To be clear, it's not on any syllabus, any where.

It's on a shelf, with little visability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, find the pictures. Decide for yourself. But its one minor, literally on his knees, in front of another, with the dick in his mouth. And its not just one frame. It's multiple. From different angle.

NP.

1. There isn't a minor. The main character is 25 when the scene in question takes place.

2. There isn't a penis, because...both the main character and partner are both born genetically female.

The next few pages the main character is still struggling with sexuality, and requests to stop dating while s/he figures it out.

Why do I add the detail? Because again, you did not read the book, and it's not porn. It's self discovery for a young adult. Not a child. The first part of the book deals with mensuration, bras, and deodorant, which would be age appropriate for high school. The second half is more college age material.

Sure. But you do realize these books are in libraries that a 12yo can access.

Go ahead and put this on the college syllabus. Nobody here is saying the book should be banned. Just that it shouldn't be available to MS kids.

And yes, you are correct, its not a minor. But I would argue with point 2. For the purposes of the debate "is this pornographic" there's very little difference between a real penis and a dildo attached to a strap-on used for oral sex. It doesnt make it any less pornographic

I thought it was in high school libraries only.

It definitely does not meet the definition of porn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

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

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

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

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

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

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

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

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Look, find the pictures. Decide for yourself. But its one minor, literally on his knees, in front of another, with the dick in his mouth. And its not just one frame. It's multiple. From different angle.

NP.

1. There isn't a minor. The main character is 25 when the scene in question takes place.

2. There isn't a penis, because...both the main character and partner are both born genetically female.

The next few pages the main character is still struggling with sexuality, and requests to stop dating while s/he figures it out.

Why do I add the detail? Because again, you did not read the book, and it's not porn. It's self discovery for a young adult. Not a child. The first part of the book deals with mensuration, bras, and deodorant, which would be age appropriate for high school. The second half is more college age material.

Sure. But you do realize these books are in libraries that a 12yo can access.

Go ahead and put this on the college syllabus. Nobody here is saying the book should be banned. Just that it shouldn't be available to MS kids.

And yes, you are correct, its not a minor. But I would argue with point 2. For the purposes of the debate "is this pornographic" there's very little difference between a real penis and a dildo attached to a strap-on used for oral sex. It doesnt make it any less pornographic

Anonymous wrote:

Look, find the pictures. Decide for yourself. But its one minor, literally on his knees, in front of another, with the dick in his mouth. And its not just one frame. It's multiple. From different angle.

NP.

1. There isn't a minor. The main character is 25 when the scene in question takes place.

2. There isn't a penis, because...both the main character and partner are both born genetically female.

The next few pages the main character is still struggling with sexuality, and requests to stop dating while s/he figures it out.

Why do I add the detail? Because again, you did not read the book, and it's not porn. It's self discovery for a young adult. Not a child. The first part of the book deals with mensuration, bras, and deodorant, which would be age appropriate for high school. The second half is more college age material.

Adding, I'm not in favor of banning this book, even if part of the material is more appropriate for 18+.

Why:
- my teens are not transgender or queer. They are cisgender males. As such, they would never search for, or check these books out. The teens who do have questions may need this material to better navigate into adulthood. Who am I to make that decision on their behalf?
- if my teens did check this out, I wouldn't freak out or be fearful that they are being "morally corrupted". If a book morally corrupts my teen, then I failed as a parent. I'd rather them have an understanding of what their friends may be going through rather than live a life of fear or condemnation of differences.
- teens have sex and experiment. It's natural.

Look, find the pictures. Decide for yourself. But its one minor, literally on his knees, in front of another, with the dick in his mouth. And its not just one frame. It's multiple. From different angle.

NP.

1. There isn't a minor. The main character is 25 when the scene in question takes place.

2. There isn't a penis, because...both the main character and partner are both born genetically female.

The next few pages the main character is still struggling with sexuality, and requests to stop dating while s/he figures it out.

Why do I add the detail? Because again, you did not read the book, and it's not porn. It's self discovery for a young adult. Not a child. The first part of the book deals with mensuration, bras, and deodorant, which would be age appropriate for high school. The second half is more college age material.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure you never read Fifty Shades of Grey. I am sure that is at the library too.

Stop the pearl clutching.

Is it in the FCPS library? There is a difference. And, no, I didn't read it

Same. Let’s stop acting like this is ok. It’s not.

It's not ok for you and if, if you decide so, for your kid. You do not get to decide for ME.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

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

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

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

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

"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?

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.

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.

So why aren’t you complaining all of the about other books in the FCPS library that depict oral sex. Why just this one?

How many books in the school library have images of minors performing oral sex?! Are you saying there’s more than one?

Right. I guess we should make it clear. The objection isnt just to this book. But any book in a public school library that has images of oral sex.

Thank you. Most normal response of the day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did thre right wing media send out the bat signal to ban books now? Every parent has the right to opt out of books for their kods but the nuts at tonight’s school board meeting want to pray and ban books. The latest idiot wouldn’t stop talking when her time was up and made the Board have to recess. No rules for these sheep. Where did these backwards folks come from?

It only going to get worse.

They are emboldened because of Don the con.

We must vote the GOP out or we are hosed.

These freaks want control we must stop them. Religion and book banning should not be in public school.

Neither should explicit books, whether between two boys or a boy and girl. Or man and woman, or two men or two women, etc.

Huh? You want to ban ALL books with any explicit sexual content?

Nutter.

DP but no, I don’t want to ban all books With sexual content, just the pornographic ones. How is it that To Kill a Mockimgbird is not read anymore because it’s offensive, but this tripe with strap-on dildos and fourth graders having sex is fine?

Uh, To Kill a Mockingbird is still read in school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did thre right wing media send out the bat signal to ban books now? Every parent has the right to opt out of books for their kods but the nuts at tonight’s school board meeting want to pray and ban books. The latest idiot wouldn’t stop talking when her time was up and made the Board have to recess. No rules for these sheep. Where did these backwards folks come from?

Did you hear the language? You think it is okay to have porn in a school library?

How about you decide what your kids can read and leave the same decision for other people to decide. You do not get to decide for the rest of us what is ok to read or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

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

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

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

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

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

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

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

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

"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?

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.

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.

So why aren’t you complaining all of the about other books in the FCPS library that depict oral sex. Why just this one?

How many books in the school library have images of minors performing oral sex?! Are you saying there’s more than one?

Right. I guess we should make it clear. The objection isnt just to this book. But any book in a public school library that has images of oral sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

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

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

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

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

"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?

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The books are fine.

The lies and misinformation you are pushing are not.

The books contain graphic images of oral sex.

That is simply not ok

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

Do you even know what we are discussing on this thread?

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

And what were the other books you were referring to?

Please share your definition of “pornographic”…

"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?

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.

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.

So why aren’t you complaining all of the about other books in the FCPS library that depict oral sex. Why just this one?

How many books in the school library have images of minors performing oral sex?! Are you saying there’s more than one?