Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

All books passed the Milker test.

So your position is that anything passing the miller test should be provided to children in schools?

Define "provided". You seem to be suggesting some evil librarians and teachers are handing these books out to little children.

Sorry, pal. That's not happening.

Congrats on joining a long line of "smut" banners. History tends to laugh at you.

What does history have to say about people who introduce graphic sexual material to children?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

I didn't say it must be.

Define graphic. Define what verbal descriptions of sex are allowed vs not? Or is it just pictures that bother you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

All books passed the Milker test.

So your position is that anything passing the miller test should be provided to children in schools?

Define "provided". You seem to be suggesting some evil librarians and teachers are handing these books out to little children.

Sorry, pal. That's not happening.

Congrats on joining a long line of "smut" banners. History tends to laugh at you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

You are offended by these books. Other people are offended by the stereotypes in Little House on the Prairie. Why does what offends you predominate over what offends other parents? No one is "providing" these books to kids in libraries. If you want your kids to avoid any mention of romance or sexuality in any form then you have the right to ban them from checking out books in the library.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

All books passed the Milker test.

So your position is that anything passing the miller test should be provided to children in schools?

Was Flamer in elementary schools? No.

It's fine for highschools. Yes with graphic images. Just because a book has graphic images doesn't make it obscene or qualify it as porn.There were books with graphic *descriptions* of sex in libraries when you were in highschool, sorry you didn't read them. They weren't automatically porn either. You're just freaked out because you think graphic novels are worse than words because they pair words with pictures.

https://cbldf.org/2022/10/adding-flamer-to-your-library-or-classroom-collection/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

It isn't provided to children.

And FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!!@

Or are you not an actual American?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

All books passed the Milker test.

So your position is that anything passing the miller test should be provided to children in schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

All books passed the Milker test.

So your position is that anything passing the miller test should be provided to children in schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

All books passed the Milker test.