Virginia republicans go to court to ban books from being SOLD in Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

No, Gender Queer has no such drawing and, contrary to what another pp said, Gender Queer has no similarity to any Platonic Dialogue. I wish it had similarities to Plato because I found Gender Queer to be unimpressive. I ordered two copies because I encourage my teenage DS to read anything that’s banned. But after reading Gender Queer, I told DS he could read it if he wanted but there are much better books with which to occupy his time.

Yes, it does. Stop gaslighting.

Sexual imagery

A controversial illustration in Gender Queer is based on this piece of red-figure pottery attributed to the Brygos Painter.
Gender Queer includes a handful of sexually explicit illustrations which have been used to argue that the book is inappropriate for schoolchildren.

In one commonly cited panel, a 14-year-old Kobabe fantasizes about a scene in which an older man touches the penis of a youth. The illustration is based on a piece of painted ancient Greek pottery depicting a "courting scene".[21][2] Detractors have described this as a depiction of pedophilia.[22][23]

No. As I said, I don’t like Gender Queer because I think it’s poorly written and self indulgent. But it has no such image. But, then, full disclosure, for the life of me I can’t find the picture of a female breast that caused people to say that “Maus” was obscene. I found frontal male nudity in Maus volume II but no female breast in either volume.

Look, I really don't know what to tell you. You are either lying or ignorant of the images that are indeed in Gender Queer. Anyone who has read it knows exactly what the pictures are. Just stop.

[…]

The PP has clearly read the book as you have relied on right wing propaganda to tell you what and how to think. “ MassResistance is a hate group that promotes anti-LGBT and socially conservative positions. The group is designated an anti-LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center,[4] in part for claims linking LGBT people with pedophilia and zoophilia, and claims that suicide prevention programs aimed at gay youth were created by homosexual activists to normalize and "lure" children into homosexuality.[3][5][6]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MassResistance

So I’ll repeat: the PP has clearly read the book and instead of reading it yourself to see which is true, you’re relying on (and linking to!) a hate group. You would cite the KKK for guidance on police brutality.

What the GOP is doing is fascism. They want only approved forms of culture and they’re willing to lie to their sheep followers in order to accomplish those aims, also because their followers are too dim to grasp that this record has been played before and their favorite books, movies, music, etc won’t always be allowed if the GOP gets their way. And oh do they want their way!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

Prove it

Go buy the book from a bookstore and see. But don't post the pic here, it's NSFW.

Better keep your kids out of museums with Ancient Greek art and pottery since that's where the drawing came from.

When are you freaks going to try to close down the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England for displaying such smut? It's only been there since 1683.

https://collections.ashmolean.org/collection/search/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/relevance/object/24343

The image to at RWNJs are getting so worked up about (which is on page 136 of the book) is copied from this Ancient Greek art posted by someone pages back in this thread. It is currently on display at the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, which is part of University of Oxford.

This kind of ignorance is why it is impossible to take you book banner seriously. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

Prove it

Go buy the book from a bookstore and see. But don't post the pic here, it's NSFW.

Better keep your kids out of museums with Ancient Greek art and pottery since that's where the drawing came from.

When are you freaks going to try to close down the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England for displaying such smut? It's only been there since 1683.

https://collections.ashmolean.org/collection/search/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/relevance/object/24343

"Freaks"? You're the one defending images of pedophilia.
DP

IKR, please show me Ancient Greek exhibits at a museum where there are depictions of sexual activity involving underaged. Yeah, ancient art has some depictions of sexual activity, like Kamasutra, for example, but this involves adults, and isn't something sold to children or available at school libraries.

Go to the Smithsonian. Not only can you see the Greek man on kid thing but you can also see a lot of Indian hanky panky...sometiems with elephant-men. (Dear Indian God; Please forgive me for forgetting your name and typing something crass like I just did. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Larla, a Christian who doesn't want you pissed at her in case she's wrong about the religion thing)

Can you please point me to the specific "man on kid" exhibit at the Smithsonian you are referring to? I had visited several, but haven't noticed it.. hmm... I am calling bullshit on this. I have seen plenty of naked statues and paintings, but sexual images are usually not on public display at the museums, maybe in the archives, and printed versions are available for sale.

