Why are book banners showing up at FCPS SB meetings

[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:Ok so a parent brings up a legitimate complaint about pedophilia in a high school library and we are somehow talking about trump and youngkin?

Step away from politics for two seconds. Kiddy porn shouldn’t be supported by either party!

The problem is that it’s utterly illegitimate. There is no pornography involved. And idiot dupes like you just keep repeating the lies without even bothering to read either book that you’re so lathered up about. It’s reprehensible. You are reprehensible. You are getting your dopamine hits from repeating outrage manufactured by political operatives.

You
Haven’t
Read
Either
Book

You are actually taking time out of your day to post in favor of banning a. Book you have never read. What happened to you as a child that made you so easily led?

Honest question? Were those images I saw on Twitter of animated oral sex not accurate? Cause there’s no way that’s not pornography

Let’s see what happens if the students at all the schools with copies of this book try to include these images in their student yearbooks. The odds are 99.5% they’d be censored by the faculty advisors or principals.

But because they were called out at a meeting that embarrassed the 12-0 Democrat School Board, the usual suspects are going to claim they are perfectly acceptable.

“I’d like two things that are not equivalent, Alex”

One book out of 50,000 in a school library collection is not equal to a school sponsored publication that is distributed to the entire student body. The same way me telling my best friend privately about my period pain is not the same as delivering a high school commencement so each on the same topic.

Why is this so hard?

(Because you are responding to trolls. No one is actually This stupid. Right?)

Your analogy isn’t on point, so the prior comment stands. A book in a public school library has the imprimatur of public officials as suitable reading material, unlike your private conversation with your friend.

The School Board needs to insist on some accountability here.

Utterly false equivalence. No one thinks that a library endorses every idea in every book. I think some books are terrible (*cough* Ulysses *cough*) but I don’t argue against them being in a high school library. Your stance is akin to the eejits who oppose Harry Potter in school because it promotes witchcraft. Guess what? Harry Potter-was not suitable for my kindergartener, nor was Are You There, God? it’s Me, Margaret. But they were perfectly fine for the 6th graders who had access to them in the same library. And if my kindergartner happened upon them before I could see they were in his backpack? No harm, no foul. A chance for conversation, maybe.

My 3rd grader doesn’t have access to either of these books in his school library. But what if he had an older sibling who brought one home and he saw the page in question? Sigh. It’s not that hard. I’d explain that the two people are grownups. I’d explain that, as best I understand it, the main character feels confused in their body and sometimes feels like a woman or sometimes a man or sometimes both or neither, and that they don’t have a penis so they tried one on, kind of like a fake penis on the front of a pear of underwear. And it was a pretty silly idea for the other one to put the toy penis in their mouth! But look…it didn’t feel right so the main character asked the other person to do something else and they smiled and felt good, and that’s what people do when they respect each other’s bodies. If one person doesn’t like what you’re doing, you stop.

When I first read this outrage on Thursday night, I thought WTF?! The quote sounded outrageous. How could this happen? And then I read Lawn Boy and there was no pedophilia in it. Just a young adult reflecting on how erased he felt by a guy with whom he has sexually experimented in 4th grade. Guess what? Same thing happened to me with a girl I sort of fooled around with in 6th grade not even knowing what we were doing, who then pretended she didn’t know me in high school. So I’m not the only one. It wasn’t even remotely pornographic and had nothing whatsoever to do with pedophilia.

Then I actually read parts of Gender Queer and it, too, is about as far from pornography as you can get. There is nothing “graphic” on the page where the MC tries on a strap on. No middle school or high school kid is going to be shocked by news that something protrudes from Boy underwear or at the concept of blow jobs. But this isn’t even a blow job! It’s someone trying on a fake penis and realizing it’s awkward and not fun and then negotiating respectful consent and a change. But not arousing. Not meant to arouse. Awkward and uncommon, sure. But hardly sexy and certainly not porn. I can’t imagine my son ever taking it out but if he did, it wouldn’t HARM him.

So, the claim of “pedophilia” is a lie. Graphic sex scene claim is a lie. A cartoonish drawing of awkward play with a strap-on is unusual but hardly merits a full scale book burning.

Wow. You have some f’d up values. You’d discuss a strap on with a third grader? And putting a penis in one’s mouth?

Where did the person say 3rd grader--these are in secondary school libraries?

Np here. It’s in the pp’s second paragraph. And frankly, I would say I don’t share pp’s values, and I don’t think it’s a casual thing to be discussing with a third grader. The lack of boundaries around sexuality and minors exhibited in this thread is just disturbing.

