Run Glen Younkin run Glen Younkin

[Anonymous]

^^^if my kids had come home from the library at age 14 having checked out American Psycho (the book version), I would have said, "Bret Easton Ellis, ew." I would not have said, "I forbid you to read this book."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^if my kids had come home from the library at age 14 having checked out American Psycho (the book version), I would have said, "Bret Easton Ellis, ew." I would not have said, "I forbid you to read this book."

Same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

I don't think you understand how libraries work. I will explain: At libraries, there are books on shelves. If you are interested in a particular book, you reach out your hand and take the book off the shelf. Otherwise, the book stays on the shelf.

I know for a fact that my high school library had Stephen King and Dean Koontz books. My junior high school library also had Stephen King. I doubt there are any school libraries that have American Psycho, not least because it was published in 1991 and was already badly dated by the time the movie came out in 2000. Still, that's more recent than anything by the Marquis de Sade, so that's something!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

I am ok with kids having access to books and believe banning is a slippery slope. Plus the Bible contains language about sexual torture and I don't believe in double standards.

Dean Koontz has a scene that involves the bad dude shoving a live bat into a women's vagina. Read it in highschool. Grew up to be a mild mannered mom in a monogamous marriage.

What exactly is your fear? That kids having access to a variety of books will turn them into psycho killers?

I don't have this fear. Hence I'm ok with the books being in libraries as long as age appropriate and yes, ok in highschool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

I am ok with kids having access to books and believe banning is a slippery slope. Plus the Bible contains language about sexual torture and I don't believe in double standards.

Dean Koontz has a scene that involves the bad dude shoving a live bat into a women's vagina. Read it in highschool. Grew up to be a mild mannered mom in a monogamous marriage.

What exactly is your fear? That kids having access to a variety of books will turn them into psycho killers?

I don't have this fear. Hence I'm ok with the books being in libraries as long as age appropriate and yes, ok in highschool.

Have you even read American Psycho? It doesn’t sound like it.

Who gets to define age appropriate? You? Sounds like you just support banning books just only according to your own criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

I am ok with kids having access to books and believe banning is a slippery slope. Plus the Bible contains language about sexual torture and I don't believe in double standards.

Dean Koontz has a scene that involves the bad dude shoving a live bat into a women's vagina. Read it in highschool. Grew up to be a mild mannered mom in a monogamous marriage.

What exactly is your fear? That kids having access to a variety of books will turn them into psycho killers?

I don't have this fear. Hence I'm ok with the books being in libraries as long as age appropriate and yes, ok in highschool.

Can you read? No one is talking about banning books. The discussion is the state providing books to minors via the public education system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

I don't think you understand how libraries work. I will explain: At libraries, there are books on shelves. If you are interested in a particular book, you reach out your hand and take the book off the shelf. Otherwise, the book stays on the shelf.

I know for a fact that my high school library had Stephen King and Dean Koontz books. My junior high school library also had Stephen King. I doubt there are any school libraries that have American Psycho, not least because it was published in 1991 and was already badly dated by the time the movie came out in 2000. Still, that's more recent than anything by the Marquis de Sade, so that's something!

I’ve never read a dumber argument in my life. Libraries provide many books published prior to 1990.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

I am ok with kids having access to books and believe banning is a slippery slope. Plus the Bible contains language about sexual torture and I don't believe in double standards.

Dean Koontz has a scene that involves the bad dude shoving a live bat into a women's vagina. Read it in highschool. Grew up to be a mild mannered mom in a monogamous marriage.

What exactly is your fear? That kids having access to a variety of books will turn them into psycho killers?

I don't have this fear. Hence I'm ok with the books being in libraries as long as age appropriate and yes, ok in highschool.

Have you even read American Psycho? It doesn’t sound like it.

Who gets to define age appropriate? You? Sounds like you just support banning books just only according to your own criteria.

I do not support banning books. Period. Age appropriate, sure, but by highschool, adult books should be available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

I am ok with kids having access to books and believe banning is a slippery slope. Plus the Bible contains language about sexual torture and I don't believe in double standards.

Dean Koontz has a scene that involves the bad dude shoving a live bat into a women's vagina. Read it in highschool. Grew up to be a mild mannered mom in a monogamous marriage.

What exactly is your fear? That kids having access to a variety of books will turn them into psycho killers?

I don't have this fear. Hence I'm ok with the books being in libraries as long as age appropriate and yes, ok in highschool.

Have you even read American Psycho? It doesn’t sound like it.

Who gets to define age appropriate? You? Sounds like you just support banning books just only according to your own criteria.

School media specialists, in accordance with school system policies. See here, for example: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/iib.pdf

And I would also like to know why you are afraid that a random child who is not your child might choose to read a book that is in a school library. What, exactly, is the concern?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

I don't think you understand how libraries work. I will explain: At libraries, there are books on shelves. If you are interested in a particular book, you reach out your hand and take the book off the shelf. Otherwise, the book stays on the shelf.

