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: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

Have we now? You may need to explain that to the poster obsessed with “d1ck sucking”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Thanks for proving my point. Ad hominem attack: check. Defining deviancy down: check...I'll explain this second one. The earliest age of a high-school student is 13. In a school library, should a 13-year old be faced with oral sex graphics, whether hetero or homo? You seem to think that is okay, and that is defining deviancy down.

[Anonymous]

High school kids start at age 14. I had one that graduated at 17, and still, he began high school at 14.

Stop infantilizing high schoolers by acting like this book is available to children. I 100% bet your teenager didn't even know these books were in the library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:High school kids start at age 14. I had one that graduated at 17, and still, he began high school at 14.

Stop infantilizing high schoolers by acting like this book is available to children. I 100% bet your teenager didn't even know these books were in the library.

This is getting off-topic but its not THAT unusual to have a 13yo freshman at the start of the year. I know that bc we have one in my family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Thanks for proving my point. Ad hominem attack: check. Defining deviancy down: check...I'll explain this second one. The earliest age of a high-school student is 13. In a school library, should a 13-year old be faced with oral sex graphics, whether hetero or homo? You seem to think that is okay, and that is defining deviancy down.

It’s not ad hominem - it’s exactly the underlying premise of these theatrics.

Sexual experimentation is normal and healthy, not “deviant”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:High school kids start at age 14. I had one that graduated at 17, and still, he began high school at 14.

Stop infantilizing high schoolers by acting like this book is available to children. I 100% bet your teenager didn't even know these books were in the library.

Grow some moral standards. Not every family wants to have porn in their faces all the time. Society has too many sexual images in it already. Can't the school library be one place free of porn? Some of us don't like seeing dick picks when we are in the middle of reading a book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Thanks for proving my point. Ad hominem attack: check. Defining deviancy down: check...I'll explain this second one. The earliest age of a high-school student is 13. In a school library, should a 13-year old be faced with oral sex graphics, whether hetero or homo? You seem to think that is okay, and that is defining deviancy down.

It’s not ad hominem - it’s exactly the underlying premise of these theatrics.

Sexual experimentation is normal and healthy, not “deviant”.

Right. A school providing content for sexual experimentation for 13-year olds. Would there be a more accurate description of defining deviancy down?

[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

+1

100% not true.

You are both ignorant POSs pushing blatant misinformation. GFY.

Child porn fan right here. I hope the FBI checks your IP address.

[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.

You are so afraid of being associated with the so called “Trumphumpers” that you’ve convinced yourself of this.

Unbelievable. Those books are not fine.

What’s wrong with them?

Please don’t push lies. Only if you actually read them yourself…

Ugh. Can't we have one place in the world without dick pics? The school library should not be gross.

[Anonymous]

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.

Fine for who? I would like one public place in this world where my kid could go and not be confronted with sexual images. I thought the school library for kids would be one such place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High school kids start at age 14. I had one that graduated at 17, and still, he began high school at 14.

Stop infantilizing high schoolers by acting like this book is available to children. I 100% bet your teenager didn't even know these books were in the library.

Grow some moral standards. Not every family wants to have porn in their faces all the time. Society has too many sexual images in it already. Can't the school library be one place free of porn? Some of us don't like seeing dick picks when we are in the middle of reading a book.

I'm sure there's some nice catholic schools you can send your kid to.

Again for the prudes in the back, it's not porn, there is no penis. You are the crass person who keeps calling a phallus a dick. Please use proper terms.

[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.

Fine for who? I would like one public place in this world where my kid could go and not be confronted with sexual images. I thought the school library for kids would be one such place.

Please. Teens have been using books and encyclopedias to look up sexual images for decades.

[Anonymous]

I've personally read much worse YA books that are still in your public school libraries. I won't add them to your witch hunt. Romantic and sexual literature in YA books is nothing new.

[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 should probably be checking a few times a year to make sure FCPS won't try to sneak that particular periodical into the libraries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High school kids start at age 14. I had one that graduated at 17, and still, he began high school at 14.

Stop infantilizing high schoolers by acting like this book is available to children. I 100% bet your teenager didn't even know these books were in the library.

Grow some moral standards. Not every family wants to have porn in their faces all the time. Society has too many sexual images in it already. Can't the school library be one place free of porn? Some of us don't like seeing dick picks when we are in the middle of reading a book.

I'm sure there's some nice catholic schools you can send your kid to.

Again for the prudes in the back, it's not porn, there is no penis. You are the crass person who keeps calling a phallus a dick. Please use proper terms.

So only religious families have the right to protect their children from sexual content in schools? Is this where we are?