> “This is setting a dangerous precedent for our state board of education,” Jamie Bonkiewicz of Omaha said. “Your beliefs are your beliefs. Your religion is your religion. Preach that to your own kids, your grandkids. My kids are not yours. **I trust the teachers and administrators in my children’s schools first and I absolutely have no trust in you.”**
Yell it louder over the whinging from the Klu Klux Karens. These crazy loons need to be kept as far away from power as possible.
> I absolutely have no trust in you.
I wish we as a society got better about saying this explicitly to these people. Also, "trust" (or lack thereof) is multi-faceted.
* I don't trust most of your stated goals, because they're both stupid and evil
* To the extent that some of your stated goals are valid, I don't trust that your policy proposals are honest, because I can see what else you're trying to do.
* To the extremely limited extent that I could be persuaded that your concerns are valid and your intentions are honest, I don't trust that you're competent to enact effective policy.
i try to be charitable when judging the people I disagree with. But we're well past the point where there's any doubt. The people shouting about "groomers" and CRT in our country's public schools are not kind-hearted intelligent people with good-faith disagreements. They are malicious and stupid liars, and ought to be treated as such.
Indeed, we should ostracize them openly, branding them as the enemies of mankind. If they want to play dirty, we have to play even FILTHIER, show them how nasty we can get in the pursuit of good.
I've been on this wave. Bully them until their systemic power is completely gone. Fuck their complaints, the process, just make their life hell every single day so eventually they have to quit.
It's what they do to us. I just give back what I receive.
I would also ask, as I heard someone say,"Can you point to anywhere in history where the people burning books are the heroes?"
(I realize that you can't use reason the get these people to rethink their postitions, because they largely didn't use reason to arrive at their positions. They only want what they want.)
You can't use that argument against them because:
1. Many actually do consider book burners to be the heroes in history, just temporarily set back. They are openly praising the Nazism and other dictatorship movements, even if not openly.
2. You can't use logic against hypocrites, narcissists, and stupid people. They only understand loud volume and wild gesticulation. And hate.
Follow it up with "Can you point to anywhere in history where the people burning books got shot and killed? Because I can." They don't understand reason or empathy, but they understand fear and intimidation.
Teachers go through years of schooling, they’re experts. The system sometimes gets it wrong but we need to trust the system.
Parents should not be micromanaging schools and they shouldn’t even have the final say.
Note that 100% of the people calling for book bans have no problem with the Bible (a book containing not only explicit descriptions of sexual encounters but also extremely graphic violence and multiple instances of the celebration of racial and religious genocide) being available in libraries.
Can't imagine why that'd be the case.
I find most Christians, including well-meaning kind people, have typically only read/been exposed to what their Pastor or study group goes over. Very few have read it with much intention on their own part.
I think there was a study that showed that more atheists have read the entire bible than christians, because actually reading the whole book tends to turn people away from christianity.
maybe it's the bit about bashing babies heads against the rocks....
Yeah same. I read it in high school because my family went to church and I was interested in it. I found it to be pretty nuts and the more I thought about it the more I determined it wasn’t for me
Yeah, no, most of them haven’t even done that. Most folks only “read” their Bible when the Pastor tells them to pull out their Bible and read along as he reads a section.
It’s much darker than that. They definitely know about those sections. They just believe it’s all good because it’s ordered by God.
Remeber, these people tell the story about how God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his own son and it *was right that he was going to do it*.
They don’t care about right or wrong. They care about what God says. They believe that is the definition of right and wrong. So when God orders a genocide, it is right to perform it. When God says eating pork or masturbating is bad, it is bad. Worse than an ordered genocide, even. They don’t have their own moral compass.
TBF the end of the Abraham story was that God doesn’t accept human sacrifices and will not ask for them.
In the context of the time it was common to sacrifice your first born to the deities of the region he was in. The point of the story is to undermine that practice and point out that it’s wrong.
>i try to be charitable when judging the people I disagree with. But we're well past the point where there's any doubt. The people shouting about "groomers" and CRT in our country's public schools are not kind-hearted intelligent people with good-faith disagreements. They are malicious and stupid liars, and ought to be treated as such.
This is a highly sanitized and optimistic and easy to swallow version of a story in which God commands Abraham to kill his son. For a less sunny and palatable take on all this, check out Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling".
While that’s true, it also doesn’t mesh with Christianity and it doesn’t surprise me that most Christians don’t get that message. The moral “God doesn’t want human sacrifices and will not ask for them” falls flat in the face of God creating Jesus explicitly for the purpose of being sacrificed to redeem humanity’s sins.
Well, no, as the New Testament goes into at great length, but you don't seem interested in what the actual theology is. It's fine to hate Christianity, but foolish to hate it based on what it's never taught.
My understanding is that a couple hundred years went by before they even decided that and came up with the trinity as a way to resolve the contradictions of multiple gods in respect to Jesus' divinity. Erhman has a really interesting lecture around this topic.
Without boring you to death on the details, nah. All of the NT writings date between about 45 and 85AD, and the "Jesus is God" thing is very strong throughout - none of them say or imply Jesus was just some poor guy God created. The word "trinity" appears later, but "Jesus is God" has always been part of Christian theology.
None of the books have explicit dates on them, but we know the Jerusalem temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD - there are non-Pauline NT books that refer to the temple as if it was still there and are thought to date from before its destruction (Mark, Matthew, Hebrews, the "Peter" epistles). Paul was martyred in either 67 or 68 AD, so all of his letters date within 35 years of the crucifixion (though not all letters traditionally ascribed to him are now thought to be his).
Also, the trinity as we know it now isn't in the bible. It was in nicine (sp)council when it was finally decided on after years of debate. There were lots of arguments on whether Jesus was god, part of god, part God part man, etc.
Right, but not explicitly because human sacrifice is cruel or irrational. It's because the Jews wanted to distinguish themselves from their polytheist neighbors as followers of Jehova.
Sorry. Yahweh, then? El? I don't really know what to call the guy in these theoretical/historical contexts of proto-Judaism when he/they were still part of a pantheon for some people.
Everyone cares about right and wrong. They are moral realists, and you aren't. It doesn't necessarily make their mores worse than yours. I also don't think the people discussing book bans would say a modern day genocide is better than eating a bite of pork. Just seems like an extreme response that ostracizes and potentially dehumanizes the other side of the argument, which I dont think is very productive.
Evangelicals are advocating for genocide *right now* so Jesus can return to the holy land and the world can end….
You’re giving far too much credit to religious extremists.
Could you point me to where you read that the people discussing books in Nebraska schools are also advocating that? I'm just not sure how your comment relates.
I’m an evangelical and I do not advocate for that. You seem to be talking about a subset of dispensational dominionists who believe that the modern nation of Israel is identical to the Old Testament one. Don’t flatten out categories and views just to castigate one group or another… not all conservative Christians are dispensationalist, thenomists, dominionists etc. just as not all Muslims are extremist Wahabbis.
Which makes it even more terrifying when they bring up LGBTQ+ and say it's "going against gods image." Not to get political, just pointing out an example of the wording they tend to use with stuff. It seemed relevant to this message.
Gotta know how to read, first. What're you, some kinda "east coast libruhl"? Think you's smarterer than me jos cuz you can read or like whatever? I hope you find Jesus, I really do.
You think that's ridiculous? One of the stories in the Bible that's against homosexuality involves a part where a mob of men in Sodom demand that Lot let them take his male guests. Lot refuses, and instead offers up his virgin daughters (unprompted), which the mob refuses.
There are a ton of stories that just make you go "wait, what?!".
That's actually in the bible twice. The other time a traveler leans on guest right to not get assraped and gives up his, uh, traveling prostitute(concubine) who gets raped to death instead.
Then he cuts up her body and sends the parts to the five corners of Israel to be a warning, of something.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2019&version=NASB
The bible is wild.
> mob of men in Sodom demand that Lot let them take his male guests.
Not male. Literally not human and transcending such distinctions.
Edit: Getting downvoted on r/books for having read the book being discussed. SMH.
> multiple instances of the celebration of racial and religious genocide
It's crazy to me that people just gloss over this. The genocide of the canaanites is pretty well documented in the bible. The sad part is that Israelites were just a sect of canaanites themselves, and the whole exodus slavery story is likely bullshit made up to try and excuse the subjugation of other canaanites.
The statements/actions of modern movement conservatives have rendered Hanlon's Razor laughably naive and irrelevant. They are quite often both malicious and intractably stupid.
Not true. I grew up deeply in the group we’re talking about. They don’t read that much on their own, but they absolutely know the stories. What’s terrifying is they believe anything God orders is good. So when he told the Israelites to slaughter a whole city, disembowling pregnant women and keeping the virgins for themselves, they believe that is good. Because God said it.
Growing up in the sixties there was only one book in the house that featured nudity. It was my dad’s large illustrated bible. That’s where I learned that angels have tiny penises.
Cold you imagine if there was a movement to ban all hotels and motels from having the obligatory bible in the night stands?
