Seriously with the book banning ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean seriously. High school kids read so little. We should be happy they read anything!

Doubt many high school students even want to read this comic book.

But if they do, what do the nay-sayers fear will happen?

One example of what we fear: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7147756/

Oh sweet summer child. This comic book that deals with teens grappling of sexuality and identity is not going to fall under that study's definition of sexually explicit media. It just won't. Did you even read the descriptions of what content they were considering as sexually explicit media?

You know what is more disturbing than a memoir? The messages about sexuality that teens get from advertisement. But I bet you don't get yourself all worked up over that.

The number of people who are naïve about the intentions of individuals who want to introduce sexually explicit content to other people's children is staggering. The reality is that so-called MAP and their apologists have been campaigning for decades to normalize sexually explicit materials to children. Some of them of probably here in this thread under the cloak of anonymity campaigning to normalize to DC moms that public schools should provide access to sexually explicit content to minors.

What is your definition of "sexually explicit"? And what ages are you talking about when you say "children"? Come on now, you need to be specific with these things. Ankles were considered "sexually explicit" in the 19th century.

Why are you campaigning to provide depiction of sexual acts to other people’s children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean seriously. High school kids read so little. We should be happy they read anything!

Doubt many high school students even want to read this comic book.

But if they do, what do the nay-sayers fear will happen?

One example of what we fear: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7147756/

Oh sweet summer child. This comic book that deals with teens grappling of sexuality and identity is not going to fall under that study's definition of sexually explicit media. It just won't. Did you even read the descriptions of what content they were considering as sexually explicit media?

You know what is more disturbing than a memoir? The messages about sexuality that teens get from advertisement. But I bet you don't get yourself all worked up over that.

The number of people who are naïve about the intentions of individuals who want to introduce sexually explicit content to other people's children is staggering. The reality is that so-called MAP and their apologists have been campaigning for decades to normalize sexually explicit materials to children. Some of them of probably here in this thread under the cloak of anonymity campaigning to normalize to DC moms that public schools should provide access to sexually explicit content to minors.

What is your definition of "sexually explicit"? And what ages are you talking about when you say "children"? Come on now, you need to be specific with these things. Ankles were considered "sexually explicit" in the 19th century.

Why are you campaigning to provide depiction of sexual acts to other people’s children?

Why do you think you have the right to decide for me what books my child has access to? You don't. They should be available and YOU can be the one to police your own kid's reading. Not mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean seriously. High school kids read so little. We should be happy they read anything!

Doubt many high school students even want to read this comic book.

But if they do, what do the nay-sayers fear will happen?

One example of what we fear: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7147756/

Oh sweet summer child. This comic book that deals with teens grappling of sexuality and identity is not going to fall under that study's definition of sexually explicit media. It just won't. Did you even read the descriptions of what content they were considering as sexually explicit media?

You know what is more disturbing than a memoir? The messages about sexuality that teens get from advertisement. But I bet you don't get yourself all worked up over that.

The number of people who are naïve about the intentions of individuals who want to introduce sexually explicit content to other people's children is staggering. The reality is that so-called MAP and their apologists have been campaigning for decades to normalize sexually explicit materials to children. Some of them of probably here in this thread under the cloak of anonymity campaigning to normalize to DC moms that public schools should provide access to sexually explicit content to minors.

What is your definition of "sexually explicit"? And what ages are you talking about when you say "children"? Come on now, you need to be specific with these things. Ankles were considered "sexually explicit" in the 19th century.

Why are you campaigning to provide depiction of sexual acts to other people’s children?

Why do you think you have the right to decide for me what books my child has access to? You don't. They should be available and YOU can be the one to police your own kid's reading. Not mine.

Apparently you struggle with reading comprehension. The previous post was referring to providing sexual content to other people’s children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean seriously. High school kids read so little. We should be happy they read anything!

Doubt many high school students even want to read this comic book.

But if they do, what do the nay-sayers fear will happen?

One example of what we fear: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7147756/

Oh sweet summer child. This comic book that deals with teens grappling of sexuality and identity is not going to fall under that study's definition of sexually explicit media. It just won't. Did you even read the descriptions of what content they were considering as sexually explicit media?

You know what is more disturbing than a memoir? The messages about sexuality that teens get from advertisement. But I bet you don't get yourself all worked up over that.

The number of people who are naïve about the intentions of individuals who want to introduce sexually explicit content to other people's children is staggering. The reality is that so-called MAP and their apologists have been campaigning for decades to normalize sexually explicit materials to children. Some of them of probably here in this thread under the cloak of anonymity campaigning to normalize to DC moms that public schools should provide access to sexually explicit content to minors.

What is your definition of "sexually explicit"? And what ages are you talking about when you say "children"? Come on now, you need to be specific with these things. Ankles were considered "sexually explicit" in the 19th century.

Why are you campaigning to provide depiction of sexual acts to other people’s children?

Why do you think you have the right to decide for me what books my child has access to? You don't. They should be available and YOU can be the one to police your own kid's reading. Not mine.