DP

Ancient porn was definitely a thing. And not just standard adult m / f. People have written dissertations and theses about it.

The Smithsonian doesn't have much by way of ancient Greek/Roman art. But see this example from the British Museum of older men and youths: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1865-1118-39

Here's this on view at the Metropolitan Museum: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/256912

Indian threesome at Met: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/40101

Google Zeus and Ganymede! https://artuk.org/discover/stories/divine-homosexuality-ganymede-and-antinous-as-queer-icons-in-art

Pompeii and Herculaneum have a ton of erotic/pornographic art.

Even more erotica

https://www.pinterest.com/tomcollins07/homoerotic-greek-vases/

https://greekreporter.com/2022/03/26/erotic-art-ancient-greece-rome/

I looked at these, and it's not what you described, there are no scenes involving underaged or geared towards the underaged. The "threesome" is a scene where an adult couple is engaging in a sexual act while the woman is holding what is obviously her young child. It may not even depict a real scene but may be an abstraction of a family unit. It's definitely not a threesome, lol. The other ancient depictions are mainly nudity, not really much else going on. And you mentioned Smithsonian, did you see anything there on full display depicting sexual acts with underaged catering to tourist crowds with little kids?

And how is any of this an excuse to promote these books, are you really comparing this to art? Ok, then maybe the state of VA can put them into some dusty corner in a museum

Are YOU really claiming books aren't works of art?

These books clearly aren't. Not all books are, just like not all drawings are work of art that deserves to be treasured by society. It's very possible that all these ancient treasures that we consider high art wasn't high art back then either, it could just be porn of that era. We only treasure it because it's an artifact of the begone civilization. There is nothing intrinsically valuable in the images of stick figures with erect penises other than it gives us a glimpse that homosexual relations used to be a thing back then for a vase maker to draw. Maybe 2000 years from now new-cyborg-humans who don't even sexually reproduce anymore and have no sexual organs will find "Gender Queer" to be enlightening art

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

Prove it

Go buy the book from a bookstore and see. But don't post the pic here, it's NSFW.

Better keep your kids out of museums with Ancient Greek art and pottery since that's where the drawing came from.

When are you freaks going to try to close down the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England for displaying such smut? It's only been there since 1683.

https://collections.ashmolean.org/collection/search/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/relevance/object/24343

"Freaks"? You're the one defending images of pedophilia.
DP

IKR, please show me Ancient Greek exhibits at a museum where there are depictions of sexual activity involving underaged. Yeah, ancient art has some depictions of sexual activity, like Kamasutra, for example, but this involves adults, and isn't something sold to children or available at school libraries.

Go to the Smithsonian. Not only can you see the Greek man on kid thing but you can also see a lot of Indian hanky panky...sometiems with elephant-men. (Dear Indian God; Please forgive me for forgetting your name and typing something crass like I just did. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Larla, a Christian who doesn't want you pissed at her in case she's wrong about the religion thing)

Can you please point me to the specific "man on kid" exhibit at the Smithsonian you are referring to? I had visited several, but haven't noticed it.. hmm... I am calling bullshit on this. I have seen plenty of naked statues and paintings, but sexual images are usually not on public display at the museums, maybe in the archives, and printed versions are available for sale.

DP

Ancient porn was definitely a thing. And not just standard adult m / f. People have written dissertations and theses about it.

The Smithsonian doesn't have much by way of ancient Greek/Roman art. But see this example from the British Museum of older men and youths: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1865-1118-39

Here's this on view at the Metropolitan Museum: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/256912

Indian threesome at Met: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/40101

Google Zeus and Ganymede! https://artuk.org/discover/stories/divine-homosexuality-ganymede-and-antinous-as-queer-icons-in-art

Pompeii and Herculaneum have a ton of erotic/pornographic art.

Even more erotica

https://www.pinterest.com/tomcollins07/homoerotic-greek-vases/

https://greekreporter.com/2022/03/26/erotic-art-ancient-greece-rome/

I looked at these, and it's not what you described, there are no scenes involving underaged or geared towards the underaged. The "threesome" is a scene where an adult couple is engaging in a sexual act while the woman is holding what is obviously her young child. It may not even depict a real scene but may be an abstraction of a family unit. It's definitely not a threesome, lol. The other ancient depictions are mainly nudity, not really much else going on. And you mentioned Smithsonian, did you see anything there on full display depicting sexual acts with underaged catering to tourist crowds with little kids?

