Anonymous
09/21/2023 08:05
Subject: GOP endorsed school board candidates
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.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 08:03
Subject: Re:GOP endorsed school board candidates
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?
Why would you suck a strap on? This 41 year old is about to learn something new.
PP can’t answer because they didn’t actually read the story. They’re just parroting what they heard from some RWNJ source.
Did you read the story? Can you tell me? I like to read - I am happy to check out the book myself but I don't know what book it is.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 08:00
Subject: Re:GOP endorsed school board candidates
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,
Anonymous
09/21/2023 07:35
Subject: GOP endorsed school board candidates
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.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 07:34
Subject: GOP endorsed school board candidates
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’m also disappointed because I’d like to see less focus on cultural “wedge” issues from the candidates endorsed by both parties. But it’s also clear that if we have another 12-0 Democratic School Board we will just get more of the same - a focus on promoting the trans agenda, school name changes, new Academy programs that focus on “social justice” rather than STEM or civics, and whatever other pet projects School Board members have in mind (such as Karl Frisch’s massive waste of taxpayer money to build a new school in Dunn Loring that no one asked for).
Remember that definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? Take Kyle McDaniel, for example - he’s basically a mash-up of Frisch and Laura Jane Cohen and every bit as in it only to position himself for the next election.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 07:24
Subject: Re:GOP endorsed school board candidates
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.
DP. I wouldn't call it porn. I would call it inappropriate. That means that it doesn't belong in school libraries.
Fwiw, it's on the shelf at BN. Your kid can read it even if it's not on the school library shelf.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 07:22
Subject: Re:GOP endorsed school board candidates
pornography
Pornography–"porn" or "porno" for short–is material that depicts nudity or sexual acts for the purpose of sexual stimulation. However, the presence of nudity or sexual acts in piece of media does not necessarily make that media pornographic if the purpose of that media form is something other than sexual stimulation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pornography
Pornography–"porn" or "porno" for short–is material that depicts nudity or sexual acts for the purpose of sexual stimulation. However, the presence of nudity or sexual acts in piece of media does not necessarily make that media pornographic if the purpose of that media form is something other than sexual stimulation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pornography
Anonymous
09/21/2023 07:11
Subject: Re:GOP endorsed school board candidates
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.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 07:10
Subject: Re:GOP endorsed school board candidates
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.
Why then would you be arrested if you shared it with your subordinates?
The same reason you would be arrested if you were sharing diagrams of reproductive organs from a biology book.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 07:07
Subject: Re:GOP endorsed school board candidates
Anonymous wrote:As sexy as this topic is,I’d just vote for someone who says they are getting rid of optional homework and standards based grading.
Democrats are 100% responsible for both those changes.
I agree with you. Let’s change it back, and vote out the democrat-dominated Board. Single-party rule has been a disaster, but there is only one way to change it.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 07:04
Subject: Re:GOP endorsed school board candidates
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.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 07:03
Subject: Re:GOP endorsed school board candidates
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.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 06:58
Subject: GOP endorsed school board candidates
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 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.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 06:47
Subject: Re:GOP endorsed school board candidates
As sexy as this topic is,I’d just vote for someone who says they are getting rid of optional homework and standards based grading.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 06:31
Subject: Re:GOP endorsed school board candidates
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?