Why are book banners showing up at FCPS SB meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP.

1. There isn't a minor. The main character is 25 when the scene in question takes place.

2. There isn't a penis, because...both the main character and partner are both born genetically female.

The next few pages the main character is still struggling with sexuality, and requests to stop dating while s/he figures it out.

Why do I add the detail? Because again, you did not read the book, and it's not porn. It's self discovery for a young adult. Not a child. The first part of the book deals with mensuration, bras, and deodorant, which would be age appropriate for high school. The second half is more college age material.

Sure. But you do realize these books are in libraries that a 12yo can access.

Go ahead and put this on the college syllabus. Nobody here is saying the book should be banned. Just that it shouldn't be available to MS kids.

And yes, you are correct, its not a minor. But I would argue with point 2. For the purposes of the debate "is this pornographic" there's very little difference between a real penis and a dildo attached to a strap-on used for oral sex. It doesnt make it any less pornographic

I thought it was in high school libraries only.

It definitely does not meet the definition of porn.

If that's the case, thats better. But should still probably be limited to 16+

I still contend that it is is pornographic. And I say that without judgement; I think porn can be great. We'd obviously have a conversation with the author, but to me, it seems like those panels have multiple intentions, and one of them is to arouse. Because the story could be told and the message conveyed without back to back panels showing oral penetration.

And again, I have no problem if the intent of the story line is educate and arouse. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous]

A book with d*ck sucking pictures? Seriously guys?

How is this even a debate? Inappropriate for school. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct. Trying to engage certain folks on the left is a waste of time. Often, the response is an ad hominem attack or an non sequitur. But what you can depend on, unfortunately, is the left defining deviancy down.

[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: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.

This is my problem with half this debate. You've got people throwing around the word "pornographic" then seemingly immediately conceding that the books aren't actually pornographic by the normal definition of that word. Then it devolves into a political argument about "failing" schools systems, the claim that a book for high school students is "as early as the authors can get away with." and claims that, somehow, what's normalizing oral sex in our school system is a single book that I'm guessing no one other than the occasional LGBT student struggling with their gender and sexuality has ever checked out. Throwing out three politically motivated lies in quick succession doesn't make me trust you.

I haven't seen the pictures from Gender Queer (people keep referencing them but I haven't found them), I don't have a strong opinion there. I have read the excerpts from Lawn Boy and as a kid who experimented sexually around that age and to this day has kind of weird feelings around it (and grownups reaction to it), I would have really been helped to read a book like that in high school. So maybe Gender Queer is too adult for high school students, but I've got zero reason to believe you.

Just like other people have said don't judge Lawn Boy until you've read the text, please don't dismiss Gender Queer until you've seen the images

pic.twitter.com/thAEKkv7Ve

Thanks, that's really helpful. That's visually clear, but not pornographic in the least. Maybe too mature for a freshman, but perfectly fine for a junior or senior. Especially given what I know of the context, it's not designed to arouse and is actually more or less necessary for telling the story in a visual medium. Definitely should be kept, if maybe restricted to older high school students.

What's really difficult about this, is that I can see both sides of this.

I would absolutely not want my middle school aged child exposed to this. As a parent, I feel I would be within my rights to object to this material being available to that age group.

But I can also see how this may be helpful to older teens. The problem is that the school system has to consider the needs of both sets of students. It is a real possibility that seeing this could be traumatic for a MS child. It depicts sexual acts in a way that they may not be mature enough to process. But it may also be necessary for a 17 or 18yo to see this, to help them understand their own identity and to know they are not alone; though it may also be possible to do without the seeing the details of the act. (For example, you could sketch a panel demonstrating oral sex without seeing the strap-on, etc.)

FCPS must figure out a way to nurture the older children and still protect the younger.

I would also object to saying it's not pornographic "in the least". I suspect some of these scenes do arouse the reader. It may not be graphic, and it may not be over the top, and it may actually be appropriate for 17+, but it is pornographic. And I say that as someone who is 100% fine with pornography. But to say its not, it simply not true. I'm quite the sure the reader gets aroused at different points in this book, and THATS OK. As long as the reader is emotionally mature enough for that.

MS children are not emotionally mature enough

If your definition of pornography is "arouses the reader," then you're going to need to throw out half the fiction (if not more) at any given high school. High schoolers are constantly aroused by anything and everything. We're not tossing Pride and Prejudice, even though I assure you it's aroused a lot of readers. This doesn't look, to me, like something designed to arouse primarily. I think the pictures are necessary for telling the story effectively, not gratuitous, and not embellished sexually in a way you'd see in genuine pornography.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I really, really wish sometime would name whatever book it is I'm supposed to be horrified by, instead of just hollering "porn! porn!"

