Seriously with the book banning ?

[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:I am absolutely troubled by children viewing pornography.
Any and all.
I can see where there is a time, age, and place for this.
Young people need to have a place that is safe to ask questions.
I would like to her from child psychologists on this.

It’s really weird that you keep calling it pornography, which the internet says is “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” I don’t look at that book and those images and think that’s erotic. What about a bundle of grass looks erotic to you?

There’s an image of a bl@wjob. Sorry, most people would consider that NSFW and not appropriate in school.

It’s a book. A comic book. FFS. Can guarantee most teenagers have seen way more explicit stuff

And what about sex ed. Do you want to ban images there? Are you the sort of parent who thinks non-reproductive sex shouldn’t be discussed in sex ed classes?

Clearly we’re not going to agree on this issue. I’d like to think, in the absence of an agreement, that typically one would err on the side of caution. If there is a significant segment of parents who don’t want sexual content available to kids in school, wouldn’t it make sense that it’s appropriate to not have these materials available? We eliminate Halloween celebrations, mentions of Christmas and Easter out of respect for different people’s religious viewpoints. Why is the same consideration not given for sexual content in schools?

No. I am afraid the default position cannot be that the conservative perspective wins in the absence of agreement.

It' not the "conservative perspective" rather the one that offends the fewest stakeholders.

I seem to remember conservatives squawking about how “nobody has a right to not be offended” every time Trump said something awful.

Why is it so important to you to expose children to sexual content?

DP. Why do you feel the need to make bad faith arguments to support your position? Do you not have any meritorious ones?

How is that a bad faith argument? That’s literally the point of this discussion.

Do you want to ban nature videos from schools? Or ban kids from going to zoos, where they might be exposed - gasp - to sexual content during the mating season.

Now you’re being ridiculous. What school did you go to where they showed videos of animals mating? And are the animals giving one another bl@wjobs at the zoo?

DP. You seem really anxious to shock people with the term “blowjob.” It’s not that shocking.

If you’re shocked, that’s on you. It’s literally what’s depicted in the book, hence why I’m mentioning it.

I tried to post this before and it was either blocked or deleted, so here goes again without correct anatomical terms, in case that's what got it blocked...

1) What is depicted in the book is a simulated act, because the character does not have the necessary anatomy to perform the actual act.

2) This scene is actually an amazing example of respectful consent in a romantic relationship. The character thinks they would like to try that particular act, and the partner is willing. They try it, and main character decides they do not in fact like it. They ask their partner to stop, and they stop. I specifically showed it to my young teens as a great example. I think this one scene should be included in sex ed classes in high school.

OMG. I just can't even.
NP

[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:I am absolutely troubled by children viewing pornography.
Any and all.
I can see where there is a time, age, and place for this.
Young people need to have a place that is safe to ask questions.
I would like to her from child psychologists on this.

It’s really weird that you keep calling it pornography, which the internet says is “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” I don’t look at that book and those images and think that’s erotic. What about a bundle of grass looks erotic to you?

There’s an image of a bl@wjob. Sorry, most people would consider that NSFW and not appropriate in school.

It’s a book. A comic book. FFS. Can guarantee most teenagers have seen way more explicit stuff

And what about sex ed. Do you want to ban images there? Are you the sort of parent who thinks non-reproductive sex shouldn’t be discussed in sex ed classes?

Clearly we’re not going to agree on this issue. I’d like to think, in the absence of an agreement, that typically one would err on the side of caution. If there is a significant segment of parents who don’t want sexual content available to kids in school, wouldn’t it make sense that it’s appropriate to not have these materials available? We eliminate Halloween celebrations, mentions of Christmas and Easter out of respect for different people’s religious viewpoints. Why is the same consideration not given for sexual content in schools?

No. I am afraid the default position cannot be that the conservative perspective wins in the absence of agreement.

It' not the "conservative perspective" rather the one that offends the fewest stakeholders.

I seem to remember conservatives squawking about how “nobody has a right to not be offended” every time Trump said something awful.

Why is it so important to you to expose children to sexual content?

DP. Why do you feel the need to make bad faith arguments to support your position? Do you not have any meritorious ones?

How is that a bad faith argument? That’s literally the point of this discussion.

Do you want to ban nature videos from schools? Or ban kids from going to zoos, where they might be exposed - gasp - to sexual content during the mating season.

Now you’re being ridiculous. What school did you go to where they showed videos of animals mating? And are the animals giving one another bl@wjobs at the zoo?

DP. You seem really anxious to shock people with the term “blowjob.” It’s not that shocking.

If you’re shocked, that’s on you. It’s literally what’s depicted in the book, hence why I’m mentioning it.

I tried to post this before and it was either blocked or deleted, so here goes again without correct anatomical terms, in case that's what got it blocked...

1) What is depicted in the book is a simulated act, because the character does not have the necessary anatomy to perform the actual act.

2) This scene is actually an amazing example of respectful consent in a romantic relationship. The character thinks they would like to try that particular act, and the partner is willing. They try it, and main character decides they do not in fact like it. They ask their partner to stop, and they stop. I specifically showed it to my young teens as a great example. I think this one scene should be included in sex ed classes in high school.

I have not read the book but I am the one who posted the link to the right wing website (I’m not a RWNJ, they were the outlet that had them) that featured the images and even in their images it was clear that this is what the deal was. It’s obviously a very respectfully done book and talks about agency, consent and models what a healthy relationship looks like. If this is ban worthy, the skids are greased.

DP. It makes you wonder why Republicans feel so threatened about the idea of people learning about healthy sexual relationships.

[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:I am absolutely troubled by children viewing pornography.
Any and all.
I can see where there is a time, age, and place for this.
Young people need to have a place that is safe to ask questions.
I would like to her from child psychologists on this.

It’s really weird that you keep calling it pornography, which the internet says is “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” I don’t look at that book and those images and think that’s erotic. What about a bundle of grass looks erotic to you?

There’s an image of a bl@wjob. Sorry, most people would consider that NSFW and not appropriate in school.

It’s a book. A comic book. FFS. Can guarantee most teenagers have seen way more explicit stuff

And what about sex ed. Do you want to ban images there? Are you the sort of parent who thinks non-reproductive sex shouldn’t be discussed in sex ed classes?

Clearly we’re not going to agree on this issue. I’d like to think, in the absence of an agreement, that typically one would err on the side of caution. If there is a significant segment of parents who don’t want sexual content available to kids in school, wouldn’t it make sense that it’s appropriate to not have these materials available? We eliminate Halloween celebrations, mentions of Christmas and Easter out of respect for different people’s religious viewpoints. Why is the same consideration not given for sexual content in schools?

No. I am afraid the default position cannot be that the conservative perspective wins in the absence of agreement.

It' not the "conservative perspective" rather the one that offends the fewest stakeholders.

I seem to remember conservatives squawking about how “nobody has a right to not be offended” every time Trump said something awful.

Why is it so important to you to expose children to sexual content?

DP. Why do you feel the need to make bad faith arguments to support your position? Do you not have any meritorious ones?

How is that a bad faith argument? That’s literally the point of this discussion.

Do you want to ban nature videos from schools? Or ban kids from going to zoos, where they might be exposed - gasp - to sexual content during the mating season.

Now you’re being ridiculous. What school did you go to where they showed videos of animals mating? And are the animals giving one another bl@wjobs at the zoo?

DP. You seem really anxious to shock people with the term “blowjob.” It’s not that shocking.

If you’re shocked, that’s on you. It’s literally what’s depicted in the book, hence why I’m mentioning it.

I tried to post this before and it was either blocked or deleted, so here goes again without correct anatomical terms, in case that's what got it blocked...

1) What is depicted in the book is a simulated act, because the character does not have the necessary anatomy to perform the actual act.

2) This scene is actually an amazing example of respectful consent in a romantic relationship. The character thinks they would like to try that particular act, and the partner is willing. They try it, and main character decides they do not in fact like it. They ask their partner to stop, and they stop. I specifically showed it to my young teens as a great example. I think this one scene should be included in sex ed classes in high school.

I have not read the book but I am the one who posted the link to the right wing website (I’m not a RWNJ, they were the outlet that had them) that featured the images and even in their images it was clear that this is what the deal was. It’s obviously a very respectfully done book and talks about agency, consent and models what a healthy relationship looks like. If this is ban worthy, the skids are greased.

DP. It makes you wonder why Republicans feel so threatened about the idea of people learning about healthy sexual relationships.