+1

Look, you cannot engage in an honest conversation with anyone that see's the images in Gender Queer and asserts that they are not pornographic, or that they are, but its appropriate pornography for school. It has depictions of oral sex; plural. Multiple depictions.

And the fact that it is homosexual oral sex is completely irrelevant. It would be pornographic and inappropriate if it was heterosexual as well.

You can't defend this. It's wrong.

Exactly. The PP saying about how they would simply explain it to their third grader if they found their sibling’s copy of this disgusting book is beyond weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the hoops that some people will jump through to demonstrate their allegiance to those now in charge in Fairfax. The sycophancy is almost as revolting as the obscenity.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

+1

100% not true.

You are both ignorant POSs pushing blatant misinformation. GFY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Irony alert:

Principal at Chantilly High School has put out an email to the community about "Chantilly Lace." "Chantilly Lace" has been played at Chantilly football games since it was first a high school. Some sing the words to the song that goes with it. But, now, the words "offend" some. You know--the "big-eyed girl" with the "wiggle in her walk." "Baby, you know what I like."

It's a great, bouncy song that brings the crowd together.

They haven't banned it yet, but it is under consideration!

Wonder if these books are in Chantilly HS Library...

Apparently in FCPS World a "wiggle in her walk" is offensive but a "dick in my mouth" is appropriate.

You both have the critical thinking skills of a toad.

Please tell me you haven’t reproduced. Please don’t bring down the gene pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be nice if Fairfax Dems were as passionate about academics as they are about these books.

I guess they need to prioritize.

Part of being passionate about academics is showing respect for the hard work of our teachers and librarians, respecting their training, professionalism, and dedication. Cherry-picking quotes and mischarateyizing their context in order to demonize our educators is not good for academics, not good for children, not good for communities. Our teachers have been under siege this year from attacks from rabid parents taking out their COVID rage on them. Now we have political agitators attacking school librarians. So yeah, I’m going to stand my ground against that.

You know what? There is also a book that they’re forcing FRESHMEN to read and it involves kids of middle school age having sex, running away from home, and overdosing on drugs! And it glorifies defying parents and dying by suicide!!!!!! OMG! Call the GOP!

(Oh, wait. It’s not a gay relationship so apparently all that is okay.)

Can you stop being rabidly unhinged, vomiting your rabid library talking points and please bring yourself back to focus. In your rabid rant, you mentioned a book about middle schoolers having sex, doing drugs, and killing themselves. What is the title of this book? It needs to be removed from school libraries.

LOL. Oh look. The illiterati are on the case. Doubtful they have the mental capacities to figure it out…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the hoops that some people will jump through to demonstrate their allegiance to those now in charge in Fairfax. The sycophancy is almost as revolting as the obscenity.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

Which books contact “graphic images of oral sex”? Titles & authors.

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You didn’t read Judy Blume growing up?

No.

Why not?

Still waiting to understand why you didn’t read Judy Blume growing up. That might provide some insights into your “upbringing” that you referenced.

Crickets…

[Anonymous]

Here is the link again if anyone has any legit concerns about a book. You know, you aren’t just parroting lies you heard on FoxNews.
https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/forms/is706.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the hoops that some people will jump through to demonstrate their allegiance to those now in charge in Fairfax. The sycophancy is almost as revolting as the obscenity.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

Which books contact “graphic images of oral sex”? Titles & authors.

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. That is what we are discussing. Are you sure you're aware of what we're discussing? BC that books has drawings of oral sex and use of a strap-on.

And people are saying that those drawings are not pornographic; they are wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the hoops that some people will jump through to demonstrate their allegiance to those now in charge in Fairfax. The sycophancy is almost as revolting as the obscenity.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

Which books contact “graphic images of oral sex”? Titles & authors.

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. That is what we are discussing. Are you sure you're aware of what we're discussing? BC that books has drawings of oral sex and use of a strap-on.

And people are saying that those drawings are not pornographic; they are wrong

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the hoops that some people will jump through to demonstrate their allegiance to those now in charge in Fairfax. The sycophancy is almost as revolting as the obscenity.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

Which books contact “graphic images of oral sex”? Titles & authors.

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. That is what we are discussing. Are you sure you're aware of what we're discussing? BC that books has drawings of oral sex and use of a strap-on.

And people are saying that those drawings are not pornographic; they are wrong

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

"I'll know it when I see it" No, that's not my answer.

But its safe to say a drawing of genitals inside another person's mouth is pornographic.

