Hannah Natanson at it again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the important type of research that Natanson is undertaking as a Post reporter. Rather than pay any attention to declining academic achievement, decade-long overcrowding that has gone ignored at several FCPS high schools, or what exactly Dr. Michelle Reid means when she says she is committed to ensuring "equal outcomes" for FCPS students, Natanson quibbles with a local parent upset about a book that its own author has said was not intended for children:

"She zeroed-in on the same scene of oral sex that troubled Burkman in Texas. She became convinced, wrongly, that “Lawn Boy” shows fellatio taking place between an adult and a boy. In fact, the book describes a man in his 20s meeting another man in his 20s and remembering the consensual sexual encounter they shared in fourth grade."

Thanks so much for that critical clarification, Hannah. You are a rock star.

Nothing wrong with calling out RWNJ lies when they are being used to attack our schools and children.

You LWNJs have gone so far down the rabbit hole (and maybe other holes as well) that you don’t even realize that what you’re “clarifying” is still wildly inappropriate.

Do your kids have smartphones? Because if "wildly inappropriate" is your concern, I have something to tell you about those phones, sweetie.

Well, if they have scenes of two ten years olds giving each other oral sex, the police would likely be involved as it would clearly be child porn. I don’t think the argument that a concern about child porn is overblown because it’s everywhere and easily accessible, because it isn’t. Most looking for that stuff do so by going on the dark web. Why make its accessibility easier and seek children being exposed to it?

Going in the dark web to view child porn and see 2boxes in a graphic novel are so completely different. And then comparing that to the hours of sex student can watch in their phones without restriction is also completely different. These three things are not the same.

[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:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

And we start the leftist dance to pivot away from the three previous posts.
https://thevirginiastar.com/2022/04/26/self-described-marxist-lesbian-elected-next-president-of-american-library-association/

LOL. The Virginia Star. RWNJ trash rag that gets the facts wrong and doesn’t even share a quote from her saying the above.

Next.

It has the video of her interview where she makes that statement. You are not argument is now what was meant by ‘children,’ in the context of her statement. It certainly wasn’t adults as she mentions safety concerns for herself and her staff. Which isn’t relevant to the following post:

“Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.”

So the issue isn’t if Lawn Boy is pedophilia, but rather voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn. Is that material appropriate for inclusion in school libraries? Is someone a right wing nutjob or a homophobic bigot because they don’t want their middle or high schooler exposed to that? More importantly, why do you think it’s important for children to have that access to that material? If a child feels that they can relate to scenes of child pornography, in this case, two ten year old boys giving each other oral, is that signs of a larger problem? Do adults have a legitimate concern when it’s being pushed as ‘critical information,’ and that it may be designed to desensitize them to sex at a young age?

So many logic fails here.

1. Lawn Boy not porn/child porn. Or pedophilia. Neither is Gender Queer. Seriously, you STILL have no idea what is in either book? Find a legit news source. Or, you know, actually pick up a book.

2. It’s important for some older teens, not 12 year olds. That’s why I was asking about her definition of “children”. No one is saying that young children should have access to these books at school.

3. If your concern is exposure to sexual content, this is seriously the least of your worries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the important type of research that Natanson is undertaking as a Post reporter. Rather than pay any attention to declining academic achievement, decade-long overcrowding that has gone ignored at several FCPS high schools, or what exactly Dr. Michelle Reid means when she says she is committed to ensuring "equal outcomes" for FCPS students, Natanson quibbles with a local parent upset about a book that its own author has said was not intended for children:

"She zeroed-in on the same scene of oral sex that troubled Burkman in Texas. She became convinced, wrongly, that “Lawn Boy” shows fellatio taking place between an adult and a boy. In fact, the book describes a man in his 20s meeting another man in his 20s and remembering the consensual sexual encounter they shared in fourth grade."

Thanks so much for that critical clarification, Hannah. You are a rock star.

Nothing wrong with calling out RWNJ lies when they are being used to attack our schools and children.

You LWNJs have gone so far down the rabbit hole (and maybe other holes as well) that you don’t even realize that what you’re “clarifying” is still wildly inappropriate.

Do your kids have smartphones? Because if "wildly inappropriate" is your concern, I have something to tell you about those phones, sweetie.

What you are describing is what kids can view online for themselves via their phones, adult performances, performed by adults. The discussion is the appropriateness of material, who, in the author's own words, is designed for an adult audience (voyeur material for MAPS) depicting sex acts between prepubescent children (age 10). Key words, sex acts between prepubescent children, which is why many adults that read the material (starting on page 99 in Lawn Boy which a reasonable person could confused for pedophilia) think you are sick. Furthermore, anyone reading this thread, and then reads the passage I just mentioned, will realize that those defending the book, and making claims to the contrary, are liars.