It makes you wonder why Democrats are so insistent on exposing children to sexual content.

[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:I am absolutely troubled by children viewing pornography.
Any and all.
I can see where there is a time, age, and place for this.
Young people need to have a place that is safe to ask questions.
I would like to her from child psychologists on this.

It’s really weird that you keep calling it pornography, which the internet says is “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” I don’t look at that book and those images and think that’s erotic. What about a bundle of grass looks erotic to you?

There’s an image of a bl@wjob. Sorry, most people would consider that NSFW and not appropriate in school.

It’s a book. A comic book. FFS. Can guarantee most teenagers have seen way more explicit stuff

And what about sex ed. Do you want to ban images there? Are you the sort of parent who thinks non-reproductive sex shouldn’t be discussed in sex ed classes?

Clearly we’re not going to agree on this issue. I’d like to think, in the absence of an agreement, that typically one would err on the side of caution. If there is a significant segment of parents who don’t want sexual content available to kids in school, wouldn’t it make sense that it’s appropriate to not have these materials available? We eliminate Halloween celebrations, mentions of Christmas and Easter out of respect for different people’s religious viewpoints. Why is the same consideration not given for sexual content in schools?

No. I am afraid the default position cannot be that the conservative perspective wins in the absence of agreement.

It' not the "conservative perspective" rather the one that offends the fewest stakeholders.

I seem to remember conservatives squawking about how “nobody has a right to not be offended” every time Trump said something awful.

Why is it so important to you to expose children to sexual content?

DP. Why do you feel the need to make bad faith arguments to support your position? Do you not have any meritorious ones?

How is that a bad faith argument? That’s literally the point of this discussion.

Do you want to ban nature videos from schools? Or ban kids from going to zoos, where they might be exposed - gasp - to sexual content during the mating season.

Now you’re being ridiculous. What school did you go to where they showed videos of animals mating? And are the animals giving one another bl@wjobs at the zoo?

DP. You seem really anxious to shock people with the term “blowjob.” It’s not that shocking.

If you’re shocked, that’s on you. It’s literally what’s depicted in the book, hence why I’m mentioning it.

I tried to post this before and it was either blocked or deleted, so here goes again without correct anatomical terms, in case that's what got it blocked...

1) What is depicted in the book is a simulated act, because the character does not have the necessary anatomy to perform the actual act.

2) This scene is actually an amazing example of respectful consent in a romantic relationship. The character thinks they would like to try that particular act, and the partner is willing. They try it, and main character decides they do not in fact like it. They ask their partner to stop, and they stop. I specifically showed it to my young teens as a great example. I think this one scene should be included in sex ed classes in high school.

I have not read the book but I am the one who posted the link to the right wing website (I’m not a RWNJ, they were the outlet that had them) that featured the images and even in their images it was clear that this is what the deal was. It’s obviously a very respectfully done book and talks about agency, consent and models what a healthy relationship looks like. If this is ban worthy, the skids are greased.

DP. It makes you wonder why Republicans feel so threatened about the idea of people learning about healthy sexual relationships.

It makes you wonder why Democrats are so insistent on exposing children to sexual content.

It makes you wonder why Republicans think teenagers should be prevented from knowledge of sexuality and relationships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone on dcum know someone personally impacted by all of this crazy book banning?

I’d like to hear from someone who supports these bans to share a story of someone they know who was personally harmed by one of the books banned.

Interesting that no one could give specific example of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone on dcum know someone personally impacted by all of this crazy book banning?

I’d like to hear from someone who supports these bans to share a story of someone they know who was personally harmed by one of the books banned.

Interesting that no one could give specific example of this.

Why does someone have to be “personally harmed” for it to be wrong? Would you like *your* young children exposed to, say, a religion you don’t practice or political opinions you don’t agree with - while in school?? You’d be the first to be outraged about that. Such hypocrisy. Read all the sexual books you want with your kids. Leave mine out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone on dcum know someone personally impacted by all of this crazy book banning?

I’d like to hear from someone who supports these bans to share a story of someone they know who was personally harmed by one of the books banned.

Interesting that no one could give specific example of this.

Why does someone have to be “personally harmed” for it to be wrong? Would you like *your* young children exposed to, say, a religion you don’t practice or political opinions you don’t agree with - while in school?? You’d be the first to be outraged about that. Such hypocrisy. Read all the sexual books you want with your kids. Leave mine out of it.