Lawn Boy. Apparently, there are two different authors of a book with this name.

The woman read explicit detail of the actions--what he did to me, what I did to him, etc. Very, very graphic. Not sure if they have similar books about heterosexual sex in the library. This was about homosexual sex with an adult.

There are plenty of other books to read.

I support banning these books

[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: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.

This is my problem with half this debate. You've got people throwing around the word "pornographic" then seemingly immediately conceding that the books aren't actually pornographic by the normal definition of that word. Then it devolves into a political argument about "failing" schools systems, the claim that a book for high school students is "as early as the authors can get away with." and claims that, somehow, what's normalizing oral sex in our school system is a single book that I'm guessing no one other than the occasional LGBT student struggling with their gender and sexuality has ever checked out. Throwing out three politically motivated lies in quick succession doesn't make me trust you.

I haven't seen the pictures from Gender Queer (people keep referencing them but I haven't found them), I don't have a strong opinion there. I have read the excerpts from Lawn Boy and as a kid who experimented sexually around that age and to this day has kind of weird feelings around it (and grownups reaction to it), I would have really been helped to read a book like that in high school. So maybe Gender Queer is too adult for high school students, but I've got zero reason to believe you.

Just like other people have said don't judge Lawn Boy until you've read the text, please don't dismiss Gender Queer until you've seen the images

pic.twitter.com/thAEKkv7Ve

Thanks, that's really helpful. That's visually clear, but not pornographic in the least. Maybe too mature for a freshman, but perfectly fine for a junior or senior. Especially given what I know of the context, it's not designed to arouse and is actually more or less necessary for telling the story in a visual medium. Definitely should be kept, if maybe restricted to older high school students.

What's really difficult about this, is that I can see both sides of this.

I would absolutely not want my middle school aged child exposed to this. As a parent, I feel I would be within my rights to object to this material being available to that age group.

But I can also see how this may be helpful to older teens. The problem is that the school system has to consider the needs of both sets of students. It is a real possibility that seeing this could be traumatic for a MS child. It depicts sexual acts in a way that they may not be mature enough to process. But it may also be necessary for a 17 or 18yo to see this, to help them understand their own identity and to know they are not alone; though it may also be possible to do without the seeing the details of the act. (For example, you could sketch a panel demonstrating oral sex without seeing the strap-on, etc.)

FCPS must figure out a way to nurture the older children and still protect the younger.

I would also object to saying it's not pornographic "in the least". I suspect some of these scenes do arouse the reader. It may not be graphic, and it may not be over the top, and it may actually be appropriate for 17+, but it is pornographic. And I say that as someone who is 100% fine with pornography. But to say its not, it simply not true. I'm quite the sure the reader gets aroused at different points in this book, and THATS OK. As long as the reader is emotionally mature enough for that.

MS children are not emotionally mature enough

If your definition of pornography is "arouses the reader," then you're going to need to throw out half the fiction (if not more) at any given high school. High schoolers are constantly aroused by anything and everything. We're not tossing Pride and Prejudice, even though I assure you it's aroused a lot of readers. This doesn't look, to me, like something designed to arouse primarily. I think the pictures are necessary for telling the story effectively, not gratuitous, and not embellished sexually in a way you'd see in genuine pornography.

No, I think the definition has 2 parts: the imagery & the intent to arouse.

So a book may not have the imagery, not necessarily pornographic. The statue of David has the exposed genitalia, but no intent to arouse, so not pornographic.

There's no question this book has the imagery. The question was "is there an intent to arouse?"

and i think yes, the author did want to arouse based off what they elect to depict. Which again, I think is fine, for an age appropriate audience. But 14/15 may not be age appropriate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How many books in the school library have images of minors performing oral sex?! Are you saying there’s more than one?

So you only have an issue with books with images, not text about oral text?

[Anonymous]

Is this where we are as a society? People are defending images of oral sex in the public school library? How does anyone think this is okay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure you never read Fifty Shades of Grey. I am sure that is at the library too.

Stop the pearl clutching.

Is it in the FCPS library? There is a difference. And, no, I didn't read it

Same. Let’s stop acting like this is ok. It’s not.

It's not ok for you and if, if you decide so, for your kid. You do not get to decide for ME.

Shocker. Anti-choicers want to aggressively force their beliefs on others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure you never read Fifty Shades of Grey. I am sure that is at the library too.

Stop the pearl clutching.

Is it in the FCPS library? There is a difference. And, no, I didn't read it

Same. Let’s stop acting like this is ok. It’s not.

It's not ok for you and if, if you decide so, for your kid. You do not get to decide for ME.