Is your defense really that only 1 of the 2 books in question contained images? So since a PP incorrectly pluralized the word book, it negates the whole argument?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the hoops that some people will jump through to demonstrate their allegiance to those now in charge in Fairfax. The sycophancy is almost as revolting as the obscenity.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

Which books contact “graphic images of oral sex”? Titles & authors.

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. That is what we are discussing. Are you sure you're aware of what we're discussing? BC that books has drawings of oral sex and use of a strap-on.

And people are saying that those drawings are not pornographic; they are wrong

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

"I'll know it when I see it" No, that's not my answer.

But its safe to say a drawing of genitals inside another person's mouth is pornographic.

Is your defense really that only 1 of the 2 books in question contained images? So since a PP incorrectly pluralized the word book, it negates the whole argument?

DP. I don't think that "safe to say" at all. Depictions of sex, even clear ones, are not inherently pornographic. Pornography is designed to arouse, not merely depict. I haven't read the book in question, but I've read reviews of it and none of them sound like anyone was reading it to get aroused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the hoops that some people will jump through to demonstrate their allegiance to those now in charge in Fairfax. The sycophancy is almost as revolting as the obscenity.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

Which books contact “graphic images of oral sex”? Titles & authors.

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. That is what we are discussing. Are you sure you're aware of what we're discussing? BC that books has drawings of oral sex and use of a strap-on.

And people are saying that those drawings are not pornographic; they are wrong

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

"I'll know it when I see it" No, that's not my answer.

But its safe to say a drawing of genitals inside another person's mouth is pornographic.

Is your defense really that only 1 of the 2 books in question contained images? So since a PP incorrectly pluralized the word book, it negates the whole argument?

DP. I don't think that "safe to say" at all. Depictions of sex, even clear ones, are not inherently pornographic. Pornography is designed to arouse, not merely depict. I haven't read the book in question, but I've read reviews of it and none of them sound like anyone was reading it to get aroused.

Look, find the pictures. Decide for yourself. But its one minor, literally on his knees, in front of another, with the dick in his mouth. And its not just one frame. It's multiple. From different angle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the hoops that some people will jump through to demonstrate their allegiance to those now in charge in Fairfax. The sycophancy is almost as revolting as the obscenity.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

Which books contact “graphic images of oral sex”? Titles & authors.

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. That is what we are discussing. Are you sure you're aware of what we're discussing? BC that books has drawings of oral sex and use of a strap-on.

And people are saying that those drawings are not pornographic; they are wrong

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

"I'll know it when I see it" No, that's not my answer.

But its safe to say a drawing of genitals inside another person's mouth is pornographic.

Is your defense really that only 1 of the 2 books in question contained images? So since a PP incorrectly pluralized the word book, it negates the whole argument?

DP. I don't think that "safe to say" at all. Depictions of sex, even clear ones, are not inherently pornographic. Pornography is designed to arouse, not merely depict. I haven't read the book in question, but I've read reviews of it and none of them sound like anyone was reading it to get aroused.

The intent may not be to arouse, but instead to normalize and desensitize by exposing children to graphic depictions and descriptions of oral sex at as early an age as the authors can get away. Really not what this failing school system needs to be doing right now.

[Anonymous]

https://fairfax.follettdestiny.com/common/welcome.jsp?context=saas073_4504040

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the hoops that some people will jump through to demonstrate their allegiance to those now in charge in Fairfax. The sycophancy is almost as revolting as the obscenity.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

Which books contact “graphic images of oral sex”? Titles & authors.

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. That is what we are discussing. Are you sure you're aware of what we're discussing? BC that books has drawings of oral sex and use of a strap-on.

And people are saying that those drawings are not pornographic; they are wrong

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

"I'll know it when I see it" No, that's not my answer.

But its safe to say a drawing of genitals inside another person's mouth is pornographic.

Is your defense really that only 1 of the 2 books in question contained images? So since a PP incorrectly pluralized the word book, it negates the whole argument?

DP. I don't think that "safe to say" at all. Depictions of sex, even clear ones, are not inherently pornographic. Pornography is designed to arouse, not merely depict. I haven't read the book in question, but I've read reviews of it and none of them sound like anyone was reading it to get aroused.

The intent may not be to arouse, but instead to normalize and desensitize by exposing children to graphic depictions and descriptions of oral sex at as early an age as the authors can get away. Really not what this failing school system needs to be doing right now.

So why aren’t you complaining all of the about other books in the FCPS library that depict oral sex. Why just this one?