And how is any of this an excuse to promote these books, are you really comparing this to art? Ok, then maybe the state of VA can put them into some dusty corner in a museum

Did you really look at the pictures because the very first vase depicts sex between adult men and boys.

You have a wild imagination, the vase doesn't have small figures, all humans are of the same size and look like adults, different ages of adulthood from adolescence to old age. It also doesn't depict any sexual acts, just nudity and erect penises. Sorry to be graphic here, but I am describing what's really there and not what's in your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

No, Gender Queer has no such drawing and, contrary to what another pp said, Gender Queer has no similarity to any Platonic Dialogue. I wish it had similarities to Plato because I found Gender Queer to be unimpressive. I ordered two copies because I encourage my teenage DS to read anything that’s banned. But after reading Gender Queer, I told DS he could read it if he wanted but there are much better books with which to occupy his time.

Yes, it does. Stop gaslighting.

Sexual imagery

A controversial illustration in Gender Queer is based on this piece of red-figure pottery attributed to the Brygos Painter.
Gender Queer includes a handful of sexually explicit illustrations which have been used to argue that the book is inappropriate for schoolchildren.

In one commonly cited panel, a 14-year-old Kobabe fantasizes about a scene in which an older man touches the penis of a youth. The illustration is based on a piece of painted ancient Greek pottery depicting a "courting scene".[21][2] Detractors have described this as a depiction of pedophilia.[22][23]

No. As I said, I don’t like Gender Queer because I think it’s poorly written and self indulgent. But it has no such image. But, then, full disclosure, for the life of me I can’t find the picture of a female breast that caused people to say that “Maus” was obscene. I found frontal male nudity in Maus volume II but no female breast in either volume.

Look, I really don't know what to tell you. You are either lying or ignorant of the images that are indeed in Gender Queer. Anyone who has read it knows exactly what the pictures are. Just stop.

[…]

The PP has clearly read the book as you have relied on right wing propaganda to tell you what and how to think. “ MassResistance is a hate group that promotes anti-LGBT and socially conservative positions. The group is designated an anti-LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center,[4] in part for claims linking LGBT people with pedophilia and zoophilia, and claims that suicide prevention programs aimed at gay youth were created by homosexual activists to normalize and "lure" children into homosexuality.[3][5][6]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MassResistance

So I’ll repeat: the PP has clearly read the book and instead of reading it yourself to see which is true, you’re relying on (and linking to!) a hate group. You would cite the KKK for guidance on police brutality.

What the GOP is doing is fascism. They want only approved forms of culture and they’re willing to lie to their sheep followers in order to accomplish those aims, also because their followers are too dim to grasp that this record has been played before and their favorite books, movies, music, etc won’t always be allowed if the GOP gets their way. And oh do they want their way!

What’s funny is that nowhere amid your noxious, unhinged ranting is the acknowledgment that the illustration in question IS IN THE BOOK. I’ve read the book too. Clearly it is you who has not, twit.

[Anonymous]

The other day one of these idiots was touched by a light breeze, and it made them feel funny, so now they are banning weather. For the sake of the children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

No, Gender Queer has no such drawing and, contrary to what another pp said, Gender Queer has no similarity to any Platonic Dialogue. I wish it had similarities to Plato because I found Gender Queer to be unimpressive. I ordered two copies because I encourage my teenage DS to read anything that’s banned. But after reading Gender Queer, I told DS he could read it if he wanted but there are much better books with which to occupy his time.

Yes, it does. Stop gaslighting.

Sexual imagery

A controversial illustration in Gender Queer is based on this piece of red-figure pottery attributed to the Brygos Painter.
Gender Queer includes a handful of sexually explicit illustrations which have been used to argue that the book is inappropriate for schoolchildren.

In one commonly cited panel, a 14-year-old Kobabe fantasizes about a scene in which an older man touches the penis of a youth. The illustration is based on a piece of painted ancient Greek pottery depicting a "courting scene".[21][2] Detractors have described this as a depiction of pedophilia.[22][23]

No. As I said, I don’t like Gender Queer because I think it’s poorly written and self indulgent. But it has no such image. But, then, full disclosure, for the life of me I can’t find the picture of a female breast that caused people to say that “Maus” was obscene. I found frontal male nudity in Maus volume II but no female breast in either volume.