I know for a fact that my high school library had Stephen King and Dean Koontz books. My junior high school library also had Stephen King. I doubt there are any school libraries that have American Psycho, not least because it was published in 1991 and was already badly dated by the time the movie came out in 2000. Still, that's more recent than anything by the Marquis de Sade, so that's something!

I’ve never read a dumber argument in my life. Libraries provide many books published prior to 1990.

Why don't you hop on over to your local public high school and ask them if they have American Psycho in the school library. If they don't, there you go - one less thing for you to be worried about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

I am ok with kids having access to books and believe banning is a slippery slope. Plus the Bible contains language about sexual torture and I don't believe in double standards.

Dean Koontz has a scene that involves the bad dude shoving a live bat into a women's vagina. Read it in highschool. Grew up to be a mild mannered mom in a monogamous marriage.

What exactly is your fear? That kids having access to a variety of books will turn them into psycho killers?

I don't have this fear. Hence I'm ok with the books being in libraries as long as age appropriate and yes, ok in highschool.

DP. Yes, but there's a difference between a book with a graphic description of violence or sex or both - and a graphic novel with visual portrayals of violence or sex or both.

Nope. That's a male POV. As a woman and reader, I don't believe visuals are worse. Note that erotica is quite popular among women and often more... Stimulating for women than visuals (and the books in question are not erotica... )

It is not a "male POV". The rationale is that when reading a book, the reader, whether female or male, can choose to visualize the scene in their mind's eye, or not. But with a graphic novel or video, the visualization is there, there's no choice.

You can agree or disagree with the rationale but don't make up alternative explanations.

What? You can choose to visualize or not? What kind of BS is that? That's now how minds work, not mine anyways, if I read, the image is there. You can choose to stop reading or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

I am ok with kids having access to books and believe banning is a slippery slope. Plus the Bible contains language about sexual torture and I don't believe in double standards.

Dean Koontz has a scene that involves the bad dude shoving a live bat into a women's vagina. Read it in highschool. Grew up to be a mild mannered mom in a monogamous marriage.

What exactly is your fear? That kids having access to a variety of books will turn them into psycho killers?

I don't have this fear. Hence I'm ok with the books being in libraries as long as age appropriate and yes, ok in highschool.

Have you even read American Psycho? It doesn’t sound like it.

Who gets to define age appropriate? You? Sounds like you just support banning books just only according to your own criteria.

School media specialists, in accordance with school system policies. See here, for example: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/iib.pdf

And I would also like to know why you are afraid that a random child who is not your child might choose to read a book that is in a school library. What, exactly, is the concern?

We all are a part of the community. That means that we are all interested in all of our children. Even yours.

What, exactly, is the concern? Some child, somewhere, might choose to read a book you consider inappropriate, and then ... well, what then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

I am ok with kids having access to books and believe banning is a slippery slope. Plus the Bible contains language about sexual torture and I don't believe in double standards.

Dean Koontz has a scene that involves the bad dude shoving a live bat into a women's vagina. Read it in highschool. Grew up to be a mild mannered mom in a monogamous marriage.

What exactly is your fear? That kids having access to a variety of books will turn them into psycho killers?

I don't have this fear. Hence I'm ok with the books being in libraries as long as age appropriate and yes, ok in highschool.

DP. Yes, but there's a difference between a book with a graphic description of violence or sex or both - and a graphic novel with visual portrayals of violence or sex or both.

Nope. That's a male POV. As a woman and reader, I don't believe visuals are worse. Note that erotica is quite popular among women and often more... Stimulating for women than visuals (and the books in question are not erotica... )

It is not a "male POV". The rationale is that when reading a book, the reader, whether female or male, can choose to visualize the scene in their mind's eye, or not. But with a graphic novel or video, the visualization is there, there's no choice.

You can agree or disagree with the rationale but don't make up alternative explanations.

What? You can choose to visualize or not? What kind of BS is that? That's now how minds work, not mine anyways, if I read, the image is there. You can choose to stop reading or not.

Maybe the PP mistakenly believes school libraries work like that scene in the movie A Clockwork Orange? (Which, for what it's worth, I chose to stop watching.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?

If you are OK with giving 14 year olds material with graphic scenes of sexual torture, we have nothing to discuss.

I am ok with kids having access to books and believe banning is a slippery slope. Plus the Bible contains language about sexual torture and I don't believe in double standards.

Dean Koontz has a scene that involves the bad dude shoving a live bat into a women's vagina. Read it in highschool. Grew up to be a mild mannered mom in a monogamous marriage.

What exactly is your fear? That kids having access to a variety of books will turn them into psycho killers?

I don't have this fear. Hence I'm ok with the books being in libraries as long as age appropriate and yes, ok in highschool.

Have you even read American Psycho? It doesn’t sound like it.

Who gets to define age appropriate? You? Sounds like you just support banning books just only according to your own criteria.

School media specialists, in accordance with school system policies. See here, for example: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/iib.pdf

And I would also like to know why you are afraid that a random child who is not your child might choose to read a book that is in a school library. What, exactly, is the concern?

We all are a part of the community. That means that we are all interested in all of our children. Even yours.

But the community doesn't support your POV, polling wise so why do YOU get to decide? Your opinion is in the minority.