GOP endorsed school board candidates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current FCPS school board does not have a single GOP, or even independent, member. They are all democrats.

The current board has repeatedly insisted FCPS schools absolutely must include certain books in FCPS libraries because of “equity” and support for LGTBQIA+ students. They insist your children must be able to see illustrations like this in the school library (except, the children’s version is not blurred out).



Would you feel comfortable showing fellatio drawings to your own children?

It’s not a dick.

NP. That's your response? How incredibly typical for a Democrat.

So a person sucking a strap-on is appropriate material for an 11yr old to have access to, or be tempted to review it because they saw it promoted during the American Library Association Banned Book promotion?

11 year olds aren’t in HS.

More lies.

Do your research. It's in middle school libraries and high school libraries, despite author now backtracking and saying that her book was for high school and up. Whatever, it's all silly because the content is still porn. It's just GAY porn so for some reason everyone is defensive of it as an LGBT book.
I'm not that hung up on it in general b/c the kids all have phones in their pockets and can stumble on this stuff at any time if they want to. And I'm all about anyone being able to access porn if they want to in the public library (would prefer age restricted to 18 and up), but I definitely get that it's weird to have pornographic drawings available in the SCHOOL library.

What is weird is how vigorously the current school board fought to keep pornography (gay, straight or otherwise) in school libraries where, as pointed out above: if your creepy 50 year-old neighbor gave pornography to your 14 year-old and tried to hide it from you, that person would rightly be arrested.

But it’s also a sad fact that every 14 year-old with a phone has access to internet porn and has probably seen some by that age. It doesn’t make porn OK for kids though. It’s really destructive and so demeaning, really.

Porn is bad for kids. This book is not porn.

The image is not porn?

It depicts a tween, or a teen, wearing a strap-on dildo, while another tween gives them a blow-job / performs fellatio on the first tween.

If graphic images of fellatio are not pornographic to you, and you think tweens should be looking at these images in FCPS school libraries, I guess we disagree.

Are you one of the School Board candidates?

No. That’s not porn. And you clearly didn’t read the book.

I'm going to check it out, but with that illustration - what difference does it make if you read the book? It literally don't think it matters if I read the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I trust the librarians and the FCPS book challenge process that includes community members.

I am not a fan of most of the current school board. I was really hoping to find options among the other candidates but they seem focused on this type of issue instead of more basic ones about rigorous education, budgets, efficiency, and teacher support. It’s really disappointing.

I no longer trust librarians if that book is really in the libraries. I think the photo is my main problem. When I was a kid I read books that were probably inappropriate for my age, but they went over my head- I typically agree with Judy Blume on that point but not with the illustration seen here.

It’s quite something that the school board was so adamant that this book stay in school libraries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current FCPS school board does not have a single GOP, or even independent, member. They are all democrats.

The current board has repeatedly insisted FCPS schools absolutely must include certain books in FCPS libraries because of “equity” and support for LGTBQIA+ students. They insist your children must be able to see illustrations like this in the school library (except, the children’s version is not blurred out).



Would you feel comfortable showing fellatio drawings to your own children?

It’s not a dick.

NP. That's your response? How incredibly typical for a Democrat.

So a person sucking a strap-on is appropriate material for an 11yr old to have access to, or be tempted to review it because they saw it promoted during the American Library Association Banned Book promotion?

11 year olds aren’t in HS.

More lies.

Do your research. It's in middle school libraries and high school libraries, despite author now backtracking and saying that her book was for high school and up. Whatever, it's all silly because the content is still porn. It's just GAY porn so for some reason everyone is defensive of it as an LGBT book.
I'm not that hung up on it in general b/c the kids all have phones in their pockets and can stumble on this stuff at any time if they want to. And I'm all about anyone being able to access porn if they want to in the public library (would prefer age restricted to 18 and up), but I definitely get that it's weird to have pornographic drawings available in the SCHOOL library.

Kobabe, the author of Gender Queer, is also “clarifying” now that the explicitly sexual drawings and content in her book were intended originally for her parents (???) and not for kids. Then, why is it that the FCPS School Board intends for these explicit imagery to be shown to our kids by insisting that this book belongs in our school libraries?