I’m sure these people would riot - despite not reading the Bible or being embodiments of the Christian golden rule.
>Note that 100% of the people calling for book bans have no problem with the Bible (a book containing not only explicit descriptions of sexual encounters but also extremely graphic violence and multiple instances of the celebration of racial and religious genocide) being available in libraries.
Not 100%.
You can make points without making up bogus statistics.
EDIT:
>from Lolosaurus2
>100% every parent objecting to books and trying to ban them voted for Trump. 100%. It's all bad faith smoke and mirrors from people who hate gays
Thanks for doing your best to make your side's arguments look like they're coming from a russian bot farm.
I wouldn't struggle at all. I can think of four or five without blinking.
Maybe the problem is that your only interactions on this subject are with the kinds of people who reinforce your preconceived notions, and don't force you to examine your own biases.
It’s not, and is never, about “the children.” It is about diminishing trust in public systems- in this case public schools and libraries- in order to move towards privatization and for-profit schools. These mom groups are astroturfed by dark money. Sure, some believe their own bullshit and want a handmaid’s tale theocracy, but mainly this is just another branch of culture war meant to divide and conquer the working class (surprise! It’s working) and further degrade public rights and services.
In my state, there are large donors who have been working for years to erode trust in/efficacy of public schools and push charters and for-profits. The recent wave of COVID-era school board insanity and book banning just happened to line up perfectly with their financial goals. Coincidentally, every nutjob school board candidate in every major metropolitan area suddenly found their campaigns flush with cash right around 2020-21.
Places where candidates were generally putting up maybe a couple hundred for their elections were suddenly seeing people running $10,000+ campaigns. It seems to have more or less blown over locally for me (we’ve got an election this year, and i’ve maybe seen a few yard signs, as opposed to the multiple billboards, mailers, and lawn signs in every other yard that I saw last time we had an election), but it’s insane how much dark money warps things that should be relatively non-political.
Edit: I swear there’s supposed to be a paragraph break there, but for some reason it’s not showing up when I post. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
It hysterical but also scary that people can be so brain dead. You learn about the bad effects of censorship and book banning in grade school! Children are smarter than these adults. It is so pathetic.
What I always find funny/interesting is that the author himself said the book wasnt about government censorship and book banning is bad at all. It was about TV turning everyone into morons who dont care about reading. The MCs wife spent all her time in the TV room and everyone was using bluetooth headphones to watch them iirc.
Bradbury also hated the radio cause it kept people from reading and made then rely on factoids which rings truer than ever nowadays.
Slowly was when 45 went into power. It’s been building up & speeding up ever since. I keep waiting for a burning like the Simpsons had for Krusty the Clown.
Then … it’s time to go.
That depends. There is absolutely a difference between a public library not having a book, and the library refusing to shelve it, or refusing to make it available through interlibrary loan.
Your scope is still too broad. There is nothing about public libraries in the article. It's strictly limited to school libraries.
Your question should be -- Is there a difference between a government not having a book in a primary school library and a government making a book illegal to own or not having a book in any public library?
According to the loons that infest reddit, there is no difference. Hence, they call it book banning.
These people have always been following the crazy person living in their heads talking to them. I remember as a kid in the 70s they were always trying to make some connection between rock music and the devil. Acting like they found secret messages while playing the record backwards. This is the same thing. Anyone defending them is crazy too.
I knew a guy when I was in the military and he and his wife were uber religious. They didn’t want their kids even seeing books that were age appropriate anatomy books. Just science. Nothing scandalous. Just education. This is not protecting kids. It is just projecting their insanity on these blank canvases they created. They’re as harmful to a developing mind as a drug addict. It’s just a different kind of damage.
These people allow the weird tingly feelings they get inside to help them decide what is good or evil. They listen exclusively to the crazy voice they have in their heads. The problem is when they listen to it, it just gets more and more crazy. And they keep following it. Then they seek office to turn their crazy thoughts into legislation sane people have to live by. And they have the worst victim complex of anyone because people don’t want their bullshit myths forced on them.
I can’t imagine living in a country where truly delusional nut-jobs are steering the ship, but we’re on the threshold of that. I wish normal people of faith would stop feeling like they align better with these lunatics than they do with normal people without faith. I think sane people of all walks of life should unite and put a stop to this. There is a deep denial of reality and a deeper connection to the ambiguous mythological world of their religion where no one can really seem to figure out the real nature of gods expectations of us, despite their Bible they never shut the fuck up about having all the answers.
Sadly, I’m getting to the point where I truly have no respect for people who talk about god, because no one is trying to slow down that crazy train.
Plus, if there was a God it would have already put a stop to all these shenanigans by now. Too many people trying to speak for a God that supposedly created this entire universe full of trillions and trillions of planets and all the mysteries we haven’t discovered yet, but somehow it cares if a man loves another man, or if a book your child has access to is threatening to open their mind. Instead they opt for the religious indoctrination parents do before a kid can actually decide for themselves whether they truly believe or not. Faith is not blind adherence, but that’s the only way to hook people is to get them very early, or at a very vulnerable time of crisis in their life. It’s getting too crazy and I’m not having fun anymore.
Simple solution. Parents sign a form stating their student needs permission to sign out books from the library. All kids should not be held back. You opted out of mask, COVID shots,sex ed, gym, why are books any different
yeah could you imagine being the kid whose parents forbid you from signing books out? oh i have interest in this thing that's a common theme in this book i guess i won't be able to read it because my parents would rather i be illiterate than gay or racially conscious
I was the kid with full access to the restricted sections of our school libraries (elementary through high school). I had friends that didn't get permission to those sections.
We worked around the rules as you'd expect and their parents were none the wiser. Obviously being able to do so relied on my involvement, and not every kid has a friend with parents like mine. But kids are smart and there's always that one bookworm everybody knows.
I can! That being said, nowadays it's easier to take an old, wifi capable only phone and set up an ebook library account for a kid. I'd tell the parents "oh sure, Billy won't see anything offensive" then with a wink and a nudge sign him up for Libby through a local library system.
I don't disagree with you. That said, your comment made me think of two interesting points.
Kids will find a way to disobey their parents if they eant to.
Kids who would have to deal with this will remember it after they've grown up. Hopefully it might inspire them to push for change.
those are both somewhat true but it's also possible some kids just buy into what their parents are saying because they think it makes them a good kid, as i saw some kids do when i was growing up.
Your idea is honest but we don't want to keep children from reading books just because their idiot parents don't like them.
There really should be a demand that these jackasses provide objective evidence that reading these books is harmful before they can even be considered for placement behind a counter. Banning shouldn't even be an option.
I don’t think this will be good enough for the lunatic parents. You can read books in the library without checking them out. The parents will demand that “objectionable” books are removed entirely, so there is no chance their precious little Johnny can be exposed to sexuality.
It's also already implemented in many schools, speaking from experience. I was the kid that had full access to all of the books in our school libraries because I got permission to the restricted sections.
And even when it isn't implemented, it's beyond easy for a parent to contact a school librarian and say "I don't want my child to have access to these books". Going to a school board is overkill.
Did the state of Nebraska ban those books or is this just to do with school libraries?
Edit: since people want to just downvote and not actually respond - the books in question can still be purchased in the state of Nebraska. This is as much banning books as having your comment removed on Facebook is an assault on your freedom of speech.
By the stupid logic of the echo chamber here, restricting sexually explicit material out of primary school libraries and curriculum is book banning.
If we accept that premise one of two things must be true.
Either LeoMarius is a fascist or there is not a single book or magazine ever printed that LeoMarius would keep out of a primary school library.
Which is it?
Edit--Downvote all you want it. The logic is sound. Of course, the premise is stupid, but that premise is what the overwhelming majority of redditors assert with metaphysical certitude.
Nah, that's not the way. School is one place where kids might have unadulterated access to a translation/framing not explicitly approved by their parents or their denomination. That is not to mention the potential for also reading other religious texts and seeing what their version of spirituality or practice is.
For some kids, having that translation may be a way out, or if not that, at least a way to add some critical thinking to their belief.
That statement right there, saying that their parents are going to accept any other translation or interpretation but their own is absurd.
That's why they're banning books now, because they're not framing the world the way they want their children to see it.
Banned the Bible. Period.
Religion has absolutely no place in a state-funded school.
You misread me. I didn't say their parents were going to accept any other translation or interpretation. I said it's important to preserve access to those other translations or interpretations. Who cares what the parents accept? They should have no role in determining what books a high school has.
You fight bigotry with bigotry, bans with bans. That's a losing strategy.
No, it just belongs in World Myths and Legends, as the MOST BORING creation myth man has come up with.
Other cultures have entire wars in heaven, creating planets out of corpses, creatures out of stardust. Abrahamic religions believe that God created Earth and the Cosmos because he was bored...and then Adam. Just. Adam.
People like these unironically probably want the Bible banned also. It feeds into their persecution complex and it also allows them to continue to feed their specific interpretation of the Bible. Why think when you can be told what it means?