This book isn’t in elementary libraries, so no one is talking about exposing “young” children to anything in this context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone on dcum know someone personally impacted by all of this crazy book banning?

I’d like to hear from someone who supports these bans to share a story of someone they know who was personally harmed by one of the books banned.

Interesting that no one could give specific example of this.

Why does someone have to be “personally harmed” for it to be wrong? Would you like *your* young children exposed to, say, a religion you don’t practice or political opinions you don’t agree with - while in school?? You’d be the first to be outraged about that. Such hypocrisy. Read all the sexual books you want with your kids. Leave mine out of it.

We’re talking about high school. Do you think high schoolers have to be sheltered fromm”sexual content” in the form of a comic book?

I have no problem with my teenagers reading this book.

I have no problem with children learning about different religions at any age. What a weird fear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone on dcum know someone personally impacted by all of this crazy book banning?

I’d like to hear from someone who supports these bans to share a story of someone they know who was personally harmed by one of the books banned.

Interesting that no one could give specific example of this.

Why does someone have to be “personally harmed” for it to be wrong? Would you like *your* young children exposed to, say, a religion you don’t practice or political opinions you don’t agree with - while in school?? You’d be the first to be outraged about that. Such hypocrisy. Read all the sexual books you want with your kids. Leave mine out of it.

LOL my kids have heard about politics since they were babies. They know all about the various sides.

You are perfectly free to tell your kids they are forbidden from reading certain books. You can tell your schools your kids are forbidden from checking them out. No one is forcing your kid to read this particular book. Which I assume you have never read either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone on dcum know someone personally impacted by all of this crazy book banning?

I’d like to hear from someone who supports these bans to share a story of someone they know who was personally harmed by one of the books banned.

Interesting that no one could give specific example of this.

Why does someone have to be “personally harmed” for it to be wrong? Would you like *your* young children exposed to, say, a religion you don’t practice or political opinions you don’t agree with - while in school?? You’d be the first to be outraged about that. Such hypocrisy. Read all the sexual books you want with your kids. Leave mine out of it.

We’re talking about high school. Do you think high schoolers have to be sheltered fromm”sexual content” in the form of a comic book?

I have no problem with my teenagers reading this book.

I have no problem with children learning about different religions at any age. What a weird fear.

NP. Yes, I want my high schooler to be sheltered from sexual content. That's a parenting decision. You can make a different parenting decision. We can both have what we want by not placing highly sexual content in schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone on dcum know someone personally impacted by all of this crazy book banning?

I’d like to hear from someone who supports these bans to share a story of someone they know who was personally harmed by one of the books banned.

Interesting that no one could give specific example of this.

Why does someone have to be “personally harmed” for it to be wrong? Would you like *your* young children exposed to, say, a religion you don’t practice or political opinions you don’t agree with - while in school?? You’d be the first to be outraged about that. Such hypocrisy. Read all the sexual books you want with your kids. Leave mine out of it.

We’re talking about high school. Do you think high schoolers have to be sheltered fromm”sexual content” in the form of a comic book?

I have no problem with my teenagers reading this book.

I have no problem with children learning about different religions at any age. What a weird fear.

NP. Yes, I want my high schooler to be sheltered from sexual content. That's a parenting decision. You can make a different parenting decision. We can both have what we want by not placing highly sexual content in schools.

So, I'm curious, for parents who don't want Gender Queer in their high school library, how do you monitor your child's media exposure in general? Do they have phones? Internet access? Social media? Do you monitor their internet use? There is so much sexual content everywhere - how do you shelter your teen from our society?

I handle it mostly by talking to them about what they're reading / watching / viewing, and making sure they know our values around that. We live in a society with constant exposure to things I find objectionable, and at some point, it's on me to make sure they know what's right and to trust that I've taught them to make good decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every child should read this. Why not?

Terrible for such reading materials to be in public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone on dcum know someone personally impacted by all of this crazy book banning?

I’d like to hear from someone who supports these bans to share a story of someone they know who was personally harmed by one of the books banned.

Interesting that no one could give specific example of this.