Pornographic images should not belong in any school library the same way that, save for brothels, they would not be at any place of work. Besides, we really need understand that the distinction between what a child can be exposed to and what an adult can deem appropriate or entertaining is abysmal.

Furthermore, any child is at risk of becoming desensitized by pornography, particularly students with developmental delays who could internalize those images as something normal or expected of them to do with others, including their caretakers.

And, yes, kids could access porn through their cell phones, just as much as they could have access to alcohol and tobacco at home, or through a friend’s, yet it doesn’t mean FCPS school cafeterias should start serving them to the students because they would be breaking the law. The same applies to pornography in the school library, it’s still illegal for minors.

It’s not porn. You clearly didn’t read it.

Readers didn’t buy Playbook magazines for the articles. Gender Queer can easily be considered pornography because it features nude and near-nude women in sexually suggestive poses, depicting sexual acts that also include sexual toys. The author’s intent might not have been to stimulate the reader sexually, but given the persistence of the School Board members on these books over any academic matters, I wouldn’t be so sure about their intent as there are kids at school who can barely read, and that would include high schoolers,

Gender Queer is considered pederasty. It has a passage depicting such in the context of Plato's symposium, a work that does describe pederasty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current FCPS school board does not have a single GOP, or even independent, member. They are all democrats.

The current board has repeatedly insisted FCPS schools absolutely must include certain books in FCPS libraries because of “equity” and support for LGTBQIA+ students. They insist your children must be able to see illustrations like this in the school library (except, the children’s version is not blurred out).



Would you feel comfortable showing fellatio drawings to your own children?

It’s not a dick.

NP. That's your response? How incredibly typical for a Democrat.

So a person sucking a strap-on is appropriate material for an 11yr old to have access to, or be tempted to review it because they saw it promoted during the American Library Association Banned Book promotion?

11 year olds aren’t in HS.

More lies.

Do your research. It's in middle school libraries and high school libraries, despite author now backtracking and saying that her book was for high school and up. Whatever, it's all silly because the content is still porn. It's just GAY porn so for some reason everyone is defensive of it as an LGBT book.
I'm not that hung up on it in general b/c the kids all have phones in their pockets and can stumble on this stuff at any time if they want to. And I'm all about anyone being able to access porn if they want to in the public library (would prefer age restricted to 18 and up), but I definitely get that it's weird to have pornographic drawings available in the SCHOOL library.

Kobabe, the author of Gender Queer, is also “clarifying” now that the explicitly sexual drawings and content in her book were intended originally for her parents (???) and not for kids. Then, why is it that the FCPS School Board intends for these explicit imagery to be shown to our kids by insisting that this book belongs in our school libraries?

Pornographic images should not belong in any school library the same way that, save for brothels, they would not be at any place of work. Besides, we really need understand that the distinction between what a child can be exposed to and what an adult can deem appropriate or entertaining is abysmal.

Furthermore, any child is at risk of becoming desensitized by pornography, particularly students with developmental delays who could internalize those images as something normal or expected of them to do with others, including their caretakers.

And, yes, kids could access porn through their cell phones, just as much as they could have access to alcohol and tobacco at home, or through a friend’s, yet it doesn’t mean FCPS school cafeterias should start serving them to the students because they would be breaking the law. The same applies to pornography in the school library, it’s still illegal for minors.

It’s not porn. You clearly didn’t read it.

Readers didn’t buy Playbook magazines for the articles. Gender Queer can easily be considered pornography because it features nude and near-nude women in sexually suggestive poses, depicting sexual acts that also include sexual toys. The author’s intent might not have been to stimulate the reader sexually, but given the persistence of the School Board members on these books over any academic matters, I wouldn’t be so sure about their intent as there are kids at school who can barely read, and that would include high schoolers,

There is nothing “stimulating” about the cartoon or story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current FCPS school board does not have a single GOP, or even independent, member. They are all democrats.

The current board has repeatedly insisted FCPS schools absolutely must include certain books in FCPS libraries because of “equity” and support for LGTBQIA+ students. They insist your children must be able to see illustrations like this in the school library (except, the children’s version is not blurred out).



Would you feel comfortable showing fellatio drawings to your own children?

It’s not a dick.