Look, I really don't know what to tell you. You are either lying or ignorant of the images that are indeed in Gender Queer. Anyone who has read it knows exactly what the pictures are. Just stop.

https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21d/WY-MR-Library-Books-more/5-Gender-Queer.html

Btw, waiting for you to acknowledge you were wrong.

I wasn’t wrong. I think Gender Queer is a poorly written self indulgent book but the image you say is their simply isn’t.

Not only are you wrong, you’re also a liar. Do you generally lie about such easily provable things? A simple google search is all it takes, you twit. And here’s the NYT as well. Do better.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/01/books/maia-kobabe-gender-queer-book-ban.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

No, Gender Queer has no such drawing and, contrary to what another pp said, Gender Queer has no similarity to any Platonic Dialogue. I wish it had similarities to Plato because I found Gender Queer to be unimpressive. I ordered two copies because I encourage my teenage DS to read anything that’s banned. But after reading Gender Queer, I told DS he could read it if he wanted but there are much better books with which to occupy his time.

Yes, it does. Stop gaslighting.

Sexual imagery

A controversial illustration in Gender Queer is based on this piece of red-figure pottery attributed to the Brygos Painter.
Gender Queer includes a handful of sexually explicit illustrations which have been used to argue that the book is inappropriate for schoolchildren.

In one commonly cited panel, a 14-year-old Kobabe fantasizes about a scene in which an older man touches the penis of a youth. The illustration is based on a piece of painted ancient Greek pottery depicting a "courting scene".[21][2] Detractors have described this as a depiction of pedophilia.[22][23]

No. As I said, I don’t like Gender Queer because I think it’s poorly written and self indulgent. But it has no such image. But, then, full disclosure, for the life of me I can’t find the picture of a female breast that caused people to say that “Maus” was obscene. I found frontal male nudity in Maus volume II but no female breast in either volume.

Look, I really don't know what to tell you. You are either lying or ignorant of the images that are indeed in Gender Queer. Anyone who has read it knows exactly what the pictures are. Just stop.

https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21d/WY-MR-Library-Books-more/5-Gender-Queer.html

Btw, waiting for you to acknowledge you were wrong.

I wasn’t wrong. I think Gender Queer is a poorly written self indulgent book but the image you say is their simply isn’t.

Not only are you wrong, you’re also a liar. Do you generally lie about such easily provable things? A simple google search is all it takes, you twit. And here’s the NYT as well. Do better.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/01/books/maia-kobabe-gender-queer-book-ban.html

DP. The comments in this tangent are getting so vague that I can’t even tell what point you are trying to make or why you are citing this NYT article. If you want to have a constructive discussion, you (and others) might try stating your points clearly and directly instead of trying to hand wave (which really only reinforces the impression that you’re trying to deflect from the substantive issue).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

Prove it

Go buy the book from a bookstore and see. But don't post the pic here, it's NSFW.

Better keep your kids out of museums with Ancient Greek art and pottery since that's where the drawing came from.

When are you freaks going to try to close down the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England for displaying such smut? It's only been there since 1683.

https://collections.ashmolean.org/collection/search/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/relevance/object/24343

The image to at RWNJs are getting so worked up about (which is on page 136 of the book) is copied from this Ancient Greek art posted by someone pages back in this thread. It is currently on display at the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, which is part of University of Oxford.

This kind of ignorance is why it is impossible to take you book banner seriously. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

Why do they think this is pedophelia - - where is the age of the people in the artwork noted? Looks like two men to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

Prove it

Go buy the book from a bookstore and see. But don't post the pic here, it's NSFW.

Better keep your kids out of museums with Ancient Greek art and pottery since that's where the drawing came from.

When are you freaks going to try to close down the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England for displaying such smut? It's only been there since 1683.

https://collections.ashmolean.org/collection/search/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/relevance/object/24343

The image to at RWNJs are getting so worked up about (which is on page 136 of the book) is copied from this Ancient Greek art posted by someone pages back in this thread. It is currently on display at the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, which is part of University of Oxford.

