Youngkin is a book banner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Yes, actually, that is the only role of sex ed. To describe the scientific biological changes in our bodies as we go through puberty, to describe the scientific reproductive systems of human beings, and to describe the scientific sexually transmitted diseases that one can contract without practicing safe sex or abstinence. That's it.

Why so shocked? Are you disappointed that public schools aren't teaching kids about anal sex and butt plugs? No worries, you can still expose *your* kids to that information.

You seem to enjoy talking about these topics.

You seem to enjoy exposing kids to these topics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

false. The book genderqueer at the forefront of this literally has an image of a naked adult male with an erection touching a boy’s penis. Why do you want this anywhere let alone in school?

Huh? That isn't in Gender Queer...

Your news source is crap.

DP. I guess you really think people are stupid and won’t fact check you. Idiot.

https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/?amp

Are you talking about the Plato reference? Now you hate Plato?

Tell us you haven't bothered to watch the video without actually telling us. Nice gaslighting.

You want to ban ancient Greek art now?

So you didn't watch the video. You can just admit that you're scared to.

I intentionally avoid MAGA trash like DeSantis. Your issue is with a cartoon version of ancient greek art?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Yes, actually, that is the only role of sex ed. To describe the scientific biological changes in our bodies as we go through puberty, to describe the scientific reproductive systems of human beings, and to describe the scientific sexually transmitted diseases that one can contract without practicing safe sex or abstinence. That's it.

Why so shocked? Are you disappointed that public schools aren't teaching kids about anal sex and butt plugs? No worries, you can still expose *your* kids to that information.

You seem to enjoy talking about these topics.

You seem to enjoy exposing kids to these topics.

These books have much better/accurate content than the sexual content they will see on TikTok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

[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.

Why not? In the Sex Ed. course both my teens took, how to properly have heterosexual intercourse was discussed (consent, emotions, precautions like condoms & other birth control, lubricants).

Why should cis-het teens be instructed properly and not LGBTQ teens?

Because heterosexual intercourse is how the species procreates, thus making it a part of science and biology. That is the only role of "sex education" in schools.

That is not the only role of "sex education" in schools. It's not a science class.

DP. Yes, actually, that is the only role of sex ed. To describe the scientific biological changes in our bodies as we go through puberty, to describe the scientific reproductive systems of human beings, and to describe the scientific sexually transmitted diseases that one can contract without practicing safe sex or abstinence. That's it.

Nope. It's much more than that.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/instruction/family-life-education

It's not a science class.

It's exactly what I said it was. And I bet this part just kills you:

2. The value of family relationships;

3. The value of postponing sexual activity;

4. Abstinence 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: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.”

false. The book genderqueer at the forefront of this literally has an image of a naked adult male with an erection touching a boy’s penis. Why do you want this anywhere let alone in school?

Huh? That isn't in Gender Queer...

Your news source is crap.

DP. I guess you really think people are stupid and won’t fact check you. Idiot.

https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/?amp

Weird that "The Iowa Standard" website, pretending to be a news site, did not exist until March 31, 2019. Reeks of fake news. And for being a "news" site it is incredibly weak on details and specifics to actually back up its claims.

You’re just going to dig your heels in, aren’t you?

+1
In the face of proof that these pornographic images are indeed in Gender Queer (and other books), the poster is now moving the goalposts to demand a different source. Too bad the WaPo and NYT - two sources I'm sure the PP would approve of - don't have the guts to display these pictures.

You sound nuts.

Your kid have a phone? Then they have a world of porn at their fingertips.

Exactly.

Happy to give their kids a phone/porn 24x7, but not a book in a high school library for an unrepresented group.

It figures that someone with this "logic" would never have heard of or dreamed of using parental controls on their children's phones.

Tell me you've never been the parent of, or been a, or even known any, teenagers without telling me you've never been the parent of, or been a, or even known any, teenagers.

+1

[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: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.”

false. The book genderqueer at the forefront of this literally has an image of a naked adult male with an erection touching a boy’s penis. Why do you want this anywhere let alone in school?

Huh? That isn't in Gender Queer...

Your news source is crap.

DP. I guess you really think people are stupid and won’t fact check you. Idiot.

https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/?amp

Are you talking about the Plato reference? Now you hate Plato?

Tell us you haven't bothered to watch the video without actually telling us. Nice gaslighting.

Here's some more "pornography" for you to ban:

https://collections.mfa.org/objects/153710
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/253349
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1843-1103-15
https://harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/292377

Do any of those images depict strap-ons and blow jobs on minors? Are they available in public school libraries? You are a complete dunce.

You can click on them, don't worry, they won't bite.

I did click on them. The questions were for you to answer - which I see you can't because you know how dumb you look.

Great. And, are you now planning to contact the museums to tell them to remove these artworks from their collections?