Well, if they have scenes of two ten years olds giving each other oral sex, the police would likely be involved as it would clearly be child porn. I don’t think the argument that a concern about child porn is overblown because it’s everywhere and easily accessible, because it isn’t. Most looking for that stuff do so by going on the dark web. Why make its accessibility easier and seek children being exposed to it?

Going in the dark web to view child porn and see 2boxes in a graphic novel are so completely different. And then comparing that to the hours of sex student can watch in their phones without restriction is also completely different. These three things are not the same.

[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:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

And we start the leftist dance to pivot away from the three previous posts.
https://thevirginiastar.com/2022/04/26/self-described-marxist-lesbian-elected-next-president-of-american-library-association/

LOL. The Virginia Star. RWNJ trash rag that gets the facts wrong and doesn’t even share a quote from her saying the above.

Next.

It has the video of her interview where she makes that statement. You are not argument is now what was meant by ‘children,’ in the context of her statement. It certainly wasn’t adults as she mentions safety concerns for herself and her staff. Which isn’t relevant to the following post:

“Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.”

So the issue isn’t if Lawn Boy is pedophilia, but rather voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn. Is that material appropriate for inclusion in school libraries? Is someone a right wing nutjob or a homophobic bigot because they don’t want their middle or high schooler exposed to that? More importantly, why do you think it’s important for children to have that access to that material? If a child feels that they can relate to scenes of child pornography, in this case, two ten year old boys giving each other oral, is that signs of a larger problem? Do adults have a legitimate concern when it’s being pushed as ‘critical information,’ and that it may be designed to desensitize them to sex at a young age?

So many logic fails here.

1. Lawn Boy not porn/child porn. Or pedophilia. Neither is Gender Queer. Seriously, you STILL have no idea what is in either book? Find a legit news source. Or, you know, actually pick up a book.

2. It’s important for some older teens, not 12 year olds. That’s why I was asking about her definition of “children”. No one is saying that young children should have access to these books at school.

3. If your concern is exposure to sexual content, this is seriously the least of your worries.

Here are the disturbing passages I found in this book.

Page 11:

“That’s me, little Mike Munoz, standing in the middle. A sad-eyed ferret of a kid, skinny and bewildered, slight olive complexion, dark rings under my eyes. Greasy bangs plastered to my forehead, faded Toughskins jeans riding halfway up my shins. On my back, a dirty brown coat with a fake-fur collar. Not exactly the kid from the Sears catalog but a kid all the same. Eight years old and looking for a little security, a little self-confidence — any self-confidence, really. Just a third grader, bottom lip chafed from obsessive licking, little fingernails bitten to the quick, aching for a good time.”

“Aching for a good time.” Is this really an adult man talking about pictures of himself as a child? Or is it a creepy neighbor thinking about a boy who lives down the street?

More on page 11:

“That’s what kids should do, they should laugh. If there’s a better, righter sound in the whole world than the laughter of children, I don’t know what it is.”

What a creepy statement. Adult men don’t think about kids this way. Adult men don’t dwell on children.

Page 13:

“But there’s one thing I’d never tell Nick in a million years, not that it really matters: in fourth grade, at a church youth-group meeting, out in the bushes behind the parsonage, I touched Doug Goble’s dick, and he touched mine. In fact, there were even some mouths involved. It’s not something I’d even think about all these years later, except that Goble is the hottest real-estate agent in Kitsap County. His face is all over town — signs, billboards, Christ, even on shopping carts. Do you know what I think three times a day when I see his picture? I wonder, all these years later, why he just kicked our friendship to the curb like that. Was it shame?”

What more can be said about this beyond the obvious?

What if this book was about a 23-year-old woman who was reminiscing about the time she and another girl, at 10 years old, in fourth grade, gave each other oral sex? People would be disgusted and shocked, wouldn’t they? Why are people OK with this being described of little boys?

Page 44. The descriptions of oral sex between children continue. The narrator also develops, out of the blue, a fixation on Doug Goble (“the hottest real estate agent in town”) and daydreams about him:

“What if I told you I touched another guy’s dick?” I said. … “What if I told you I sucked it?” … “I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Doug Goble’s dick in my mouth.”

Page 73:

“All I could think about while he was chatting me up over the rim of his cappuccino was his little salamander between my fourth-grade fingers, rapidly engorging with blood.”

This is the passage that gives away the intentions of the book. The author is actually thinking about children this way. Who reminisces about an early sexual encounter in these words? Who would think back on something like this from when they were 10 as if it was a good thing?