Apparently you struggle with reading comprehension. The previous post was referring to providing sexual content to other people’s children.

I can read just fine. What a dumb thing to say. This entire thread is about sexually explicit content but the question is: what is the definition of that, what is appropriate for kids and what age, and who should make that decision.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Some truly wonderful books on that list and I own about half. I would be thrilled if my 10 year old kid read any of them. Better than the Twilight series.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ironically, I remember being required to read some of those books in high school

[Anonymous]

Seriously, some of these books are absolute classics.

And what is wrong with Anne Rice books? I mean, they are more pop culture than classic literature. I guess the GOP will ban Count Chocula as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, some of these books are absolute classics.

And what is wrong with Anne Rice books? I mean, they are more pop culture than classic literature. I guess the GOP will ban Count Chocula as well?

I've never heard of Shatter Me, and I agree about Anne Rice, but I think the are classics within their genre. You could argue that every other book on that list is a classic and that some should be considered part of the canon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

These kids will be ignorant of some great books. Hopefully they read them anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ironically, I remember being required to read some of those books in high school

Additional books listed not shown in the screenshot are:

Empire of Storms by Sarah Maas
Bag of Bones by Stephen King
11/22/63: A Novel by Stephen King
It by Stephen King
Furyborn by Claire Legrand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ironically, I remember being required to read some of those books in high school

Additional books listed not shown in the screenshot are:

Empire of Storms by Sarah Maas
Bag of Bones by Stephen King
11/22/63: A Novel by Stephen King
It by Stephen King
Furyborn by Claire Legrand

DP, if I'm reading correctly, the books are set aside in the library and may only be checked out with parental permission?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ironically, I remember being required to read some of those books in high school

Additional books listed not shown in the screenshot are:

Empire of Storms by Sarah Maas
Bag of Bones by Stephen King
11/22/63: A Novel by Stephen King
It by Stephen King
Furyborn by Claire Legrand

DP, if I'm reading correctly, the books are set aside in the library and may only be checked out with parental permission?

No, that was the old rule after one of the School Board members told the librarian to do that. Then he brought his list (borrowed from one created by the Christofascists at Focus on the Family) to the whole school board to have them removed completely from the HS library.

Cheers to the Madison County Public Library for making sure everyone, including high schoolers, has access to these books:

When Wingate first proposed removing the books from the high school library, the Madison County Public Library confirmed it had the entire 26 books first proposed to be banned.

Now, with the revised list of 21 books, the county library – based on the library’s online catalog search option –has all but Furyborn available.

Friday, a library spokersperson said they have ordered Furyborn. It will arrive later this month and will be available for circulation.

https://madrapp.com/madison-county-school-board-bans-books-from-high-school-library-p4501-221.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ironically, I remember being required to read some of those books in high school

Additional books listed not shown in the screenshot are:

Empire of Storms by Sarah Maas
Bag of Bones by Stephen King
11/22/63: A Novel by Stephen King
It by Stephen King
Furyborn by Claire Legrand

DP, if I'm reading correctly, the books are set aside in the library and may only be checked out with parental permission?

No, that was the old rule after one of the School Board members told the librarian to do that. Then he brought his list (borrowed from one created by the Christofascists at Focus on the Family) to the whole school board to have them removed completely from the HS library.

Cheers to the Madison County Public Library for making sure everyone, including high schoolers, has access to these books:

When Wingate first proposed removing the books from the high school library, the Madison County Public Library confirmed it had the entire 26 books first proposed to be banned.

Now, with the revised list of 21 books, the county library – based on the library’s online catalog search option –has all but Furyborn available.

Friday, a library spokersperson said they have ordered Furyborn. It will arrive later this month and will be available for circulation.

https://madrapp.com/madison-county-school-board-bans-books-from-high-school-library-p4501-221.htm

Ah. Awful. I mean there are references to s*x in Shakespeare, should they ban his works next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ironically, I remember being required to read some of those books in high school

Additional books listed not shown in the screenshot are:

Empire of Storms by Sarah Maas
Bag of Bones by Stephen King
11/22/63: A Novel by Stephen King
It by Stephen King
Furyborn by Claire Legrand

DP, if I'm reading correctly, the books are set aside in the library and may only be checked out with parental permission?

No, that was the old rule after one of the School Board members told the librarian to do that. Then he brought his list (borrowed from one created by the Christofascists at Focus on the Family) to the whole school board to have them removed completely from the HS library.

Cheers to the Madison County Public Library for making sure everyone, including high schoolers, has access to these books:

When Wingate first proposed removing the books from the high school library, the Madison County Public Library confirmed it had the entire 26 books first proposed to be banned.

Now, with the revised list of 21 books, the county library – based on the library’s online catalog search option –has all but Furyborn available.

Friday, a library spokersperson said they have ordered Furyborn. It will arrive later this month and will be available for circulation.

https://madrapp.com/madison-county-school-board-bans-books-from-high-school-library-p4501-221.htm

Ah. Awful. I mean there are references to s*x in Shakespeare, should they ban his works next?

There’s a ton of s*x in the Bible, too.