NP. That's your response? How incredibly typical for a Democrat.

So a person sucking a strap-on is appropriate material for an 11yr old to have access to, or be tempted to review it because they saw it promoted during the American Library Association Banned Book promotion?

11 year olds aren’t in HS.

More lies.

Do your research. It's in middle school libraries and high school libraries, despite author now backtracking and saying that her book was for high school and up. Whatever, it's all silly because the content is still porn. It's just GAY porn so for some reason everyone is defensive of it as an LGBT book.
I'm not that hung up on it in general b/c the kids all have phones in their pockets and can stumble on this stuff at any time if they want to. And I'm all about anyone being able to access porn if they want to in the public library (would prefer age restricted to 18 and up), but I definitely get that it's weird to have pornographic drawings available in the SCHOOL library.

What is weird is how vigorously the current school board fought to keep pornography (gay, straight or otherwise) in school libraries where, as pointed out above: if your creepy 50 year-old neighbor gave pornography to your 14 year-old and tried to hide it from you, that person would rightly be arrested.

But it’s also a sad fact that every 14 year-old with a phone has access to internet porn and has probably seen some by that age. It doesn’t make porn OK for kids though. It’s really destructive and so demeaning, really.

Porn is bad for kids. This book is not porn.

The image is not porn?

It depicts a tween, or a teen, wearing a strap-on dildo, while another tween gives them a blow-job / performs fellatio on the first tween.

If graphic images of fellatio are not pornographic to you, and you think tweens should be looking at these images in FCPS school libraries, I guess we disagree.

Are you one of the School Board candidates?

No. That’s not porn. And you clearly didn’t read the book.

I'm going to check it out, but with that illustration - what difference does it make if you read the book? It literally don't think it matters if I read the book.

Because then you’d understand that the story (and corresponding images) aren’t meant to “stimulate” anyone. If anything, it tells the story of someone choosing to wait to have sexual experiences.

[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:The current FCPS school board does not have a single GOP, or even independent, member. They are all democrats.

The current board has repeatedly insisted FCPS schools absolutely must include certain books in FCPS libraries because of “equity” and support for LGTBQIA+ students. They insist your children must be able to see illustrations like this in the school library (except, the children’s version is not blurred out).



Would you feel comfortable showing fellatio drawings to your own children?

It’s not a dick.

NP. That's your response? How incredibly typical for a Democrat.

So a person sucking a strap-on is appropriate material for an 11yr old to have access to, or be tempted to review it because they saw it promoted during the American Library Association Banned Book promotion?

11 year olds aren’t in HS.

More lies.

Do your research. It's in middle school libraries and high school libraries, despite author now backtracking and saying that her book was for high school and up. Whatever, it's all silly because the content is still porn. It's just GAY porn so for some reason everyone is defensive of it as an LGBT book.
I'm not that hung up on it in general b/c the kids all have phones in their pockets and can stumble on this stuff at any time if they want to. And I'm all about anyone being able to access porn if they want to in the public library (would prefer age restricted to 18 and up), but I definitely get that it's weird to have pornographic drawings available in the SCHOOL library.

What is weird is how vigorously the current school board fought to keep pornography (gay, straight or otherwise) in school libraries where, as pointed out above: if your creepy 50 year-old neighbor gave pornography to your 14 year-old and tried to hide it from you, that person would rightly be arrested.

But it’s also a sad fact that every 14 year-old with a phone has access to internet porn and has probably seen some by that age. It doesn’t make porn OK for kids though. It’s really destructive and so demeaning, really.

Porn is bad for kids. This book is not porn.

The image is not porn?

It depicts a tween, or a teen, wearing a strap-on dildo, while another tween gives them a blow-job / performs fellatio on the first tween.

If graphic images of fellatio are not pornographic to you, and you think tweens should be looking at these images in FCPS school libraries, I guess we disagree.

Are you one of the School Board candidates?

No. That’s not porn. And you clearly didn’t read the book.

I'm going to check it out, but with that illustration - what difference does it make if you read the book? It literally don't think it matters if I read the book.

Because then you’d understand that the story (and corresponding images) aren’t meant to “stimulate” anyone. If anything, it tells the story of someone choosing to wait to have sexual experiences.