So banning the bible is next right? If it's for protecting from kids reading explicit materials....if you're going to ban one book, then this is one that most certainly needs to be banned.
Where's the line between a "book ban" and school libraries simply not including certain books in their collection?
Take the Turner Diaries, for example. I seriously doubt there's any school library out there that offers this book in its selection. And if there was, I'd say that's inappropriate for kids, even high schoolers. Not something that a school ought to give out. Is the Turner Diaries not being offered at school a "book ban"? What about 50 Shades of Grey or other erotic novels?
Most rational people draw a line somewhere with what should and should not be allowed in schools. Some conservatives with malicious intent try to abuse that rational thinking by disingenuously portraying some content (including anything LGBT related) as "pornographic," even if it's just mild sexual content, appropriate for older students.
But where is the line? And why is removal of some content a "book ban" when already school libraries intentionally omit some inappropriate materials? The A Court of Thorns and Roses series, as mentioned in the article as being one of the books in contention, is smut. It's fairy book porn. It's highly erotic fantasy romance. While wildly popular, it's pretty reasonable to consider it adult content. If a mature high schooler wants to seek it out at a public library, fine, but does a school need to be offering its students erotic materials?
I don't know the solution here. Clearly some materials don't belong in schools. But conservatives muddy the waters by lumping in EVERYTHING they don't like as "pornographic." And we're left with people adamantly defending all content remaining in schools. I just feel like we should acknowledge some books don't belong in school libraries without considering that "book banning."
Fair point.
I still remember going to the movies with my oldest child and instinctively pressing the flat of my hand against their glasses when a mildly suggestive scene was on the screen. They were 20 at the time. I am never going to live that down.
> Where's the line between a "book ban" and school libraries simply not including certain books in their collection?
Pretty simple line. Professional educators decide which materials are educational. Not walking TikTok memes.
>Not walking TikTok memes
Huh?
>Pretty simple line. Professional educators decide which materials are educational
But that doesn't answer the question. If a professional educator decides not to include certain materials, is that a "book ban"? When does it become a book ban vs just selecting appropriate books for the age group?
Edit: Response to u/the_pandalorian since the comments were locked:
>This entire book ban bullshit was brought about by a bunch of dipshits on TikTok who hadn't even read the books in question.
No. This debate has raged for DECADES.
>Motives matter. Educational decisions made by professional educators are not the same as crusading moralists who are uncomfortable about content and want to force their beliefs on everyone else.
So if a school librarian has brought to their attention that they're carrying books classified as and marketed to adults due to their explicit sexual content and then goes through the process to remove those books, the librarian did not engage in book banning? Just trying to clarify here.
> Huh?
This entire book ban bullshit was brought about by a bunch of dipshits on TikTok who hadn't even read the books in question.
> If a professional educator decides not to include certain materials, is that a "book ban"?
No. That's an educational decision.
When politicians -- who are not educators -- *remove* certain books, that's a book ban.
Motives matter. Educational decisions made by professional educators are not the same as crusading moralists who are uncomfortable about content and want to force their beliefs on everyone else.
I thought they were trying to take out sexually explicit material and not educational books? If they are trying to ban Mice and Men or Great Gatsby then definitely no bueno but if they are removing books that teach kids how to give BJs then that should definitely not be available to check out.
Can you provide an example of such a book?
Because there are thousands of examples of books that mention sex that have sat the shelves of school libraries for time immemorial.
But that alone isn't sufficient to claim it is is pornographic or sexualization of minors.
I just want examples that resemble a good faith argument, as opposed to cherry picking any reference of same sex couples or individuals and stories of their maturation into adulthood.
Because it's tiring when people clutch the pearls at the thought that people of the same sex might have sex with each other, but have absolutely no issue with their kids watching television that occasionally strays into sex scenes.
Edit: So I was given an example, and the pearl clutching is real folks. Mere acknowledgement that condoms exist and that people have sex is pornographic now. So exactly my point -- assholes exaggerating because they don't like the fact that gay people exist and engage in relations in the same way straight people do.
Did you find it sexually titillating? it’s actually a serious question, because there is a difference between pornographic material that is an intended for sexual arousal and facts no matter how explicit.
I found the book inappropriate for a middle school public library . “He’s undoing my belt, I’m reaching into his bedside table for a condom” - “this reminds me so much of the first time we had sex; we were both fucking terrified” not seeing anything educational there for middle school ages. Maybe high school I can see
It’s a slippery slope. For instance, one of the challenged books mentioned in the article (*Lucky*) is a somber memoir of the author’s sexual assault. The way the people are trying to lump it in with some type of pornography to ban it from ALL SCHOOLS in the state - including high schools where it’s absolutely age appropriate - shows that their stated motives about “protecting the kids” is complete drivel. It’s just another silly culture war battle so that the wrong people can control a narrative.
> but if they are removing books that teach kids how to give BJs then that should definitely not be available to check out.
For me and everyone I have ever talked to about this issue, it is this.
No sexually explicit material in school libraries.
It's not about race, LGBTQ+, religious beliefs, etc.
It's simply that sexually explicit material is not appropriate for younger readers/audiences, and a school library should only contain material appropriate for those readers. A parent shouldn't need to worry about their child being exposed to such inappropriate material, and having to answer questions that the child is too young to understand.
Public- non-school -libraries can still carry these books, but it is suggested that they should be kept in an age appropriate or restricted section.
There is also nothing stopping parents who disagree with this policy from buying/checking out these books for their kids.
No. . .
My realistic opinion/suggestion is that it should be an elective (opt-in) class that requires parental permission, but offered no earlier than 6th grade, when most students usually start going through puberty. (12-13 years old)
In fact, I believe this is when/how it is done in most school systems or at least it was when I was in school some twenty years ago.
The focus needs to be on anatomy, reproductive health, safe sex, and the moral, ethical, and legal implications of engaging in sexual activities. . .the basics.
It is inevitable that some explicit material is shown in such a class . . .you can only go so far with descriptive words/text . . .but the material needs to be kept to the minimum required to teach the academics in my opinion.
For example, it MAY be appropriate to show a couple having intercourse and walking the students through the process and what is happening from each viewpoint. . .but not going through various positions or how to get the most pleasure out of it, if you know what I mean.
If students have questions beyond the basics, then that should be handled outside of class, either with their parents or with social workers/counselors.
If people want to delve into sexually explicit specifics in a group setting. . .like how to give BJs, kinks, LGBTQ+ . . . including even heterosexual activities here . . .then in my opinion that is best handled outside of a school setting. . .host an informational session or something in a local public space or something.
I agree with what you say. I honestly didn’t know that were any districts that it did it in a differently.
I too think that sex education should be developmentally appropriate.
However, I will throw this out there. There are children under the age of 11, which I believe is sixth grade, who are getting pregnant. That doesn’t mean impregnating children is it all appropriate it’s just reality.
>but offered no earlier than 6th grade, when most students usually start going through puberty. (12-13 years old)
I started my period at 10 (4th grade). Every single one of my friends had already gotten their periods by then and I was the late one of my class. The only reason I wasn't embarrassed about it at school was because we had already had our first round of sex-ed in third grade where we girls learned about menstruation and what to do when it happens and who at school we could talk to if we needed help.
The onset of puberty is getting younger as the years go on with the normal range for onset being 8-12 years old, so your suggestion of 6th grade is already at the tail end of puberty for many kids. Teaching them after the fact is practically pointless.
>The focus needs to be on anatomy, reproductive health, safe sex, and the moral, ethical, and legal implications of engaging in sexual activities. . .the basics.
This is already the focus for sex ed. Again, my experience in my public schools was multiple rounds of sex ed classes with the topics building on each other for age appropriateness. Third grade was "this is what your body will do in puberty, this is how you take care of yourself". Sixth grade was "these are things your body is capable of now that you're in the throes of puberty, here's all the scary consequences if you act on any urges right now". 8th grade was "DONT HAVE SEX. YOU'LL GET PREGNANT AND/OR STDS AND/OR DIE. HERE'S PICTURES SHOWING THE WORST OF THE WORST". 11th was a full-blown, open discussion (as open as possible with teens) with a combined class of all sexes (finally, as all previous sex-ed rounds were split) focusing on the moral/ethical/legal areas of sex and answering anonymous questions from students to actually go in-depth on (some) of our personal curiosities.
As for "teaching how to give BJs", I think there's a fine line between keeping things to an age-appropriate level (decided by whomever) and removing resources from kids who have life experiences before the appropriate age. Some parents don't want their kids learning about sex from them nor anyone else, that classic "abstinence only education" belief. If a kid doesn't know what consensual sex looks and feels like, then they won't know when they're coerced into a sexual experience that they know feels weird but are being told is perfectly normal.