This kind of ignorance is why it is impossible to take you book banner seriously. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

Why do they think this is pedophelia - - where is the age of the people in the artwork noted? Looks like two men to me.

One does look younger than the other, but neither of them look like children. I think three may be a certain degree of projection going on by some people who claim to see pedophilia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

Prove it

Go buy the book from a bookstore and see. But don't post the pic here, it's NSFW.

Better keep your kids out of museums with Ancient Greek art and pottery since that's where the drawing came from.

When are you freaks going to try to close down the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England for displaying such smut? It's only been there since 1683.

https://collections.ashmolean.org/collection/search/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/relevance/object/24343

The image to at RWNJs are getting so worked up about (which is on page 136 of the book) is copied from this Ancient Greek art posted by someone pages back in this thread. It is currently on display at the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, which is part of University of Oxford.

This kind of ignorance is why it is impossible to take you book banner seriously. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

So? We also have porn, but do we allow our kids to have access to it? Is this museum a public museum frequented by families like Smithsonian?

And what is your point exactly? I had posted and my post was deleted probably because of quoting a deleted post. My point is that ancients used to do a LOT of things that are now illegal in modern society. Slavery was legal. Human and child sacrifice was legal and celebrated in some ancient cultures, and there are plenty of depictions of this. How does this make it ok to promote or normalize any of the "ancient ways" in our modern society where we decided to institute LAWS to protect children and family? There is a reason sex or depiction of it with minors is ILLEGAL. If you feel like it's bigoted and uncultured to ban images that were normal in ancient culture then you are out of luck, because it's illegal. It's as simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

Prove it

Go buy the book from a bookstore and see. But don't post the pic here, it's NSFW.

Better keep your kids out of museums with Ancient Greek art and pottery since that's where the drawing came from.

When are you freaks going to try to close down the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England for displaying such smut? It's only been there since 1683.

https://collections.ashmolean.org/collection/search/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/relevance/object/24343

The image to at RWNJs are getting so worked up about (which is on page 136 of the book) is copied from this Ancient Greek art posted by someone pages back in this thread. It is currently on display at the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, which is part of University of Oxford.

This kind of ignorance is why it is impossible to take you book banner seriously. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

Why do they think this is pedophelia - - where is the age of the people in the artwork noted? Looks like two men to me.

One does look younger than the other, but neither of them look like children. I think three may be a certain degree of projection going on by some people who claim to see pedophilia.

I don't remember what the one in the book looks like, it's also not an exact copy but artist's interpretation. But even if this were an exact copy of some ancient art, why does it belong in a book geared towards the teenagers? The book is popular and controversial, probably a lot of copies around, so this image gets a LOT of eyeballs. On the other hand, an ancient art piece in a dusty corner of some academic museum gets very little eye-traffic probably, especially by minors. By taking this image from academic obscurity and making it very public you are essentially "advertising" and promoting this image to wide audiences. It's precisely the problem parents have - promotion of certain materials to minors, not mere existence of these materials (especially in academic settings) that have low probability reaching their kid's eyeballs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

Prove it

Go buy the book from a bookstore and see. But don't post the pic here, it's NSFW.

Better keep your kids out of museums with Ancient Greek art and pottery since that's where the drawing came from.

When are you freaks going to try to close down the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England for displaying such smut? It's only been there since 1683.

https://collections.ashmolean.org/collection/search/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/relevance/object/24343

The image to at RWNJs are getting so worked up about (which is on page 136 of the book) is copied from this Ancient Greek art posted by someone pages back in this thread. It is currently on display at the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, which is part of University of Oxford.

This kind of ignorance is why it is impossible to take you book banner seriously. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

Why do they think this is pedophelia - - where is the age of the people in the artwork noted? Looks like two men to me.

One does look younger than the other, but neither of them look like children. I think three may be a certain degree of projection going on by some people who claim to see pedophilia.

I don't remember what the one in the book looks like, it's also not an exact copy but artist's interpretation. But even if this were an exact copy of some ancient art, why does it belong in a book geared towards the teenagers? The book is popular and controversial, probably a lot of copies around, so this image gets a LOT of eyeballs. On the other hand, an ancient art piece in a dusty corner of some academic museum gets very little eye-traffic probably, especially by minors. By taking this image from academic obscurity and making it very public you are essentially "advertising" and promoting this image to wide audiences. It's precisely the problem parents have - promotion of certain materials to minors, not mere existence of these materials (especially in academic settings) that have low probability reaching their kid's eyeballs.