DP. Are you realizing why there is a traditional distinction between words and images? A single image or page of images is very different than 250 words of text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current FCPS school board does not have a single GOP, or even independent, member. They are all democrats.

The current board has repeatedly insisted FCPS schools absolutely must include certain books in FCPS libraries because of “equity” and support for LGTBQIA+ students. They insist your children must be able to see illustrations like this in the school library (except, the children’s version is not blurred out).



Would you feel comfortable showing fellatio drawings to your own children?

It’s not a dick.

NP. That's your response? How incredibly typical for a Democrat.

So a person sucking a strap-on is appropriate material for an 11yr old to have access to, or be tempted to review it because they saw it promoted during the American Library Association Banned Book promotion?

11 year olds aren’t in HS.

More lies.

Do your research. It's in middle school libraries and high school libraries, despite author now backtracking and saying that her book was for high school and up. Whatever, it's all silly because the content is still porn. It's just GAY porn so for some reason everyone is defensive of it as an LGBT book.
I'm not that hung up on it in general b/c the kids all have phones in their pockets and can stumble on this stuff at any time if they want to. And I'm all about anyone being able to access porn if they want to in the public library (would prefer age restricted to 18 and up), but I definitely get that it's weird to have pornographic drawings available in the SCHOOL library.

Which FCPS middle school has this book?

And it's not porn. You haven't read the book and/or don't understand the definition of porn.

Still waiting to hear which FCPS middle school has this book.

Rs push lies 24x7.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So in other words, people are taking umbrage at a proposal that the school board did not pass? I don't get it.

Yes.

Republicans lie or misrepresent because they don’t have an actual platform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So in other words, people are taking umbrage at a proposal that the school board did not pass? I don't get it.

Yes.

Republicans lie or misrepresent because they don’t have an actual platform.

Why? Didn't it pass? Because the school board realized it was too much, too far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is on the same library shelves that houses Steven King novels (I’m still shocked by that scene in IT 30 years later) and A Court of Mist and Starlight. If you don’t want your child to be in the big wide world, send them to private school.

FCPS policy does not allow higher than PG movies to be shown to middle or high schoolers.

Why should porn graphic novel cartoons be allowed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So in other words, people are taking umbrage at a proposal that the school board did not pass? I don't get it.

Yes.

Republicans lie or misrepresent because they don’t have an actual platform.

Why? Didn't it pass? Because the school board realized it was too much, too far.

They realized they have a bunch of backwards wackadoodle parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is on the same library shelves that houses Steven King novels (I’m still shocked by that scene in IT 30 years later) and A Court of Mist and Starlight. If you don’t want your child to be in the big wide world, send them to private school.

FCPS policy does not allow higher than PG movies to be shown to middle or high schoolers.

Why should porn graphic novel cartoons be allowed?

It’s not porn.
No one is reading it to a class.
There are many books that would be rated R in HS libraries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So in other words, people are taking umbrage at a proposal that the school board did not pass? I don't get it.

Yes.

Republicans lie or misrepresent because they don’t have an actual platform.

Why? Didn't it pass? Because the school board realized it was too much, too far.

They realized they have a bunch of backwards wackadoodle parents.

And again, democrats are demonizing parents and implying the school board knows better what is best for our kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is on the same library shelves that houses Steven King novels (I’m still shocked by that scene in IT 30 years later) and A Court of Mist and Starlight. If you don’t want your child to be in the big wide world, send them to private school.

FCPS policy does not allow higher than PG movies to be shown to middle or high schoolers.

Why should porn graphic novel cartoons be allowed?

It’s not porn.
No one is reading it to a class.
There are many books that would be rated R in HS libraries.

We don't rate books but we do rate movies, shows, and video games. If y'all keep pushing inappropriate graphic novels, we'll start rating those too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So in other words, people are taking umbrage at a proposal that the school board did not pass? I don't get it.

Yes.

Republicans lie or misrepresent because they don’t have an actual platform.

Why? Didn't it pass? Because the school board realized it was too much, too far.

They realized they have a bunch of backwards wackadoodle parents.

And again, democrats are demonizing parents and implying the school board knows better what is best for our kids.

The issue isn’t all parents. Just the crazy ones who push Republican lies.