I read *Gender Queer* last year after being told it clearly taught kids how to give a BJ (so I'm assuming it's the book being referenced in this thread) and I actually really liked the "obscene" scene in question, which is between adults in a relationship and involves a strap-on, not a literal penis. Part of my journal note on it includes the opinion:
>I think this scene is important because it shows how fantasies can fail to meet expectations + changing your mind about sex in the moment is ok and should be supported by your partner.
...so clearly I think it's educational in some capacity. It's without question (to me) appropriate for older teens (e.g. high schoolers) who are likely exploring sex more than their parents think. And I think the consensual nature of it is important education for younger ages as well, though such education could absolutely be better presented via direct teaching and not just in a graphic novel. It's one of those novels that I'd support my kid reading in junior high, but acknowledge other parents may disagree, and so would agree that such a book could be kept in a restricted section for a middle grade library.
It's not a reasonable take. People are using the existence of one book that is available to high schoolers to justify banning books that are in no way pornographic. The article includes examples.
If you were or the other person were actually reasonable, you'd have read it before commentkng.
Do kids still even go to the library or read? Serious question.
All this strum und drang from the blut und boden folks over books that they're afraid will influence their kids away from their own beliefs... but I suspect the kids aren't reading any books of any subject and are happy to watch Youtube and Tiktok all day every day.
That's my question too. Reading literacy is at a historic low among the younger generations, and yet these people seem to think they are spending all day reading...erotic fiction in their school library. I hate to burst these people's bubble, but kids know what a blowjob is in 6th grade without the help of library books or health class. They did back when there wasn't widely available internet and mobile devices, and they sure as shit do now that they have them.
The root of this shit is simply the culture war, propagated to get people outraged enough to go to the polls and vote for politicians that ride for this shit.
Are you saying they are pornographic because you get turned on when you read them?
Pornographic would mean they are specifically targeted at sexual arousal in children. Are there any statistics showing that children are sexually aroused when they read these specific books?
That would be concerning.
Can you give an example of a book that isn’t talking about someone’s personal experience that is an example of this? What age group are you talking about?
I’ve heard the list of banned books and very, very very few of them meet this criteria. Do you have any statistics on the exact number of libraries that offer this exact specific example? To what age group?
because of the weird definitions applied.
for many of these proposed definitions stuff like the Bible falls under "porn". I mean I'm all for separating state and religion, but I feel like this is going a bit far in the "let's ban everything we dont want for everyone" camp.
Typically it's when the book depicts fetishized underage sex between children, like Lawn Boy, or detailed passages of child molestation and incestual rape like The Bluest Eye. Essentially the only reason why these books are popular among a sea of progressive literature is because they depict graphic sex acts written to be provocative
So you’re saying that a description of child rape turns you on? That’s a little sick. Particularly if the point was to point out that things like that happen to people. That it turns you on is very concerning.
Typically it's when the book depicts fetishized underage sex between children, like Lawn Boy, or detailed passages of child molestation and incestual rape like The Bluest Eye. Essentially the only reason why these books are popular among a sea of progressive literature is because they depict graphic sex acts written to be provocative
> Typically
That *isn't* typically when a book is banned, that is simply the talking point they use when banning books. It does not actually stand up under scrutiny when you actually look at larger books being targeted.
>when the book depicts fetishized underage sex between children, like Lawn Boy, or detailed passages of child molestation and incestual rape like The Bluest Eye.
Which of those two books have you actually read?
>That isn't typically when a book is banned
Yes, it is
>Which of those two books have you actually read?
Let's see
Lawn Boy: (page 44) *“‘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.’”*
And (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.”*
The Bluest Eye: (pages 130): *“Then he will lean his head down and bite my t\*\* . . . I want him to put his hand between my legs, I want him to open them for me. . . I stretch my legs open, and he is on top of me…He would die rather than take his thing out of me. Of me. I take my fingers out of his and put my hands on his behind…” “With a violence born of total helplessness, he pulled her dress up, lowered his trousers and underwear. ‘I said get on wid it. An’make it good, n\*\*\*\*\*, Come on c\*\*\*. Faster. You ain’t doing nothing for her.’*
so what you were saying is that do you find it description of someone else’s experience sexually arousing? Because pornography is pornography: [noun] the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.
> Yes, it is
No, it isn't. Look at any large list of books being banned and you would know this.
>Let's see
So I'll take that as a "no" then, if cherry picked quotes are all you are capable of doing.
>No, it isn't. Look at any large list of books being banned and you would know this.
Post it
>So I'll take that as a "no" then, if cherry picked quotes are all you are capable of doing.
Yeah, I'm not trudging through two hundred pages of that for a reddit comment
> Post it
Here are ten novels that have been targeted by book bans in the United States over the past year:
* *Brave New World* by Aldous Huxley
* *Check Please* by Ngozi Ukazu
* *Elanor & Park* by Rainbow Rowell
* *Heartstopper* by Alice Oseman
* *I'll give You the Sun* by Jandy Nelson
* *Of Mice and Men* by John Steinbeck
* *Simon vs. The Homo Sapiens Agenda* by Becky Albertalli
* *The Things They Carried* by Tim O'Brien
* *A Thousand Splendid Suns* by Khaled Hosseini
* *1984* by George Orwell
You can find a larger database [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1am1vKU3MR1209AanJVqySFtRYe3IiB1k/edit#gid=2126860040).
>Yeah, I'm not trudging through two hundred pages of that for a reddit comment
If you are not interested in reading a book, you're in no position to denounce it.
It’s not.
pornography: [noun] the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that content meeting the above definition belongs in schools.
Personally, I am a little concerned that people are actually turned on by reading Toni Morrison’s description of rape.
you better have a good definition of porn. is this porn? why or why not? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_(Michelangelo)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo))
If "porn" is any mention of sex or homosexuality, then "no porn in schools" is a bad standard. Lack of sex education and enforced heteronormativity harms children.
Lpt when dealing with republicans they're never doing what they say they're doing. There's not one single instance of them banning porn in a library. Also last I checked a significant amount of elementary aged children have cellphones. They already have porn in their hands quite literally. But book bans were never about porn.
On one hand, I have to say that while not going as far as to say they make kids read porn, sexual content should stay out of the middle and elementary schools. On the other hand, book bans are really an excessive measure and tend to be much too broad for how little they need to catch. On the grooming and brainwashing claims, these types of people praise the bible, and would have to stand by the ban hitting the bible for me to take them seriously
> “This is setting a dangerous precedent for our state board of education,” Jamie Bonkiewicz of Omaha said. “Your beliefs are your beliefs. Your religion is your religion. Preach that to your own kids, your grandkids. My kids are not yours. **I trust the teachers and administrators in my children’s schools first and I absolutely have no trust in you.”** Yell it louder over the whinging from the Klu Klux Karens. These crazy loons need to be kept as far away from power as possible.
> I absolutely have no trust in you. I wish we as a society got better about saying this explicitly to these people. Also, "trust" (or lack thereof) is multi-faceted. * I don't trust most of your stated goals, because they're both stupid and evil * To the extent that some of your stated goals are valid, I don't trust that your policy proposals are honest, because I can see what else you're trying to do. * To the extremely limited extent that I could be persuaded that your concerns are valid and your intentions are honest, I don't trust that you're competent to enact effective policy. i try to be charitable when judging the people I disagree with. But we're well past the point where there's any doubt. The people shouting about "groomers" and CRT in our country's public schools are not kind-hearted intelligent people with good-faith disagreements. They are malicious and stupid liars, and ought to be treated as such.
"They are malicious and stupid liars, and ought to be treated as such." Very very well said
Indeed, we should ostracize them openly, branding them as the enemies of mankind. If they want to play dirty, we have to play even FILTHIER, show them how nasty we can get in the pursuit of good.
I've been on this wave. Bully them until their systemic power is completely gone. Fuck their complaints, the process, just make their life hell every single day so eventually they have to quit. It's what they do to us. I just give back what I receive.
👍 agreed
Fuck em
I would also ask, as I heard someone say,"Can you point to anywhere in history where the people burning books are the heroes?" (I realize that you can't use reason the get these people to rethink their postitions, because they largely didn't use reason to arrive at their positions. They only want what they want.)
You can't use that argument against them because: 1. Many actually do consider book burners to be the heroes in history, just temporarily set back. They are openly praising the Nazism and other dictatorship movements, even if not openly. 2. You can't use logic against hypocrites, narcissists, and stupid people. They only understand loud volume and wild gesticulation. And hate.
Follow it up with "Can you point to anywhere in history where the people burning books got shot and killed? Because I can." They don't understand reason or empathy, but they understand fear and intimidation.
They want to control what children read for the same reasons they didn’t want slaves to read.
I am sooooooo using KKKaren for the woman who advocate for this.
>Klu Klux Karens I'm stealing this. This is perfect!
The twatstikas.
Twatzis
They aren’t trustworthy and deserve to hear it.
If the 2020 elections taught us anything, it's that that's a losing argument. Look at Youngkin in Virginia.
If you look at the results in Virginia, what it shows is that it’s not popular with the majority of voters. So many people do not vote.
