Reply to Why are book banners showing up at FCPS SB meetings

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Why are book banners showing up at FCPS SB meetings"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Ah, the hoops that some people will jump through to demonstrate their allegiance to those now in charge in Fairfax.  The sycophancy is almost as revolting as the obscenity. [/quote]

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not. 
[/quote]

The [b]books[/b] contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok[/quote]

Which books contact “graphic images of oral sex”? Titles & authors.

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread? [/quote]

Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe.  That is what we are discussing.  Are you sure you're aware of what we're discussing?  BC that books has drawings of oral sex and use of a strap-on.

And people are saying that those drawings are not pornographic; they are wrong

[/quote]

And what were the other [b]books[/b] you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”… 
[/quote]

"I'll know it when I see it"  No, that's not my answer.

But its safe to say a drawing of genitals inside another person's mouth is pornographic.

Is your defense really that only 1 of the 2 books in question contained images?  So since a PP incorrectly pluralized the word book, it negates the whole argument?

[/quote]

DP. I don't think that "safe to say" at all. Depictions of sex, even clear ones, are not inherently pornographic. Pornography is designed to arouse, not merely depict. I haven't read the book in question, but I've read reviews of it and none of them sound like anyone was reading it to get aroused.[/quote]

The intent may not be to arouse, but instead to normalize and desensitize by exposing children to graphic depictions and descriptions of oral sex at as early an age as the authors can get away.  Really not what this failing school system needs to be doing right now.  [/quote]

This is my problem with half this debate. You've got people throwing around the word "pornographic" then seemingly immediately conceding that the books aren't actually pornographic by the normal definition of that word. Then it devolves into a political argument about "failing" schools systems, the claim that a book for high school students is "as early as the authors can get away with." and claims that, somehow, what's normalizing oral sex in our school system is a single book that I'm guessing no one other than the occasional LGBT student struggling with their gender and sexuality has ever checked out. Throwing out three politically motivated lies in quick succession doesn't make me trust you.

I haven't seen the pictures from Gender Queer (people keep referencing them but I haven't found them), I don't have a strong opinion there. I have read the excerpts from Lawn Boy and as a kid who experimented sexually around that age and to this day has kind of weird feelings around it (and grownups reaction to it), I would have really been helped to read a book like that in high school. So maybe Gender Queer is too adult for high school students, but I've got zero reason to believe you.[/quote]

Just like other people have said don't judge Lawn Boy until you've read the text, please don't dismiss Gender Queer until you've seen the images

pic.twitter.com/thAEKkv7Ve[/quote]

Thanks, that's really helpful. That's visually clear, but not pornographic in the least. Maybe too mature for a freshman, but perfectly fine for a junior or senior. Especially given what I know of the context, it's not designed to arouse and is actually more or less necessary for telling the story in a visual medium. Definitely should be kept, if maybe restricted to older high school students.[/quote]

What's really difficult about this, is that I can see both sides of this.

I would absolutely not want my middle school aged child exposed to this.  As a parent, I feel I would be within my rights to object to this material being available to that age group.

But I can also see how this may be helpful to older teens.  The problem is that the school system has to consider the needs of both sets of students.  It is a real possibility that seeing this could be traumatic for a MS child.  It depicts sexual acts in a way that they may not be mature enough to process.  But it may also be necessary for a 17 or 18yo to see this, to help them understand their own identity and to know they are not alone; though it may also be possible to do without the seeing the details of the act.  (For example, you could sketch a panel demonstrating oral sex without seeing the strap-on, etc.)

FCPS must figure out a way to nurture the older children and still protect the younger.

I would also object to saying it's not pornographic "in the least".  I suspect some of these scenes do arouse the reader.  It may not be graphic, and it may not be over the top, and it may actually be appropriate for 17+, but it is pornographic.  And I say that as someone who is 100% fine with pornography.  But to say its not, it simply not true.  I'm quite the sure the reader gets aroused at different points in this book, and THATS OK.  As long as the reader is emotionally mature enough for that.

MS children are not emotionally mature enough

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics