Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

And we start the leftist dance to pivot away from the three previous posts.
https://thevirginiastar.com/2022/04/26/self-described-marxist-lesbian-elected-next-president-of-american-library-association/

LOL. The Virginia Star. RWNJ trash rag that gets the facts wrong and doesn’t even share a quote from her saying the above.

Next.

It has the video of her interview where she makes that statement. You are not argument is now what was meant by ‘children,’ in the context of her statement. It certainly wasn’t adults as she mentions safety concerns for herself and her staff. Which isn’t relevant to the following post:

“Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.”

So the issue isn’t if Lawn Boy is pedophilia, but rather voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn. Is that material appropriate for inclusion in school libraries? Is someone a right wing nutjob or a homophobic bigot because they don’t want their middle or high schooler exposed to that? More importantly, why do you think it’s important for children to have that access to that material? If a child feels that they can relate to scenes of child pornography, in this case, two ten year old boys giving each other oral, is that signs of a larger problem? Do adults have a legitimate concern when it’s being pushed as ‘critical information,’ and that it may be designed to desensitize them to sex at a young age?

So many logic fails here.

1. Lawn Boy not porn/child porn. Or pedophilia. Neither is Gender Queer. Seriously, you STILL have no idea what is in either book? Find a legit news source. Or, you know, actually pick up a book.

2. It’s important for some older teens, not 12 year olds. That’s why I was asking about her definition of “children”. No one is saying that young children should have access to these books at school.

3. If your concern is exposure to sexual content, this is seriously the least of your worries.

Here are the disturbing passages I found in this book.

Page 11:

“That’s me, little Mike Munoz, standing in the middle. A sad-eyed ferret of a kid, skinny and bewildered, slight olive complexion, dark rings under my eyes. Greasy bangs plastered to my forehead, faded Toughskins jeans riding halfway up my shins. On my back, a dirty brown coat with a fake-fur collar. Not exactly the kid from the Sears catalog but a kid all the same. Eight years old and looking for a little security, a little self-confidence — any self-confidence, really. Just a third grader, bottom lip chafed from obsessive licking, little fingernails bitten to the quick, aching for a good time.”

“Aching for a good time.” Is this really an adult man talking about pictures of himself as a child? Or is it a creepy neighbor thinking about a boy who lives down the street?

More on page 11:

“That’s what kids should do, they should laugh. If there’s a better, righter sound in the whole world than the laughter of children, I don’t know what it is.”

What a creepy statement. Adult men don’t think about kids this way. Adult men don’t dwell on children.

You have some really weird projections. I'm a dad and agree that the sounds of kids laughing is (usually) a beautiful thing. And in your mind someone making that observation means they "dwell" on children or are abnormal? Uhh, okaaaay....

Page 13:

“But there’s one thing I’d never tell Nick in a million years, not that it really matters: in fourth grade, at a church youth-group meeting, out in the bushes behind the parsonage, I touched Doug Goble’s dick, and he touched mine. In fact, there were even some mouths involved. It’s not something I’d even think about all these years later, except that Goble is the hottest real-estate agent in Kitsap County. His face is all over town — signs, billboards, Christ, even on shopping carts. Do you know what I think three times a day when I see his picture? I wonder, all these years later, why he just kicked our friendship to the curb like that. Was it shame?”

What more can be said about this beyond the obvious?

What if this book was about a 23-year-old woman who was reminiscing about the time she and another girl, at 10 years old, in fourth grade, gave each other oral sex? People would be disgusted and shocked, wouldn’t they? Why are people OK with this being described of little boys?

I don't see why you think the gender matters here. I don't think people would react any differently.

This guy is remembering exploring his sexuality as a kid and wondering if the other kid felt shame about it, because the friendship dissolved thereafter. Is this something a HS student can/should read about? Maybe, depends entirely on the kid and their maturity level and how shielded/proactive the parents are about them being exposed to and having discussions about sexuality (including other people's experiences)... shouldn't be forced on anyone (and obviously some parents have a real hangup about it, and that's their choice)... but we also shouldn't prevent people who don't see sexaulity as some giant taboo topic from being exposed a couple passages in a book that refer to it. This doesn't seem like the sort of thing that we need to be so hypersensitive about that we need to like ban it from schools or have the librarian store it under lock and key or whatever.

Page 44. The descriptions of oral sex between children continue. The narrator also develops, out of the blue, a fixation on Doug Goble (“the hottest real estate agent in town”) and daydreams about him:

“What if I told you I touched another guy’s dick?” I said. … “What if I told you I sucked it?” … “I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Doug Goble’s dick in my mouth.”

Page 73:

“All I could think about while he was chatting me up over the rim of his cappuccino was his little salamander between my fourth-grade fingers, rapidly engorging with blood.”

This is the passage that gives away the intentions of the book. The author is actually thinking about children this way. Who reminisces about an early sexual encounter in these words? Who would think back on something like this from when they were 10 as if it was a good thing?

Umm, the author?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The character was reflecting on his own personal memories from his own childhood. It was significant to him because it was his sexual awakening. Kids have sexual thoughts, actions, memories.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s not pornography.
It’s not child pornography.
It’s not pedophilia.

No matter how much you want it to be. It’s creepy that people view it like that. Maybe they’re projecting.

Definition of the word pornography: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

It absolutely does show that.

No sexual organs were displayed.
It wasn’t intended to stimulate erotic feelings.

Not pornography.

Page 73:

“All I could think about while he was chatting me up over the rim of his cappuccino was his little salamander between my fourth-grade fingers, rapidly engorging with blood.”

Not intended to stimulate erotic feelings at all. Nothing to see here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

And we start the leftist dance to pivot away from the three previous posts.
https://thevirginiastar.com/2022/04/26/self-described-marxist-lesbian-elected-next-president-of-american-library-association/

LOL. The Virginia Star. RWNJ trash rag that gets the facts wrong and doesn’t even share a quote from her saying the above.

Next.

It has the video of her interview where she makes that statement. You are not argument is now what was meant by ‘children,’ in the context of her statement. It certainly wasn’t adults as she mentions safety concerns for herself and her staff. Which isn’t relevant to the following post:

“Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.”

So the issue isn’t if Lawn Boy is pedophilia, but rather voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn. Is that material appropriate for inclusion in school libraries? Is someone a right wing nutjob or a homophobic bigot because they don’t want their middle or high schooler exposed to that? More importantly, why do you think it’s important for children to have that access to that material? If a child feels that they can relate to scenes of child pornography, in this case, two ten year old boys giving each other oral, is that signs of a larger problem? Do adults have a legitimate concern when it’s being pushed as ‘critical information,’ and that it may be designed to desensitize them to sex at a young age?

So many logic fails here.

1. Lawn Boy not porn/child porn. Or pedophilia. Neither is Gender Queer. Seriously, you STILL have no idea what is in either book? Find a legit news source. Or, you know, actually pick up a book.

2. It’s important for some older teens, not 12 year olds. That’s why I was asking about her definition of “children”. No one is saying that young children should have access to these books at school.

3. If your concern is exposure to sexual content, this is seriously the least of your worries.

Here are the disturbing passages I found in this book.

Page 11:

“That’s me, little Mike Munoz, standing in the middle. A sad-eyed ferret of a kid, skinny and bewildered, slight olive complexion, dark rings under my eyes. Greasy bangs plastered to my forehead, faded Toughskins jeans riding halfway up my shins. On my back, a dirty brown coat with a fake-fur collar. Not exactly the kid from the Sears catalog but a kid all the same. Eight years old and looking for a little security, a little self-confidence — any self-confidence, really. Just a third grader, bottom lip chafed from obsessive licking, little fingernails bitten to the quick, aching for a good time.”

“Aching for a good time.” Is this really an adult man talking about pictures of himself as a child? Or is it a creepy neighbor thinking about a boy who lives down the street?

More on page 11:

“That’s what kids should do, they should laugh. If there’s a better, righter sound in the whole world than the laughter of children, I don’t know what it is.”

What a creepy statement. Adult men don’t think about kids this way. Adult men don’t dwell on children.

Page 13:

“But there’s one thing I’d never tell Nick in a million years, not that it really matters: in fourth grade, at a church youth-group meeting, out in the bushes behind the parsonage, I touched Doug Goble’s dick, and he touched mine. In fact, there were even some mouths involved. It’s not something I’d even think about all these years later, except that Goble is the hottest real-estate agent in Kitsap County. His face is all over town — signs, billboards, Christ, even on shopping carts. Do you know what I think three times a day when I see his picture? I wonder, all these years later, why he just kicked our friendship to the curb like that. Was it shame?”

What more can be said about this beyond the obvious?

What if this book was about a 23-year-old woman who was reminiscing about the time she and another girl, at 10 years old, in fourth grade, gave each other oral sex? People would be disgusted and shocked, wouldn’t they? Why are people OK with this being described of little boys?

Page 44. The descriptions of oral sex between children continue. The narrator also develops, out of the blue, a fixation on Doug Goble (“the hottest real estate agent in town”) and daydreams about him:

“What if I told you I touched another guy’s dick?” I said. … “What if I told you I sucked it?” … “I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Doug Goble’s dick in my mouth.”

Page 73:

“All I could think about while he was chatting me up over the rim of his cappuccino was his little salamander between my fourth-grade fingers, rapidly engorging with blood.”

This is the passage that gives away the intentions of the book. The author is actually thinking about children this way. Who reminisces about an early sexual encounter in these words? Who would think back on something like this from when they were 10 as if it was a good thing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

And we start the leftist dance to pivot away from the three previous posts.
https://thevirginiastar.com/2022/04/26/self-described-marxist-lesbian-elected-next-president-of-american-library-association/

LOL. The Virginia Star. RWNJ trash rag that gets the facts wrong and doesn’t even share a quote from her saying the above.

Next.

It has the video of her interview where she makes that statement. You are not argument is now what was meant by ‘children,’ in the context of her statement. It certainly wasn’t adults as she mentions safety concerns for herself and her staff. Which isn’t relevant to the following post:

“Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.”

So the issue isn’t if Lawn Boy is pedophilia, but rather voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn. Is that material appropriate for inclusion in school libraries? Is someone a right wing nutjob or a homophobic bigot because they don’t want their middle or high schooler exposed to that? More importantly, why do you think it’s important for children to have that access to that material? If a child feels that they can relate to scenes of child pornography, in this case, two ten year old boys giving each other oral, is that signs of a larger problem? Do adults have a legitimate concern when it’s being pushed as ‘critical information,’ and that it may be designed to desensitize them to sex at a young age?

School librarian here— The ALA has very little to do with what happens in school libraries. There is a section of the ALA for school librarians. To be a memvber of the section, you have to join the ALA. MANY school librarians feel that the ALA doesnt represent them/doesnt ‘get’ school libraries. They recently sent out a survey and didnt include school libraries as a place of work and then suggested school librarians just check the box for ‘other.’ All that to say that the head of the ALA doesn’t have a whole lot of influence over what is going on in schools. I am actually no longer an ALA member. The membership is expensive and doesnt provide a lot of value. I know very few FCPS librarians who are members.

That is a patently false statement. Most the librarians are selecting books recommended by ALA. Which is why there is all the controversy with the objectionable material being pushed into school libraries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

And we start the leftist dance to pivot away from the three previous posts.
https://thevirginiastar.com/2022/04/26/self-described-marxist-lesbian-elected-next-president-of-american-library-association/

LOL. The Virginia Star. RWNJ trash rag that gets the facts wrong and doesn’t even share a quote from her saying the above.

Next.

It has the video of her interview where she makes that statement. You are not argument is now what was meant by ‘children,’ in the context of her statement. It certainly wasn’t adults as she mentions safety concerns for herself and her staff. Which isn’t relevant to the following post:

“Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.”

So the issue isn’t if Lawn Boy is pedophilia, but rather voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn. Is that material appropriate for inclusion in school libraries? Is someone a right wing nutjob or a homophobic bigot because they don’t want their middle or high schooler exposed to that? More importantly, why do you think it’s important for children to have that access to that material? If a child feels that they can relate to scenes of child pornography, in this case, two ten year old boys giving each other oral, is that signs of a larger problem? Do adults have a legitimate concern when it’s being pushed as ‘critical information,’ and that it may be designed to desensitize them to sex at a young age?

School librarian here— The ALA has very little to do with what happens in school libraries. There is a section of the ALA for school librarians. To be a memvber of the section, you have to join the ALA. MANY school librarians feel that the ALA doesnt represent them/doesnt ‘get’ school libraries. They recently sent out a survey and didnt include school libraries as a place of work and then suggested school librarians just check the box for ‘other.’ All that to say that the head of the ALA doesn’t have a whole lot of influence over what is going on in schools. I am actually no longer an ALA member. The membership is expensive and doesnt provide a lot of value. I know very few FCPS librarians who are members.

That is a patently false statement. Most the librarians are selecting books recommended by ALA. Which is why there is all the controversy with the objectionable material being pushed into school libraries.

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson as a RWNJ-whisperer?!? The only people who would think that are the closed schooler left wing extremists who are to the left of AOC.

Hannah barely covered the anti-scientific prolonged school closures. She didn't cover why Scott Smith was protesting at the LCPS meeting where he was arrested (didn't fit the narrative). And she barely covered the anti-Asian, racist TJ admission changes.

We can only imagine your FCPS far left trolls who have started this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The character was reflecting on his own personal memories from his own childhood. It was significant to him because it was his sexual awakening. Kids have sexual thoughts, actions, memories.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s not pornography.
It’s not child pornography.
It’s not pedophilia.

No matter how much you want it to be. It’s creepy that people view it like that. Maybe they’re projecting.

Definition of the word pornography: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

It absolutely does show that.

No sexual organs were displayed.
It wasn’t intended to stimulate erotic feelings.

Not pornography.

Page 73:

“All I could think about while he was chatting me up over the rim of his cappuccino was his little salamander between my fourth-grade fingers, rapidly engorging with blood.”

Not intended to stimulate erotic feelings at all. Nothing to see here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The character was reflecting on his own personal memories from his own childhood. It was significant to him because it was his sexual awakening. Kids have sexual thoughts, actions, memories.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s not pornography.
It’s not child pornography.
It’s not pedophilia.

No matter how much you want it to be. It’s creepy that people view it like that. Maybe they’re projecting.

Definition of the word pornography: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

It absolutely does show that.

No sexual organs were displayed.
It wasn’t intended to stimulate erotic feelings.

Not pornography.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The character was reflecting on his own personal memories from his own childhood. It was significant to him because it was his sexual awakening. Kids have sexual thoughts, actions, memories.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s not pornography.
It’s not child pornography.
It’s not pedophilia.

No matter how much you want it to be. It’s creepy that people view it like that. Maybe they’re projecting.

Definition of the word pornography: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

It absolutely does show that.

Page 73:

“All I could think about while he was chatting me up over the rim of his cappuccino was his little salamander between my fourth-grade fingers, rapidly engorging with blood.”

Not intended to stimulate erotic feeling at all. Nothing to see here.

No sexual organs were displayed.
It wasn’t intended to stimulate erotic feelings.

Not pornography.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

And we start the leftist dance to pivot away from the three previous posts.
https://thevirginiastar.com/2022/04/26/self-described-marxist-lesbian-elected-next-president-of-american-library-association/

LOL. The Virginia Star. RWNJ trash rag that gets the facts wrong and doesn’t even share a quote from her saying the above.

Next.

It has the video of her interview where she makes that statement. You are not argument is now what was meant by ‘children,’ in the context of her statement. It certainly wasn’t adults as she mentions safety concerns for herself and her staff. Which isn’t relevant to the following post:

“Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.”

So the issue isn’t if Lawn Boy is pedophilia, but rather voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn. Is that material appropriate for inclusion in school libraries? Is someone a right wing nutjob or a homophobic bigot because they don’t want their middle or high schooler exposed to that? More importantly, why do you think it’s important for children to have that access to that material? If a child feels that they can relate to scenes of child pornography, in this case, two ten year old boys giving each other oral, is that signs of a larger problem? Do adults have a legitimate concern when it’s being pushed as ‘critical information,’ and that it may be designed to desensitize them to sex at a young age?

School librarian here— The ALA has very little to do with what happens in school libraries. There is a section of the ALA for school librarians. To be a memvber of the section, you have to join the ALA. MANY school librarians feel that the ALA doesnt represent them/doesnt ‘get’ school libraries. They recently sent out a survey and didnt include school libraries as a place of work and then suggested school librarians just check the box for ‘other.’ All that to say that the head of the ALA doesn’t have a whole lot of influence over what is going on in schools. I am actually no longer an ALA member. The membership is expensive and doesnt provide a lot of value. I know very few FCPS librarians who are members.

That is a patently false statement. Most the librarians are selecting books recommended by ALA. Which is why there is all the controversy with the objectionable material being pushed into school libraries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

And we start the leftist dance to pivot away from the three previous posts.
https://thevirginiastar.com/2022/04/26/self-described-marxist-lesbian-elected-next-president-of-american-library-association/

LOL. The Virginia Star. RWNJ trash rag that gets the facts wrong and doesn’t even share a quote from her saying the above.

Next.

It has the video of her interview where she makes that statement. You are not argument is now what was meant by ‘children,’ in the context of her statement. It certainly wasn’t adults as she mentions safety concerns for herself and her staff. Which isn’t relevant to the following post:

“Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.”

So the issue isn’t if Lawn Boy is pedophilia, but rather voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn. Is that material appropriate for inclusion in school libraries? Is someone a right wing nutjob or a homophobic bigot because they don’t want their middle or high schooler exposed to that? More importantly, why do you think it’s important for children to have that access to that material? If a child feels that they can relate to scenes of child pornography, in this case, two ten year old boys giving each other oral, is that signs of a larger problem? Do adults have a legitimate concern when it’s being pushed as ‘critical information,’ and that it may be designed to desensitize them to sex at a young age?

School librarian here— The ALA has very little to do with what happens in school libraries. There is a section of the ALA for school librarians. To be a memvber of the section, you have to join the ALA. MANY school librarians feel that the ALA doesnt represent them/doesnt ‘get’ school libraries. They recently sent out a survey and didnt include school libraries as a place of work and then suggested school librarians just check the box for ‘other.’ All that to say that the head of the ALA doesn’t have a whole lot of influence over what is going on in schools. I am actually no longer an ALA member. The membership is expensive and doesnt provide a lot of value. I know very few FCPS librarians who are members.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

And we start the leftist dance to pivot away from the three previous posts.
https://thevirginiastar.com/2022/04/26/self-described-marxist-lesbian-elected-next-president-of-american-library-association/

LOL. The Virginia Star. RWNJ trash rag that gets the facts wrong and doesn’t even share a quote from her saying the above.

Next.

It has the video of her interview where she makes that statement. You are not argument is now what was meant by ‘children,’ in the context of her statement. It certainly wasn’t adults as she mentions safety concerns for herself and her staff. Which isn’t relevant to the following post:

“Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.”

So the issue isn’t if Lawn Boy is pedophilia, but rather voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn. Is that material appropriate for inclusion in school libraries? Is someone a right wing nutjob or a homophobic bigot because they don’t want their middle or high schooler exposed to that? More importantly, why do you think it’s important for children to have that access to that material? If a child feels that they can relate to scenes of child pornography, in this case, two ten year old boys giving each other oral, is that signs of a larger problem? Do adults have a legitimate concern when it’s being pushed as ‘critical information,’ and that it may be designed to desensitize them to sex at a young age?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The character was reflecting on his own personal memories from his own childhood. It was significant to him because it was his sexual awakening. Kids have sexual thoughts, actions, memories.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It’s not pornography.
It’s not child pornography.
It’s not pedophilia.

No matter how much you want it to be. It’s creepy that people view it like that. Maybe they’re projecting.

Definition of the word pornography: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

It absolutely does show that.