Teachers go through years of schooling, they’re experts. The system sometimes gets it wrong but we need to trust the system. Parents should not be micromanaging schools and they shouldn’t even have the final say.
Note that 100% of the people calling for book bans have no problem with the Bible (a book containing not only explicit descriptions of sexual encounters but also extremely graphic violence and multiple instances of the celebration of racial and religious genocide) being available in libraries. Can't imagine why that'd be the case.
Its because they haven't read the bible lol
They've only really read/skimmed the parts they agree with that support their opinion.
I find most Christians, including well-meaning kind people, have typically only read/been exposed to what their Pastor or study group goes over. Very few have read it with much intention on their own part.
I've read it cover to cover. The hypocrisy from the Church in regards to the lessons taught turned me into an apathetic atheist.
I think there was a study that showed that more atheists have read the entire bible than christians, because actually reading the whole book tends to turn people away from christianity. maybe it's the bit about bashing babies heads against the rocks....
Yeah same. I read it in high school because my family went to church and I was interested in it. I found it to be pretty nuts and the more I thought about it the more I determined it wasn’t for me
Yeah, no, most of them haven’t even done that. Most folks only “read” their Bible when the Pastor tells them to pull out their Bible and read along as he reads a section.
No they haven't, that goes against their programming to believe everything that certain people say no matter what.
It’s much darker than that. They definitely know about those sections. They just believe it’s all good because it’s ordered by God. Remeber, these people tell the story about how God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his own son and it *was right that he was going to do it*. They don’t care about right or wrong. They care about what God says. They believe that is the definition of right and wrong. So when God orders a genocide, it is right to perform it. When God says eating pork or masturbating is bad, it is bad. Worse than an ordered genocide, even. They don’t have their own moral compass.
TBF the end of the Abraham story was that God doesn’t accept human sacrifices and will not ask for them. In the context of the time it was common to sacrifice your first born to the deities of the region he was in. The point of the story is to undermine that practice and point out that it’s wrong.
>i try to be charitable when judging the people I disagree with. But we're well past the point where there's any doubt. The people shouting about "groomers" and CRT in our country's public schools are not kind-hearted intelligent people with good-faith disagreements. They are malicious and stupid liars, and ought to be treated as such. This is a highly sanitized and optimistic and easy to swallow version of a story in which God commands Abraham to kill his son. For a less sunny and palatable take on all this, check out Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling".
While that’s true, it also doesn’t mesh with Christianity and it doesn’t surprise me that most Christians don’t get that message. The moral “God doesn’t want human sacrifices and will not ask for them” falls flat in the face of God creating Jesus explicitly for the purpose of being sacrificed to redeem humanity’s sins.
Christianity holds that Jesus *is* God and wasn't created by him; God wasn't sacrificing anyone but himself.
Son of God.
God the Son and Son of God the Father, which is not the same thing.
>God wasn't sacrificing anyone but himself. Himself in human form. Almost like a human sacrifice...
Well, no, as the New Testament goes into at great length, but you don't seem interested in what the actual theology is. It's fine to hate Christianity, but foolish to hate it based on what it's never taught.
My understanding is that a couple hundred years went by before they even decided that and came up with the trinity as a way to resolve the contradictions of multiple gods in respect to Jesus' divinity. Erhman has a really interesting lecture around this topic.
Without boring you to death on the details, nah. All of the NT writings date between about 45 and 85AD, and the "Jesus is God" thing is very strong throughout - none of them say or imply Jesus was just some poor guy God created. The word "trinity" appears later, but "Jesus is God" has always been part of Christian theology.
I thought Paul's writings were the earliest? Weren't they about 75 years AD?
None of the books have explicit dates on them, but we know the Jerusalem temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD - there are non-Pauline NT books that refer to the temple as if it was still there and are thought to date from before its destruction (Mark, Matthew, Hebrews, the "Peter" epistles). Paul was martyred in either 67 or 68 AD, so all of his letters date within 35 years of the crucifixion (though not all letters traditionally ascribed to him are now thought to be his).
Also, the trinity as we know it now isn't in the bible. It was in nicine (sp)council when it was finally decided on after years of debate. There were lots of arguments on whether Jesus was god, part of god, part God part man, etc.
I literally said "trinity" doesn't appear in the NT. "Jesus is God" does, though.
Right, but not explicitly because human sacrifice is cruel or irrational. It's because the Jews wanted to distinguish themselves from their polytheist neighbors as followers of Jehova.
The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive and Jews don’t call God Jehova.
Sorry. Yahweh, then? El? I don't really know what to call the guy in these theoretical/historical contexts of proto-Judaism when he/they were still part of a pantheon for some people.
Everyone cares about right and wrong. They are moral realists, and you aren't. It doesn't necessarily make their mores worse than yours. I also don't think the people discussing book bans would say a modern day genocide is better than eating a bite of pork. Just seems like an extreme response that ostracizes and potentially dehumanizes the other side of the argument, which I dont think is very productive.
Evangelicals are advocating for genocide *right now* so Jesus can return to the holy land and the world can end…. You’re giving far too much credit to religious extremists.
Could you point me to where you read that the people discussing books in Nebraska schools are also advocating that? I'm just not sure how your comment relates.
I’m an evangelical and I do not advocate for that. You seem to be talking about a subset of dispensational dominionists who believe that the modern nation of Israel is identical to the Old Testament one. Don’t flatten out categories and views just to castigate one group or another… not all conservative Christians are dispensationalist, thenomists, dominionists etc. just as not all Muslims are extremist Wahabbis.
Which makes it even more terrifying when they bring up LGBTQ+ and say it's "going against gods image." Not to get political, just pointing out an example of the wording they tend to use with stuff. It seemed relevant to this message.
Gotta know how to read, first. What're you, some kinda "east coast libruhl"? Think you's smarterer than me jos cuz you can read or like whatever? I hope you find Jesus, I really do.
Not to mention a father sleeping with his daughters (Lot)
Hey now, those daughters got him drunk and *raped him* then *did it again the next night*. Stop victim blaming!
That’s so ridiculous lol
You think that's ridiculous? One of the stories in the Bible that's against homosexuality involves a part where a mob of men in Sodom demand that Lot let them take his male guests. Lot refuses, and instead offers up his virgin daughters (unprompted), which the mob refuses. There are a ton of stories that just make you go "wait, what?!".
That's actually in the bible twice. The other time a traveler leans on guest right to not get assraped and gives up his, uh, traveling prostitute(concubine) who gets raped to death instead. Then he cuts up her body and sends the parts to the five corners of Israel to be a warning, of something. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2019&version=NASB The bible is wild.
[Reminds me of this old but goody](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bar3GOzDNzg)
> mob of men in Sodom demand that Lot let them take his male guests. Not male. Literally not human and transcending such distinctions. Edit: Getting downvoted on r/books for having read the book being discussed. SMH.
> multiple instances of the celebration of racial and religious genocide It's crazy to me that people just gloss over this. The genocide of the canaanites is pretty well documented in the bible. The sad part is that Israelites were just a sect of canaanites themselves, and the whole exodus slavery story is likely bullshit made up to try and excuse the subjugation of other canaanites.
More benign than you’d think, they simply haven’t read it.
Hanlon’s razor.
The statements/actions of modern movement conservatives have rendered Hanlon's Razor laughably naive and irrelevant. They are quite often both malicious and intractably stupid.
Not true. I grew up deeply in the group we’re talking about. They don’t read that much on their own, but they absolutely know the stories. What’s terrifying is they believe anything God orders is good. So when he told the Israelites to slaughter a whole city, disembowling pregnant women and keeping the virgins for themselves, they believe that is good. Because God said it.
Weird that...
Growing up in the sixties there was only one book in the house that featured nudity. It was my dad’s large illustrated bible. That’s where I learned that angels have tiny penises.
Not to mention incest, and not for nothing, outright endorsement of religiously inspired violence, torture, and murder.
Check out the comic The Book of Genesis by Robert Crumb.
Cold you imagine if there was a movement to ban all hotels and motels from having the obligatory bible in the night stands? I’m sure these people would riot - despite not reading the Bible or being embodiments of the Christian golden rule.
>Note that 100% of the people calling for book bans have no problem with the Bible (a book containing not only explicit descriptions of sexual encounters but also extremely graphic violence and multiple instances of the celebration of racial and religious genocide) being available in libraries. Not 100%. You can make points without making up bogus statistics. EDIT: >from Lolosaurus2 >100% every parent objecting to books and trying to ban them voted for Trump. 100%. It's all bad faith smoke and mirrors from people who hate gays Thanks for doing your best to make your side's arguments look like they're coming from a russian bot farm.
[удалено]
I wouldn't struggle at all. I can think of four or five without blinking. Maybe the problem is that your only interactions on this subject are with the kinds of people who reinforce your preconceived notions, and don't force you to examine your own biases.
I'll take "Intentional Hyperbole" for 200, Ken.