Shocker. Anti-choicers want to aggressively force their beliefs on others.

Come on, its not that simple.

If I wanted my kid to read Hustler magazine, should it be available in the library?

If I'm ok with my kids drinking wine at dinner, should it be available in the cafeteria?

If you're ok with your kid reading this material, should it be available to everyone? Or, if you want your child to read it, should you go out and get the book yourself?

FWIW, i think its generally ok to have this book, but it probably needs to be restricted to 16+ and probably not be easily accessible out on the library floor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure you never read Fifty Shades of Grey. I am sure that is at the library too.

Stop the pearl clutching.

Is it in the FCPS library? There is a difference. And, no, I didn't read it

Same. Let’s stop acting like this is ok. It’s not.

It's not ok for you and if, if you decide so, for your kid. You do not get to decide for ME.

Shocker. Anti-choicers want to aggressively force their beliefs on others.

Come on, its not that simple.

If I wanted my kid to read Hustler magazine, should it be available in the library?

If I'm ok with my kids drinking wine at dinner, should it be available in the cafeteria?

If you're ok with your kid reading this material, should it be available to everyone? Or, if you want your child to read it, should you go out and get the book yourself?

FWIW, i think its generally ok to have this book, but it probably needs to be restricted to 16+ and probably not be easily accessible out on the library floor

We are talking about d sucking pictures. Really this shouldn’t even be a debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure you never read Fifty Shades of Grey. I am sure that is at the library too.

Stop the pearl clutching.

Is it in the FCPS library? There is a difference. And, no, I didn't read it

Same. Let’s stop acting like this is ok. It’s not.

It's not ok for you and if, if you decide so, for your kid. You do not get to decide for ME.

Shocker. Anti-choicers want to aggressively force their beliefs on others.

Come on, its not that simple.

If I wanted my kid to read Hustler magazine, should it be available in the library?

If I'm ok with my kids drinking wine at dinner, should it be available in the cafeteria?

If you're ok with your kid reading this material, should it be available to everyone? Or, if you want your child to read it, should you go out and get the book yourself?

FWIW, i think its generally ok to have this book, but it probably needs to be restricted to 16+ and probably not be easily accessible out on the library floor

We are talking about d sucking pictures. Really this shouldn’t even be a debate.

Yeah, you're right. There's gotta be books out there that can help kids process their identities without all the dick sucking pictures

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct. Trying to engage certain folks on the left is a waste of time. Often, the response is an ad hominem attack or an non sequitur. But what you can depend on, unfortunately, is the left defining deviancy down.

“Deviancy”??

Spoken like a true homophobe. Which is the core premise of this book banning effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure you never read Fifty Shades of Grey. I am sure that is at the library too.

Stop the pearl clutching.

Is it in the FCPS library? There is a difference. And, no, I didn't read it

Same. Let’s stop acting like this is ok. It’s not.

It's not ok for you and if, if you decide so, for your kid. You do not get to decide for ME.

Shocker. Anti-choicers want to aggressively force their beliefs on others.

Come on, its not that simple.

If I wanted my kid to read Hustler magazine, should it be available in the library?

If I'm ok with my kids drinking wine at dinner, should it be available in the cafeteria?

If you're ok with your kid reading this material, should it be available to everyone? Or, if you want your child to read it, should you go out and get the book yourself?

FWIW, i think its generally ok to have this book, but it probably needs to be restricted to 16+ and probably not be easily accessible out on the library floor

We are talking about d sucking pictures. Really this shouldn’t even be a debate.

There is no penis. Two females, experimenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure you never read Fifty Shades of Grey. I am sure that is at the library too.

Stop the pearl clutching.

Is it in the FCPS library? There is a difference. And, no, I didn't read it

Same. Let’s stop acting like this is ok. It’s not.

It's not ok for you and if, if you decide so, for your kid. You do not get to decide for ME.

Shocker. Anti-choicers want to aggressively force their beliefs on others.

Come on, its not that simple.

If I wanted my kid to read Hustler magazine, should it be available in the library?

If I'm ok with my kids drinking wine at dinner, should it be available in the cafeteria?

If you're ok with your kid reading this material, should it be available to everyone? Or, if you want your child to read it, should you go out and get the book yourself?

FWIW, i think its generally ok to have this book, but it probably needs to be restricted to 16+ and probably not be easily accessible out on the library floor

We are talking about d sucking pictures. Really this shouldn’t even be a debate.

There is no penis. Two females, experimenting.

Yes, we've established that. And its also reasonable to say:

when discussing the appropriateness for a school library, there is essentially no difference between sex acts using a real flesh & blood penis & a rubber strap-on dildo. Both are inappropriate imagery for a public school library