You are... not very bright, that much is clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

false. The book genderqueer at the forefront of this literally has an image of a naked adult male with an erection touching a boy’s penis. Why do you want this anywhere let alone in school?

Huh? That isn't in Gender Queer...

Your news source is crap.

DP. I guess you really think people are stupid and won’t fact check you. Idiot.

https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/?amp

Are you talking about the Plato reference? Now you hate Plato?

Tell us you haven't bothered to watch the video without actually telling us. Nice gaslighting.

You want to ban ancient Greek art now?

So you didn't watch the video. You can just admit that you're scared to.

I intentionally avoid MAGA trash like DeSantis. Your issue is with a cartoon version of ancient greek art?

Troll. So funny that you're too scared of what is on that video to even watch it and have an intelligent conversation. Hint: it's not about Greek art, you twit.

[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.

Why not? In the Sex Ed. course both my teens took, how to properly have heterosexual intercourse was discussed (consent, emotions, precautions like condoms & other birth control, lubricants).

Why should cis-het teens be instructed properly and not LGBTQ teens?

Because heterosexual intercourse is how the species procreates, thus making it a part of science and biology. That is the only role of "sex education" in schools.

That is not the only role of "sex education" in schools. It's not a science class.

DP. Yes, actually, that is the only role of sex ed. To describe the scientific biological changes in our bodies as we go through puberty, to describe the scientific reproductive systems of human beings, and to describe the scientific sexually transmitted diseases that one can contract without practicing safe sex or abstinence. That's it.

Nope. It's much more than that.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/instruction/family-life-education

It's not a science class.

It's exactly what I said it was. And I bet this part just kills you:

2. The value of family relationships;

3. The value of postponing sexual activity;

4. Abstinence education;

These are not science topics. FLE is much more than biology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

false. The book genderqueer at the forefront of this literally has an image of a naked adult male with an erection touching a boy’s penis. Why do you want this anywhere let alone in school?

Huh? That isn't in Gender Queer...

Your news source is crap.

DP. I guess you really think people are stupid and won’t fact check you. Idiot.

https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/?amp

Are you talking about the Plato reference? Now you hate Plato?

Tell us you haven't bothered to watch the video without actually telling us. Nice gaslighting.

You want to ban ancient Greek art now?

So you didn't watch the video. You can just admit that you're scared to.

I intentionally avoid MAGA trash like DeSantis. Your issue is with a cartoon version of ancient greek art?

Troll. So funny that you're too scared of what is on that video to even watch it and have an intelligent conversation. Hint: it's not about Greek art, you twit.

Ok. Then which page of gender queer shows a "naked adult male with an erection touching a boy’s penis"?

[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.

Why not? In the Sex Ed. course both my teens took, how to properly have heterosexual intercourse was discussed (consent, emotions, precautions like condoms & other birth control, lubricants).

Why should cis-het teens be instructed properly and not LGBTQ teens?

Because heterosexual intercourse is how the species procreates, thus making it a part of science and biology. That is the only role of "sex education" in schools.

That is not the only role of "sex education" in schools. It's not a science class.

DP. Yes, actually, that is the only role of sex ed. To describe the scientific biological changes in our bodies as we go through puberty, to describe the scientific reproductive systems of human beings, and to describe the scientific sexually transmitted diseases that one can contract without practicing safe sex or abstinence. That's it.

Nope. It's much more than that.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/instruction/family-life-education

It's not a science class.

It's exactly what I said it was. And I bet this part just kills you:

2. The value of family relationships;

3. The value of postponing sexual activity;

4. Abstinence education;

Yep. Poor thing is probably dying on the inside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

So you haven't read the books and you have never seen TikTok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why not? In the Sex Ed. course both my teens took, how to properly have heterosexual intercourse was discussed (consent, emotions, precautions like condoms & other birth control, lubricants).

Why should cis-het teens be instructed properly and not LGBTQ teens?

Because heterosexual intercourse is how the species procreates, thus making it a part of science and biology. That is the only role of "sex education" in schools.

That is not the only role of "sex education" in schools. It's not a science class.

DP. Yes, actually, that is the only role of sex ed. To describe the scientific biological changes in our bodies as we go through puberty, to describe the scientific reproductive systems of human beings, and to describe the scientific sexually transmitted diseases that one can contract without practicing safe sex or abstinence. That's it.

Nope. It's much more than that.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/instruction/family-life-education

It's not a science class.

It's exactly what I said it was. And I bet this part just kills you:

2. The value of family relationships;

3. The value of postponing sexual activity;

4. Abstinence education;

Yep. Poor thing is probably dying on the inside.

Discussing relationship of all sorts and presenting abstinence as an option are great. It's not the only option though - certainly not the one that most teens take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

Exactly. A cartoon of a guy with a strap on is “a mature and educated manner”? Holy hell what is wrong with you?