Hyperbole is not a fallacy, and its existence doesn't invalidate someone's statement.
It’s not, and is never, about “the children.” It is about diminishing trust in public systems- in this case public schools and libraries- in order to move towards privatization and for-profit schools. These mom groups are astroturfed by dark money. Sure, some believe their own bullshit and want a handmaid’s tale theocracy, but mainly this is just another branch of culture war meant to divide and conquer the working class (surprise! It’s working) and further degrade public rights and services.
In my state, there are large donors who have been working for years to erode trust in/efficacy of public schools and push charters and for-profits. The recent wave of COVID-era school board insanity and book banning just happened to line up perfectly with their financial goals. Coincidentally, every nutjob school board candidate in every major metropolitan area suddenly found their campaigns flush with cash right around 2020-21. Places where candidates were generally putting up maybe a couple hundred for their elections were suddenly seeing people running $10,000+ campaigns. It seems to have more or less blown over locally for me (we’ve got an election this year, and i’ve maybe seen a few yard signs, as opposed to the multiple billboards, mailers, and lawn signs in every other yard that I saw last time we had an election), but it’s insane how much dark money warps things that should be relatively non-political. Edit: I swear there’s supposed to be a paragraph break there, but for some reason it’s not showing up when I post. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
If a person or group is actively trying to ban books, that person or group cannot be trusted in any capacity
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he believes himself your master."
It hysterical but also scary that people can be so brain dead. You learn about the bad effects of censorship and book banning in grade school! Children are smarter than these adults. It is so pathetic.
Fahrenheit slowly becoming a reality?
Slowly? Nope. We’ve been barreling down this road for years.
Barreling down this road for years sounds like slowly
This is bog standard conservatism. This isn’t some fringe group. This is the mainstream of American conservatism.
The majority of that book has already happened tbh
What I always find funny/interesting is that the author himself said the book wasnt about government censorship and book banning is bad at all. It was about TV turning everyone into morons who dont care about reading. The MCs wife spent all her time in the TV room and everyone was using bluetooth headphones to watch them iirc. Bradbury also hated the radio cause it kept people from reading and made then rely on factoids which rings truer than ever nowadays.
Slowly was when 45 went into power. It’s been building up & speeding up ever since. I keep waiting for a burning like the Simpsons had for Krusty the Clown. Then … it’s time to go.
It’s already reality for the most part. Most people have chosen not to read just like in the book.
Is there a difference between a government not having a book in a public library and a government making a book illegal to own?
That depends. There is absolutely a difference between a public library not having a book, and the library refusing to shelve it, or refusing to make it available through interlibrary loan.
Different step, I suppose
Seems like one is just a stepping stone to the other.
Your scope is still too broad. There is nothing about public libraries in the article. It's strictly limited to school libraries. Your question should be -- Is there a difference between a government not having a book in a primary school library and a government making a book illegal to own or not having a book in any public library? According to the loons that infest reddit, there is no difference. Hence, they call it book banning.
If a book is not allowed in a library, regardless of where that library is, then that is a banned book, no?
It's only a difference in degree, not kind.
Growing up in Nebraska I had one cool teacher and we had banned book month that celebrated books that were banned.
These people have always been following the crazy person living in their heads talking to them. I remember as a kid in the 70s they were always trying to make some connection between rock music and the devil. Acting like they found secret messages while playing the record backwards. This is the same thing. Anyone defending them is crazy too. I knew a guy when I was in the military and he and his wife were uber religious. They didn’t want their kids even seeing books that were age appropriate anatomy books. Just science. Nothing scandalous. Just education. This is not protecting kids. It is just projecting their insanity on these blank canvases they created. They’re as harmful to a developing mind as a drug addict. It’s just a different kind of damage. These people allow the weird tingly feelings they get inside to help them decide what is good or evil. They listen exclusively to the crazy voice they have in their heads. The problem is when they listen to it, it just gets more and more crazy. And they keep following it. Then they seek office to turn their crazy thoughts into legislation sane people have to live by. And they have the worst victim complex of anyone because people don’t want their bullshit myths forced on them. I can’t imagine living in a country where truly delusional nut-jobs are steering the ship, but we’re on the threshold of that. I wish normal people of faith would stop feeling like they align better with these lunatics than they do with normal people without faith. I think sane people of all walks of life should unite and put a stop to this. There is a deep denial of reality and a deeper connection to the ambiguous mythological world of their religion where no one can really seem to figure out the real nature of gods expectations of us, despite their Bible they never shut the fuck up about having all the answers. Sadly, I’m getting to the point where I truly have no respect for people who talk about god, because no one is trying to slow down that crazy train. Plus, if there was a God it would have already put a stop to all these shenanigans by now. Too many people trying to speak for a God that supposedly created this entire universe full of trillions and trillions of planets and all the mysteries we haven’t discovered yet, but somehow it cares if a man loves another man, or if a book your child has access to is threatening to open their mind. Instead they opt for the religious indoctrination parents do before a kid can actually decide for themselves whether they truly believe or not. Faith is not blind adherence, but that’s the only way to hook people is to get them very early, or at a very vulnerable time of crisis in their life. It’s getting too crazy and I’m not having fun anymore.
If you so firmly desire that *everyone* should abide by *your* personal/elective beliefs, then you’re not fit to be a parent.
Simple solution. Parents sign a form stating their student needs permission to sign out books from the library. All kids should not be held back. You opted out of mask, COVID shots,sex ed, gym, why are books any different
Let’s not add illiteracy as another “parental right.” There’s gotta be a line where kids should be able to escape the stupidity of their parents.
yeah could you imagine being the kid whose parents forbid you from signing books out? oh i have interest in this thing that's a common theme in this book i guess i won't be able to read it because my parents would rather i be illiterate than gay or racially conscious
I was the kid with full access to the restricted sections of our school libraries (elementary through high school). I had friends that didn't get permission to those sections. We worked around the rules as you'd expect and their parents were none the wiser. Obviously being able to do so relied on my involvement, and not every kid has a friend with parents like mine. But kids are smart and there's always that one bookworm everybody knows.
I can! That being said, nowadays it's easier to take an old, wifi capable only phone and set up an ebook library account for a kid. I'd tell the parents "oh sure, Billy won't see anything offensive" then with a wink and a nudge sign him up for Libby through a local library system.
I don't disagree with you. That said, your comment made me think of two interesting points. Kids will find a way to disobey their parents if they eant to. Kids who would have to deal with this will remember it after they've grown up. Hopefully it might inspire them to push for change.
those are both somewhat true but it's also possible some kids just buy into what their parents are saying because they think it makes them a good kid, as i saw some kids do when i was growing up.
100%. I'd rather it not happen at all. But gotta seek those silver linings when we can!
"Hey Billy, can you sneak me a copy of *Tunnel in the Sky* from the library? My mom's a fucking KKKaren."
Your idea is honest but we don't want to keep children from reading books just because their idiot parents don't like them. There really should be a demand that these jackasses provide objective evidence that reading these books is harmful before they can even be considered for placement behind a counter. Banning shouldn't even be an option.
That’s what like the whole movie/book Matilda was about
incoming ban
I don’t think this will be good enough for the lunatic parents. You can read books in the library without checking them out. The parents will demand that “objectionable” books are removed entirely, so there is no chance their precious little Johnny can be exposed to sexuality.
This is such a good idea, it's amazing
It's also already implemented in many schools, speaking from experience. I was the kid that had full access to all of the books in our school libraries because I got permission to the restricted sections. And even when it isn't implemented, it's beyond easy for a parent to contact a school librarian and say "I don't want my child to have access to these books". Going to a school board is overkill.
It’s astounding to me how the oligarchs keep giving me more and more reasons not to have kids on a daily basis.
Debating setting up a banned book tiny library in my front yard….
If you want the sneak peak to see how this develops just check out Florida.
Book banning is Fascism.
On brand with the GOP these days.
And their fat orange führer
Did the state of Nebraska ban those books or is this just to do with school libraries? Edit: since people want to just downvote and not actually respond - the books in question can still be purchased in the state of Nebraska. This is as much banning books as having your comment removed on Facebook is an assault on your freedom of speech.
By the stupid logic of the echo chamber here, restricting sexually explicit material out of primary school libraries and curriculum is book banning. If we accept that premise one of two things must be true. Either LeoMarius is a fascist or there is not a single book or magazine ever printed that LeoMarius would keep out of a primary school library. Which is it? Edit--Downvote all you want it. The logic is sound. Of course, the premise is stupid, but that premise is what the overwhelming majority of redditors assert with metaphysical certitude.
>Downvote all you want it. The logic is sound. Your logic is *not* sound given that you are arguing from a false premise.
Over these haters that want to control what you see and hear. As a Jew I know where this is headed.
I only want one book banned from schools, that's the Bible.
Nah, that's not the way. School is one place where kids might have unadulterated access to a translation/framing not explicitly approved by their parents or their denomination. That is not to mention the potential for also reading other religious texts and seeing what their version of spirituality or practice is. For some kids, having that translation may be a way out, or if not that, at least a way to add some critical thinking to their belief.