Why does someone have to be “personally harmed” for it to be wrong? Would you like *your* young children exposed to, say, a religion you don’t practice or political opinions you don’t agree with - while in school?? You’d be the first to be outraged about that. Such hypocrisy. Read all the sexual books you want with your kids. Leave mine out of it.

This book isn’t in elementary libraries, so no one is talking about exposing “young” children to anything in this context.

Shouldn't be in middle schools either.

[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:I am absolutely troubled by children viewing pornography.
Any and all.
I can see where there is a time, age, and place for this.
Young people need to have a place that is safe to ask questions.
I would like to her from child psychologists on this.

It’s really weird that you keep calling it pornography, which the internet says is “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” I don’t look at that book and those images and think that’s erotic. What about a bundle of grass looks erotic to you?

There’s an image of a bl@wjob. Sorry, most people would consider that NSFW and not appropriate in school.

It’s a book. A comic book. FFS. Can guarantee most teenagers have seen way more explicit stuff

And what about sex ed. Do you want to ban images there? Are you the sort of parent who thinks non-reproductive sex shouldn’t be discussed in sex ed classes?

Clearly we’re not going to agree on this issue. I’d like to think, in the absence of an agreement, that typically one would err on the side of caution. If there is a significant segment of parents who don’t want sexual content available to kids in school, wouldn’t it make sense that it’s appropriate to not have these materials available? We eliminate Halloween celebrations, mentions of Christmas and Easter out of respect for different people’s religious viewpoints. Why is the same consideration not given for sexual content in schools?

No. I am afraid the default position cannot be that the conservative perspective wins in the absence of agreement.

It' not the "conservative perspective" rather the one that offends the fewest stakeholders.

I seem to remember conservatives squawking about how “nobody has a right to not be offended” every time Trump said something awful.

Why is it so important to you to expose children to sexual content?

DP. Why do you feel the need to make bad faith arguments to support your position? Do you not have any meritorious ones?

How is that a bad faith argument? That’s literally the point of this discussion.

Do you want to ban nature videos from schools? Or ban kids from going to zoos, where they might be exposed - gasp - to sexual content during the mating season.

Now you’re being ridiculous. What school did you go to where they showed videos of animals mating? And are the animals giving one another bl@wjobs at the zoo?

DP. You seem really anxious to shock people with the term “blowjob.” It’s not that shocking.

If you’re shocked, that’s on you. It’s literally what’s depicted in the book, hence why I’m mentioning it.

I tried to post this before and it was either blocked or deleted, so here goes again without correct anatomical terms, in case that's what got it blocked...

1) What is depicted in the book is a simulated act, because the character does not have the necessary anatomy to perform the actual act.

2) This scene is actually an amazing example of respectful consent in a romantic relationship. The character thinks they would like to try that particular act, and the partner is willing. They try it, and main character decides they do not in fact like it. They ask their partner to stop, and they stop. I specifically showed it to my young teens as a great example. I think this one scene should be included in sex ed classes in high school.

I have not read the book but I am the one who posted the link to the right wing website (I’m not a RWNJ, they were the outlet that had them) that featured the images and even in their images it was clear that this is what the deal was. It’s obviously a very respectfully done book and talks about agency, consent and models what a healthy relationship looks like. If this is ban worthy, the skids are greased.

DP. It makes you wonder why Republicans feel so threatened about the idea of people learning about healthy sexual relationships.

It makes you wonder why Democrats are so insistent on exposing children to sexual content.

It makes you wonder why Republicans think teenagers should be prevented from knowledge of sexuality and relationships.

You omitted brutality and crudeness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone on dcum know someone personally impacted by all of this crazy book banning?

I’d like to hear from someone who supports these bans to share a story of someone they know who was personally harmed by one of the books banned.

Interesting that no one could give specific example of this.

Why does someone have to be “personally harmed” for it to be wrong? Would you like *your* young children exposed to, say, a religion you don’t practice or political opinions you don’t agree with - while in school?? You’d be the first to be outraged about that. Such hypocrisy. Read all the sexual books you want with your kids. Leave mine out of it.

This book isn’t in elementary libraries, so no one is talking about exposing “young” children to anything in this context.

Shouldn't be in middle schools either.

If we’re still talking about Gender Queer, I don’t think it is. It’s marketed as an adult book. It’s in some high school libraries (with lots of other books marketed for adults.)