Then don’t buy the book. But the idea that bookstores in Virginia should be prohibited from selling it because you don’t want your kids to see it is absolutely ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

No, Gender Queer has no such drawing and, contrary to what another pp said, Gender Queer has no similarity to any Platonic Dialogue. I wish it had similarities to Plato because I found Gender Queer to be unimpressive. I ordered two copies because I encourage my teenage DS to read anything that’s banned. But after reading Gender Queer, I told DS he could read it if he wanted but there are much better books with which to occupy his time.

Yes, it does. Stop gaslighting.

Sexual imagery

A controversial illustration in Gender Queer is based on this piece of red-figure pottery attributed to the Brygos Painter.
Gender Queer includes a handful of sexually explicit illustrations which have been used to argue that the book is inappropriate for schoolchildren.

In one commonly cited panel, a 14-year-old Kobabe fantasizes about a scene in which an older man touches the penis of a youth. The illustration is based on a piece of painted ancient Greek pottery depicting a "courting scene".[21][2] Detractors have described this as a depiction of pedophilia.[22][23]

No. As I said, I don’t like Gender Queer because I think it’s poorly written and self indulgent. But it has no such image. But, then, full disclosure, for the life of me I can’t find the picture of a female breast that caused people to say that “Maus” was obscene. I found frontal male nudity in Maus volume II but no female breast in either volume.

Look, I really don't know what to tell you. You are either lying or ignorant of the images that are indeed in Gender Queer. Anyone who has read it knows exactly what the pictures are. Just stop.

https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21d/WY-MR-Library-Books-more/5-Gender-Queer.html

Btw, waiting for you to acknowledge you were wrong.

I wasn’t wrong. I think Gender Queer is a poorly written self indulgent book but the image you say is their simply isn’t.

Not only are you wrong, you’re also a liar. Do you generally lie about such easily provable things? A simple google search is all it takes, you twit. And here’s the NYT as well. Do better.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/01/books/maia-kobabe-gender-queer-book-ban.html

DP. The comments in this tangent are getting so vague that I can’t even tell what point you are trying to make or why you are citing this NYT article. If you want to have a constructive discussion, you (and others) might try stating your points clearly and directly instead of trying to hand wave (which really only reinforces the impression that you’re trying to deflect from the substantive issue).

The original point was simply that Gender Queer does indeed contain many inappropriate, graphically sexual illustrations - among them, the Greek image in question. An idiot PP continued to insist that the book does not contain that particular image, when in fact, it absolutely does. The only deflection going on here is the poster who continues to claim that illustration is not in the book - and who calls others "liars" when they prove that it is. Clear enough for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

Prove it

Go buy the book from a bookstore and see. But don't post the pic here, it's NSFW.

Better keep your kids out of museums with Ancient Greek art and pottery since that's where the drawing came from.

When are you freaks going to try to close down the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England for displaying such smut? It's only been there since 1683.

https://collections.ashmolean.org/collection/search/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/relevance/object/24343

The image to at RWNJs are getting so worked up about (which is on page 136 of the book) is copied from this Ancient Greek art posted by someone pages back in this thread. It is currently on display at the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, which is part of University of Oxford.

This kind of ignorance is why it is impossible to take you book banner seriously. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

Why do they think this is pedophelia - - where is the age of the people in the artwork noted? Looks like two men to me.

One does look younger than the other, but neither of them look like children. I think three may be a certain degree of projection going on by some people who claim to see pedophilia.

Sigh. The gaslighting is beyond old. The image in question is of a Greek MAN (facial hair) with a youth. It's been cited in many works about Greek pederasty and is a common image - the older man and the youthful boy.

"In one commonly cited panel, a 14-year-old Kobabe fantasizes about a scene in which an older man touches the penis of a youth. The illustration is based on a piece of painted ancient Greek pottery depicting a "courting scene".[21][2] Detractors have described this as a depiction of pedophilia.[22][23]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Queer