was Oregon this time. But, don't think similar stuff isn't going on in a school near you.

The Eugene School District 4J said it has since pulled the assignment from its syllabus, but further scrutiny into the health class revealed that students also had been given the “With Whom Would You Do It?” assignment.

That February assignment involved a virtual spinning wheel labeled with sexual categories that students needed to respond to when the wheel stopped.

“My daughter was very, very, very uncomfortable in the classroom,” dad Justin McCall told KEZ of the February classwork. “Especially when [the teacher] put up the generated spinning wheel, and it had anal penetration and oral sex up there. Her and her best friend did not participate in that. But they still got graded.”

That’s absolutely insane and I guarantee there are people here who will defend it.

[Anonymous]

^^^ Relax. The children were told there was to be "no penetration of any kind or oral sex." This is clearly age-appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

+100
The gaslighting here is so typical. Apparently, if we don't want our kids exposed to inappropriate sexual material, there is something wrong with US. But nothing wrong with those who insist their kids SHOULD be exposed to it. What a joke. No wonder no one takes LW extremists seriously.

Makes me wonder if they were molested as children, or exposed to inappropriate sexual things as children and that's why they lack normal sexual boundaries. I simply was never, ever exposed to any graphic sexual content from an adult or at school except once and it made me incredibly uncomfortable. And no, I was not a virgin. But it was skeevy and inappropriate at school. Just freaking gross!!!!

+1
Which is how normal people feel. People who are dead-set on exposing kids to this material are not normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

+100
The gaslighting here is so typical. Apparently, if we don't want our kids exposed to inappropriate sexual material, there is something wrong with US. But nothing wrong with those who insist their kids SHOULD be exposed to it. What a joke. No wonder no one takes LW extremists seriously.

Makes me wonder if they were molested as children, or exposed to inappropriate sexual things as children and that's why they lack normal sexual boundaries. I simply was never, ever exposed to any graphic sexual content from an adult or at school except once and it made me incredibly uncomfortable. And no, I was not a virgin. But it was skeevy and inappropriate at school. Just freaking gross!!!!

I prefer to think those who are condoning these types of books in school don't have children.

If only. I think there are actually parents who would happily provide this material for their children and insist that everyone else's kids be exposed to it as well.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

+100
The gaslighting here is so typical. Apparently, if we don't want our kids exposed to inappropriate sexual material, there is something wrong with US. But nothing wrong with those who insist their kids SHOULD be exposed to it. What a joke. No wonder no one takes LW extremists seriously.

There *is* something very “wrong” with you. Because this isn’t about graphic materials, and you know it. No wonder no one takes right wing nut jobs seriously— you all hate America and all its values. We saw that plainly on Jan. 6 and you continue to pursue your fascist impulses while crying “who will think of the children.” You are revolting. I would like you to get out of my country. America: Love it or leave it. You obviously hate it, so leave.

Straight from the nutjob's mouth. It's not about graphic materials? I guess you've either chosen not to view the video that shows these materials, or you have viewed it and feel it would be really beneficial for your kids to see it too. Knock yourself out. But stay the hell away from other people's children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fully support kids watching porn or whatever they want to do on their own time. I do not restrict my kids' technology use. I also keep an open dialog with them about dating and sex (if they want to talk about it - not compelled). I see no reason why books about graphic sexual maneuvers need to be in school libraries.

They … aren’t.

And most of this is aimed at things like “Heather has two mommies.”

^^ Person who refuses to watch the video in question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

+100
The gaslighting here is so typical. Apparently, if we don't want our kids exposed to inappropriate sexual material, there is something wrong with US. But nothing wrong with those who insist their kids SHOULD be exposed to it. What a joke. No wonder no one takes LW extremists seriously.

There *is* something very “wrong” with you. Because this isn’t about graphic materials, and you know it. No wonder no one takes right wing nut jobs seriously— you all hate America and all its values. We saw that plainly on Jan. 6 and you continue to pursue your fascist impulses while crying “who will think of the children.” You are revolting. I would like you to get out of my country. America: Love it or leave it. You obviously hate it, so leave.

You may want to get out of your bubble occasionally.

+1
The PP is an extremist, and a dangerous one at that. Good parents - regardless of politics - would not want their children to be exposed to graphic sexual material.