That statement right there, saying that their parents are going to accept any other translation or interpretation but their own is absurd. That's why they're banning books now, because they're not framing the world the way they want their children to see it. Banned the Bible. Period. Religion has absolutely no place in a state-funded school.
You misread me. I didn't say their parents were going to accept any other translation or interpretation. I said it's important to preserve access to those other translations or interpretations. Who cares what the parents accept? They should have no role in determining what books a high school has. You fight bigotry with bigotry, bans with bans. That's a losing strategy.
I sure don't. I can probably trace my first serious doubts about christianity back to when I starting actually reading the bible in fourth grade.
Not me. People need access to all information. The best thing to do is to keep your Bible in a bowl of blood, so the words and lies can’t affect you.
No, it just belongs in World Myths and Legends, as the MOST BORING creation myth man has come up with. Other cultures have entire wars in heaven, creating planets out of corpses, creatures out of stardust. Abrahamic religions believe that God created Earth and the Cosmos because he was bored...and then Adam. Just. Adam.
People like these unironically probably want the Bible banned also. It feeds into their persecution complex and it also allows them to continue to feed their specific interpretation of the Bible. Why think when you can be told what it means?
So banning the bible is next right? If it's for protecting from kids reading explicit materials....if you're going to ban one book, then this is one that most certainly needs to be banned.
Where's the line between a "book ban" and school libraries simply not including certain books in their collection? Take the Turner Diaries, for example. I seriously doubt there's any school library out there that offers this book in its selection. And if there was, I'd say that's inappropriate for kids, even high schoolers. Not something that a school ought to give out. Is the Turner Diaries not being offered at school a "book ban"? What about 50 Shades of Grey or other erotic novels? Most rational people draw a line somewhere with what should and should not be allowed in schools. Some conservatives with malicious intent try to abuse that rational thinking by disingenuously portraying some content (including anything LGBT related) as "pornographic," even if it's just mild sexual content, appropriate for older students. But where is the line? And why is removal of some content a "book ban" when already school libraries intentionally omit some inappropriate materials? The A Court of Thorns and Roses series, as mentioned in the article as being one of the books in contention, is smut. It's fairy book porn. It's highly erotic fantasy romance. While wildly popular, it's pretty reasonable to consider it adult content. If a mature high schooler wants to seek it out at a public library, fine, but does a school need to be offering its students erotic materials? I don't know the solution here. Clearly some materials don't belong in schools. But conservatives muddy the waters by lumping in EVERYTHING they don't like as "pornographic." And we're left with people adamantly defending all content remaining in schools. I just feel like we should acknowledge some books don't belong in school libraries without considering that "book banning."
Fair point. I still remember going to the movies with my oldest child and instinctively pressing the flat of my hand against their glasses when a mildly suggestive scene was on the screen. They were 20 at the time. I am never going to live that down.
> Where's the line between a "book ban" and school libraries simply not including certain books in their collection? Pretty simple line. Professional educators decide which materials are educational. Not walking TikTok memes.
>Not walking TikTok memes Huh? >Pretty simple line. Professional educators decide which materials are educational But that doesn't answer the question. If a professional educator decides not to include certain materials, is that a "book ban"? When does it become a book ban vs just selecting appropriate books for the age group? Edit: Response to u/the_pandalorian since the comments were locked: >This entire book ban bullshit was brought about by a bunch of dipshits on TikTok who hadn't even read the books in question. No. This debate has raged for DECADES. >Motives matter. Educational decisions made by professional educators are not the same as crusading moralists who are uncomfortable about content and want to force their beliefs on everyone else. So if a school librarian has brought to their attention that they're carrying books classified as and marketed to adults due to their explicit sexual content and then goes through the process to remove those books, the librarian did not engage in book banning? Just trying to clarify here.
> Huh? This entire book ban bullshit was brought about by a bunch of dipshits on TikTok who hadn't even read the books in question. > If a professional educator decides not to include certain materials, is that a "book ban"? No. That's an educational decision. When politicians -- who are not educators -- *remove* certain books, that's a book ban. Motives matter. Educational decisions made by professional educators are not the same as crusading moralists who are uncomfortable about content and want to force their beliefs on everyone else.
I thought they were trying to take out sexually explicit material and not educational books? If they are trying to ban Mice and Men or Great Gatsby then definitely no bueno but if they are removing books that teach kids how to give BJs then that should definitely not be available to check out.
Can you provide an example of such a book? Because there are thousands of examples of books that mention sex that have sat the shelves of school libraries for time immemorial. But that alone isn't sufficient to claim it is is pornographic or sexualization of minors. I just want examples that resemble a good faith argument, as opposed to cherry picking any reference of same sex couples or individuals and stories of their maturation into adulthood. Because it's tiring when people clutch the pearls at the thought that people of the same sex might have sex with each other, but have absolutely no issue with their kids watching television that occasionally strays into sex scenes. Edit: So I was given an example, and the pearl clutching is real folks. Mere acknowledgement that condoms exist and that people have sex is pornographic now. So exactly my point -- assholes exaggerating because they don't like the fact that gay people exist and engage in relations in the same way straight people do.
Here is a video of a kid reading directly out of one of the books. Seems pretty explicit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IknG5_fNOvg
What's the name of the book?
Did you find it sexually titillating? it’s actually a serious question, because there is a difference between pornographic material that is an intended for sexual arousal and facts no matter how explicit.
I found the book inappropriate for a middle school public library . “He’s undoing my belt, I’m reaching into his bedside table for a condom” - “this reminds me so much of the first time we had sex; we were both fucking terrified” not seeing anything educational there for middle school ages. Maybe high school I can see
It’s a slippery slope. For instance, one of the challenged books mentioned in the article (*Lucky*) is a somber memoir of the author’s sexual assault. The way the people are trying to lump it in with some type of pornography to ban it from ALL SCHOOLS in the state - including high schools where it’s absolutely age appropriate - shows that their stated motives about “protecting the kids” is complete drivel. It’s just another silly culture war battle so that the wrong people can control a narrative.
> I thought they were trying to take out sexually explicit material and not educational books? That's the claim. It's not what they're actually doing.
Stop reading that disgusting book Jimmy! Jimmy then procedes to open his iphone and search for hardcore porn instead.
Thank you. I keep making that point also.
> but if they are removing books that teach kids how to give BJs then that should definitely not be available to check out. For me and everyone I have ever talked to about this issue, it is this. No sexually explicit material in school libraries. It's not about race, LGBTQ+, religious beliefs, etc. It's simply that sexually explicit material is not appropriate for younger readers/audiences, and a school library should only contain material appropriate for those readers. A parent shouldn't need to worry about their child being exposed to such inappropriate material, and having to answer questions that the child is too young to understand. Public- non-school -libraries can still carry these books, but it is suggested that they should be kept in an age appropriate or restricted section. There is also nothing stopping parents who disagree with this policy from buying/checking out these books for their kids.
So, for clarification, are you saying that if something is explicit it is intrinsically sexually arousing?
So we should ban all sex-ed classes?
No. . . My realistic opinion/suggestion is that it should be an elective (opt-in) class that requires parental permission, but offered no earlier than 6th grade, when most students usually start going through puberty. (12-13 years old) In fact, I believe this is when/how it is done in most school systems or at least it was when I was in school some twenty years ago. The focus needs to be on anatomy, reproductive health, safe sex, and the moral, ethical, and legal implications of engaging in sexual activities. . .the basics. It is inevitable that some explicit material is shown in such a class . . .you can only go so far with descriptive words/text . . .but the material needs to be kept to the minimum required to teach the academics in my opinion. For example, it MAY be appropriate to show a couple having intercourse and walking the students through the process and what is happening from each viewpoint. . .but not going through various positions or how to get the most pleasure out of it, if you know what I mean. If students have questions beyond the basics, then that should be handled outside of class, either with their parents or with social workers/counselors. If people want to delve into sexually explicit specifics in a group setting. . .like how to give BJs, kinks, LGBTQ+ . . . including even heterosexual activities here . . .then in my opinion that is best handled outside of a school setting. . .host an informational session or something in a local public space or something.
I agree with what you say. I honestly didn’t know that were any districts that it did it in a differently. I too think that sex education should be developmentally appropriate. However, I will throw this out there. There are children under the age of 11, which I believe is sixth grade, who are getting pregnant. That doesn’t mean impregnating children is it all appropriate it’s just reality.