[Anonymous]

The character was reflecting on his own personal memories from his own childhood. It was significant to him because it was his sexual awakening. Kids have sexual thoughts, actions, memories.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s not pornography.
It’s not child pornography.
It’s not pedophilia.

No matter how much you want it to be. It’s creepy that people view it like that. Maybe they’re projecting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The character was reflecting on his own personal memories from his own childhood. It was significant to him because it was his sexual awakening. Kids have sexual thoughts, actions, memories.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s not pornography.
It’s not child pornography.
It’s not pedophilia.

No matter how much you want it to be. It’s creepy that people view it like that. Maybe they’re projecting.

We send our kids to school to learn reading, writing, and math. Not to explore their sexuality or be sexually awakened. Our school board has the wrong priorities and scores are plummeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The character was reflecting on his own personal memories from his own childhood. It was significant to him because it was his sexual awakening. Kids have sexual thoughts, actions, memories.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s not pornography.
It’s not child pornography.
It’s not pedophilia.

No matter how much you want it to be. It’s creepy that people view it like that. Maybe they’re projecting.

We send our kids to school to learn reading, writing, and math. Not to explore their sexuality or be sexually awakened. Our school board has the wrong priorities and scores are plummeting.

Schools don’t have kids awaken/explore their sexuality at school. Kids handle that all on their own. Schools do provide sex education though, as they should.

And schools try to provide reading material that appeals to different people. For some older HS kids, these are great books that provide a different voice or experience.

So if you want kids to read, stop banning books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The character was reflecting on his own personal memories from his own childhood. It was significant to him because it was his sexual awakening. Kids have sexual thoughts, actions, memories.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s not pornography.
It’s not child pornography.
It’s not pedophilia.

No matter how much you want it to be. It’s creepy that people view it like that. Maybe they’re projecting.

We send our kids to school to learn reading, writing, and math. Not to explore their sexuality or be sexually awakened. Our school board has the wrong priorities and scores are plummeting.

Schools don’t have kids awaken/explore their sexuality at school. Kids handle that all on their own. Schools do provide sex education though, as they should.

And schools try to provide reading material that appeals to different people. For some older HS kids, these are great books that provide a different voice or experience.

So if you want kids to read, stop banning books.

The purpose of sexuality education was for a public interest, to halt the spread of STDs and limit teenage pregnancy. Sex Ed is about teaching children the changes they experience during puberty and how to care for themselves. This material is the perversion of sexuality education.

[Anonymous]

OMG, Republamommies are out again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The character was reflecting on his own personal memories from his own childhood. It was significant to him because it was his sexual awakening. Kids have sexual thoughts, actions, memories.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s not pornography.
It’s not child pornography.
It’s not pedophilia.

No matter how much you want it to be. It’s creepy that people view it like that. Maybe they’re projecting.

We send our kids to school to learn reading, writing, and math. Not to explore their sexuality or be sexually awakened. Our school board has the wrong priorities and scores are plummeting.

Schools don’t have kids awaken/explore their sexuality at school. Kids handle that all on their own. Schools do provide sex education though, as they should.

And schools try to provide reading material that appeals to different people. For some older HS kids, these are great books that provide a different voice or experience.

So if you want kids to read, stop banning books.

The purpose of sexuality education was for a public interest, to halt the spread of STDs and limit teenage pregnancy. Sex Ed is about teaching children the changes they experience during puberty and how to care for themselves. This material is the perversion of sexuality education.

These books aren’t part of sex ed. They aren’t part of the curriculum at all.

They are just a different voice/story for older teens who may find it insightful. No one is forcing anyone to read these books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG, Republamommies are out again!

There numbers are likely to grow considering that the LWNGs are trying to meet secretly with their kids to discuss, mold, and shape their sexual feelings, thoughts, and acts at school in place of focusing on core education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, Republamommies are out again!

There numbers are likely to grow considering that the LWNGs are trying to meet secretly with their kids to discuss, mold, and shape their sexual feelings, thoughts, and acts at school in place of focusing on core education.

+1. I’ve voted Democratic for national and most state offices for a long time, but the local Democrats in Fairfax scare me now. Their priorities are warped and they are destroying FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, Republamommies are out again!

There numbers are likely to grow considering that the LWNGs are trying to meet secretly with their kids to discuss, mold, and shape their sexual feelings, thoughts, and acts at school in place of focusing on core education.

WTAF? You are delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The character was reflecting on his own personal memories from his own childhood. It was significant to him because it was his sexual awakening. Kids have sexual thoughts, actions, memories.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s not pornography.
It’s not child pornography.
It’s not pedophilia.

No matter how much you want it to be. It’s creepy that people view it like that. Maybe they’re projecting.

Definition of the word pornography: 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.

It absolutely does show that.