Madison County Public Library administrators were asked to go over a list of potentially "sexually explicit" books to be moved from the children's and young adult section to the adult section. The majority of these books were about the LGBTQ community. At least one was added to the list because the ...
Madison County Public Library administrators were asked to go over a list of potentially "sexually explicit" books to be moved from the children's and young adult section to the adult section. The majority of these books were about the LGBTQ community. At least one was added to the list because the author's last name is Gay.
Hey, the Bible is totally child friendly. Like that passage where Lot's daughters get him drunk and have sex with him in order to have his babies.
Or the one that describes how a guy's brother died without having an heir. So the guy got to have sex with his sister-in-law in order to give her a son. Except he pulled out at the last second and "let his seed spill on the ground" and was killed for breaking his word.
Or maybe the passage where Dinah was raped and her rapist wanted to marry her. Dinah's brothers agreed, but only if all the men in that village got circumcised. Then, when all the men were "indisposed," the brothers ran in, killed all the men, and took the women and children captive.
Mein Kampf has very interesting parts about reproductivity of animals. Statements such as
"the stork goes to the female stork, field mouse to field mouse, house mouse to house mouse, wolf to wolf, etc..."
are truly remarkable in his incomprehensibly big brain revelations about biology. Then he moves on to explain how the same would apply to humans, completely brushing over the fact that storks and mouse are different kinds and he is too stupid to differentiate between race and kind.
Fyi since I'm assuming you didn't read the article, the book was just moved out of the Children's section. Obviously a mistake in instance, but it's not being banned. Mein Kampf is not in the children's section. I think it's fine for sexually explicit books (i.e. the book "Gender queer") to be moved out of the children's section
"See, it's not really censorship because..." is an argument anyone should be ashamed to make. Conservatives never have a problem with Mein Kampf in any context.
Oh wow, looks like I've got "be Gay" down every day for the whole year!
You know what isn't here? Forcing other people at the point of a sword to follow my religious beliefs about sexuality, gender, and expression. Not a single minute of that in the whole schedule.
Reminds me of that time when some Christian website had put an RSS news feed on their home page, but of course the owner had insisted on putting a word filter on it.
So the website had a headline about "Tyson Homosexual" winning gold.
People immediately started wondering what kind of headlines the website would have on the anniversary of the historic flight of Enola Homosexual and the Hiroshima bombing.
Reminds me of the good old days when AOL was king of the dial-up “internet”. They unilaterally rolled out a filter that suddenly completely broke a forum devoted to survivors of breast cancer. Only after a ton of backlash and negative press about “survivors of hooter cancer” did they relent…
I'm impressed. The author is so committed to brainwashing our innocent children into having sex that she went back in time and gave herself the name Gay.
These loons are to books what Frankenstein's monster was to fire. I want to know who told them what's inside those buildings the smart people hang out in.
Wait until these people remember that the bomber that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, an act of heroism and a very much necessary slaughter of 100,000 civilians (don't worry, they were the bad guys), was christened Enola Gay.
I may be off my rocker here but I will bet the author has a discrimination lawsuit, if he finds a cleaver enough lawyer to argue the semantics of it.... also gay used to and still does mean happy and was used as late as the 80s in the USA... it only recently changed since the 90s to mean an orientation.... so I bet this author could have an interesting day in court....
Please, isolate this fuck'd up country! USA is boring us to hell with their stupidity and are literally giving ammunition to LGBTQAZ madness.
In the meanwhile, real ugly books with LGTBTQAZ propaganda are distributed to 6yo.
Blame the borderline pornographic books that activists have been pushing on children for this response. And before you say "this never happens" go look up the book "Gender Queer" that shows people sucking dick, doing anal, etc
Lmao, have you read Gender Queer? The protagonist comes out as asexual and mainly describes sexual topics either in the context of being uncomfortable with them or in the context of body issues. Nudity isn't automatically sexual. If I were a teen and was told this book was being removed for being pornographic, I'd feel pretty ripped off!
Yeah, Gender Queer is definitely a little more graphic than I think the average kid below 12-13 or so really shouldn't be seeing. The illustrations on oral sex are definitely a little more than I'm comfortable with for readers who aren't knowing what they're opening up, mostly because if i had pulled this bad boy out to read on the bus going home, I'd definitely have been bullied, hard.
I think that book is important for publication, definitely place it in an area designed for teens and those very close to it. But I wouldn't call it borderline pornographic any more than I would have called Catcher in the Rye borderline racist. If I had read this growing up, it might have helped me make sense of things, but I can see why it's such a hot button topic for some and an easy target for others.
FYI, Gender Queer was written for adults and was later deemed as appropriate for high schoolers (13/14 and older) by professional reviewers. It's not typically put in libraries for younger audiences.
Gender Queer was never intended for children. It is aimed at adults and young adults.
The NEA recommended it on a list of books for educators and some people misinterpreted this (perhaps purposely, since it acts as really nice fuel for the fear fire) as being recommended for children.
Classic moral panic. Find a few volumes to scream about loudly enough and use that as justification for removing any book that doesn't square with your bigotry.
If anyone bothered to read the article, the book is not being banned but is simply flagged for removal from the children's section into the adult section. Obviously a mistake in this instance but there has been a recent rise in sexually explicit books being marketed towards children in the name of activism.
There hasn't been a rise in sexually explicit books being marketed to children. There's been a rise in claims that anything that even touches upon LGBTQ is sexually explicit.
There's a book about two male penguins that raise an egg/chick. It's based on a true story. But since it's two MALE penguins, it's deemed "not appropriate for children" and is moved out of the children's section. Nevermind that the book is designed for kids or that there's no "penguin sex" in the book. The mere fact that two males are sharing a parental role is enough to label it "sexually explicit" because the people who oppose this book imagine that the two male penguins might have sex at some point. Meanwhile, if the exact same book were published but with a male and female penguin, it would be okay. Even if you could imagine the male and female penguin having sex. (And, again, there's no actual sex or even the implication of sex. This is totally in the imaginations of the adults trying to ban the book.)
There hasn’t been a rise in sexually explicit books being marketed to children
You've clearly chosen your side but I hope you can come to acknowledge that maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Some people are using this as an excuse to criticize lgbt but it's also true that sex positive activists are a bit too eager to impose their beliefs on children in public schools. What you described is probably an example of the former, but that does not mean the latter doesn't happen.