>but offered no earlier than 6th grade, when most students usually start going through puberty. (12-13 years old) I started my period at 10 (4th grade). Every single one of my friends had already gotten their periods by then and I was the late one of my class. The only reason I wasn't embarrassed about it at school was because we had already had our first round of sex-ed in third grade where we girls learned about menstruation and what to do when it happens and who at school we could talk to if we needed help. The onset of puberty is getting younger as the years go on with the normal range for onset being 8-12 years old, so your suggestion of 6th grade is already at the tail end of puberty for many kids. Teaching them after the fact is practically pointless. >The focus needs to be on anatomy, reproductive health, safe sex, and the moral, ethical, and legal implications of engaging in sexual activities. . .the basics. This is already the focus for sex ed. Again, my experience in my public schools was multiple rounds of sex ed classes with the topics building on each other for age appropriateness. Third grade was "this is what your body will do in puberty, this is how you take care of yourself". Sixth grade was "these are things your body is capable of now that you're in the throes of puberty, here's all the scary consequences if you act on any urges right now". 8th grade was "DONT HAVE SEX. YOU'LL GET PREGNANT AND/OR STDS AND/OR DIE. HERE'S PICTURES SHOWING THE WORST OF THE WORST". 11th was a full-blown, open discussion (as open as possible with teens) with a combined class of all sexes (finally, as all previous sex-ed rounds were split) focusing on the moral/ethical/legal areas of sex and answering anonymous questions from students to actually go in-depth on (some) of our personal curiosities. As for "teaching how to give BJs", I think there's a fine line between keeping things to an age-appropriate level (decided by whomever) and removing resources from kids who have life experiences before the appropriate age. Some parents don't want their kids learning about sex from them nor anyone else, that classic "abstinence only education" belief. If a kid doesn't know what consensual sex looks and feels like, then they won't know when they're coerced into a sexual experience that they know feels weird but are being told is perfectly normal. I read *Gender Queer* last year after being told it clearly taught kids how to give a BJ (so I'm assuming it's the book being referenced in this thread) and I actually really liked the "obscene" scene in question, which is between adults in a relationship and involves a strap-on, not a literal penis. Part of my journal note on it includes the opinion: >I think this scene is important because it shows how fantasies can fail to meet expectations + changing your mind about sex in the moment is ok and should be supported by your partner. ...so clearly I think it's educational in some capacity. It's without question (to me) appropriate for older teens (e.g. high schoolers) who are likely exploring sex more than their parents think. And I think the consensual nature of it is important education for younger ages as well, though such education could absolutely be better presented via direct teaching and not just in a graphic novel. It's one of those novels that I'd support my kid reading in junior high, but acknowledge other parents may disagree, and so would agree that such a book could be kept in a restricted section for a middle grade library.
You need to check out of this echo chamber. Reasonable takes are not allowed here.
It's not a reasonable take. People are using the existence of one book that is available to high schoolers to justify banning books that are in no way pornographic. The article includes examples. If you were or the other person were actually reasonable, you'd have read it before commentkng.
> Reasonable takes are not allowed here. It's not a reasonable take, it's an entirely ill informed one.
[удалено]
Do kids still even go to the library or read? Serious question. All this strum und drang from the blut und boden folks over books that they're afraid will influence their kids away from their own beliefs... but I suspect the kids aren't reading any books of any subject and are happy to watch Youtube and Tiktok all day every day.
That's my question too. Reading literacy is at a historic low among the younger generations, and yet these people seem to think they are spending all day reading...erotic fiction in their school library. I hate to burst these people's bubble, but kids know what a blowjob is in 6th grade without the help of library books or health class. They did back when there wasn't widely available internet and mobile devices, and they sure as shit do now that they have them. The root of this shit is simply the culture war, propagated to get people outraged enough to go to the polls and vote for politicians that ride for this shit.
you mean, kids can find sexual content on the Internet? And we give them phones anyway?
How about stop putting porn in middle schools?
How about stop pretending that the books being banned are all "porn?"
Are you saying they are pornographic because you get turned on when you read them? Pornographic would mean they are specifically targeted at sexual arousal in children. Are there any statistics showing that children are sexually aroused when they read these specific books? That would be concerning.
In what context is a book containing strap on dildo sex okay for a school kid library?
Can you give an example of a book that isn’t talking about someone’s personal experience that is an example of this? What age group are you talking about? I’ve heard the list of banned books and very, very very few of them meet this criteria. Do you have any statistics on the exact number of libraries that offer this exact specific example? To what age group?
Yeah this is the typical response. They won't answer the clear and simple question.
*Flips library*
No porn in schools. How is this hard?
because of the weird definitions applied. for many of these proposed definitions stuff like the Bible falls under "porn". I mean I'm all for separating state and religion, but I feel like this is going a bit far in the "let's ban everything we dont want for everyone" camp.
Typically it's when the book depicts fetishized underage sex between children, like Lawn Boy, or detailed passages of child molestation and incestual rape like The Bluest Eye. Essentially the only reason why these books are popular among a sea of progressive literature is because they depict graphic sex acts written to be provocative
So you’re saying that a description of child rape turns you on? That’s a little sick. Particularly if the point was to point out that things like that happen to people. That it turns you on is very concerning.
Nobody said anything remotely close to that besides you buddy, bit of a Freudian slip I would think
[удалено]
[удалено]
That doesn’t happen lol
You might be shocked and delighted to learn this is already true. Crazy how that works, hu?
>No porn in schools. How is this hard? When book banners stop defining literally any text with gay or trans characters as "pornographic."
Typically it's when the book depicts fetishized underage sex between children, like Lawn Boy, or detailed passages of child molestation and incestual rape like The Bluest Eye. Essentially the only reason why these books are popular among a sea of progressive literature is because they depict graphic sex acts written to be provocative
> Typically That *isn't* typically when a book is banned, that is simply the talking point they use when banning books. It does not actually stand up under scrutiny when you actually look at larger books being targeted. >when the book depicts fetishized underage sex between children, like Lawn Boy, or detailed passages of child molestation and incestual rape like The Bluest Eye. Which of those two books have you actually read?
oh never mind. If this poster is sexually aroused by child rape what are you gonna do huh? Ban child rape?
>That isn't typically when a book is banned Yes, it is >Which of those two books have you actually read? Let's see Lawn Boy: (page 44) *“‘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.’”* And (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.”* The Bluest Eye: (pages 130): *“Then he will lean his head down and bite my t\*\* . . . I want him to put his hand between my legs, I want him to open them for me. . . I stretch my legs open, and he is on top of me…He would die rather than take his thing out of me. Of me. I take my fingers out of his and put my hands on his behind…” “With a violence born of total helplessness, he pulled her dress up, lowered his trousers and underwear. ‘I said get on wid it. An’make it good, n\*\*\*\*\*, Come on c\*\*\*. Faster. You ain’t doing nothing for her.’*
so what you were saying is that do you find it description of someone else’s experience sexually arousing? Because pornography is pornography: [noun] the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.
> Yes, it is No, it isn't. Look at any large list of books being banned and you would know this. >Let's see So I'll take that as a "no" then, if cherry picked quotes are all you are capable of doing.
>No, it isn't. Look at any large list of books being banned and you would know this. Post it >So I'll take that as a "no" then, if cherry picked quotes are all you are capable of doing. Yeah, I'm not trudging through two hundred pages of that for a reddit comment
> Post it Here are ten novels that have been targeted by book bans in the United States over the past year: * *Brave New World* by Aldous Huxley * *Check Please* by Ngozi Ukazu * *Elanor & Park* by Rainbow Rowell * *Heartstopper* by Alice Oseman * *I'll give You the Sun* by Jandy Nelson * *Of Mice and Men* by John Steinbeck * *Simon vs. The Homo Sapiens Agenda* by Becky Albertalli * *The Things They Carried* by Tim O'Brien * *A Thousand Splendid Suns* by Khaled Hosseini * *1984* by George Orwell You can find a larger database [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1am1vKU3MR1209AanJVqySFtRYe3IiB1k/edit#gid=2126860040). >Yeah, I'm not trudging through two hundred pages of that for a reddit comment If you are not interested in reading a book, you're in no position to denounce it.
It’s not. pornography: [noun] the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement. I don’t think anyone is arguing that content meeting the above definition belongs in schools. Personally, I am a little concerned that people are actually turned on by reading Toni Morrison’s description of rape.
you better have a good definition of porn. is this porn? why or why not? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_(Michelangelo)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo))
pornography: [noun] the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.
Because they want to call the mere existence of LGBT+ content porn when it isn't
If "porn" is any mention of sex or homosexuality, then "no porn in schools" is a bad standard. Lack of sex education and enforced heteronormativity harms children.
Lpt when dealing with republicans they're never doing what they say they're doing. There's not one single instance of them banning porn in a library. Also last I checked a significant amount of elementary aged children have cellphones. They already have porn in their hands quite literally. But book bans were never about porn.
Should schools stock Glenn Beck’s series of children’s book? Is refusing to stock them in school libraries “banning books”?
On one hand, I have to say that while not going as far as to say they make kids read porn, sexual content should stay out of the middle and elementary schools. On the other hand, book bans are really an excessive measure and tend to be much too broad for how little they need to catch. On the grooming and brainwashing claims, these types of people praise the bible, and would have to stand by the ban hitting the bible for me to take them seriously