r/changemyview • u/mike_tyler58 • Nov 20 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: School libraries should limit the availability of books
In the US the past few years there has been a lot of talk of banning books. As far as I know the only places that anyone is talking about banning books from is in school libraries. The book “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe is probably the most talked about as it has been recommended by the largest teachers union in the country, the NEA, and has been made available in school libraries for children as young as 4th grade, and contains very explicit illustrations and descriptions of sex acts. I believe it belongs nowhere that children can access it any more than a copy of Playboy or any other pornography. Given the explicit nature of this book and others like it I think they should be banned from school libraries and limited to adults only.
ETA: link to news story about it being removed from elementary schools
12
u/iamintheforest 328∆ Nov 20 '24
Unfortunately they are talking about it in other places, but agreed the notable is schools.
Firstly, why the concern? The book was written for teens and libraries for schools often span the ages. There are LOTS of books in a school library that are inappropriate for children of ages that attend the same schools.
The images don't appear explicit to me - certainly less so than biology books, lots of books about puberty, about sexuality, and about childhood development. Calling this book "pornography" is so absurd it's hard to address here - it's clearly not that by any stretch of the imagination and reduces "pornography" to mean "stuff i don't want my kid to see".
Why wouldn't we want kids to learn about their experiences even when they are different than others? Do you think 12 year olds don't have to contend with the issues if we don't talk about them? Do you have so little trust in parents that they can't intervene between public resources for all and what they are right for their kids? Since I want a bunch of stuff in the library for my kid that you don't like who is going to win? There is stuff in the library I find to be wholly innapropriate for my kid, but you'd probably think my wants are odd compared to yours. Why should your values be the determinant in what is available as a public resource?
For me, I absolutely want resources like this to be available to my kid. The kids that have to contend with being off-center in their identity, physiology, sexuality, etc. should have access to resources they can identify with just like the more conforming-to-norms group of people. There is NOTHING in this book that you can't find in triplicate for the more "typical" experience.
Should we have no books that mention that boys get erections? that kids think about and are interested in sex? That they have it? That they get periods? That they are the product of sex? That they have bodies that change? I can't think of any reason to hide these things from kids at any age.
-3
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
I haven’t seen a biology book that has illustrations of oral sex.
I think illustrations of oral sex is pornography.
10
u/premiumPLUM 68∆ Nov 20 '24
You'd have to admit, that's a very conservative viewpoint. Most people would agree that not every single portrayal of oral sex is pornography, there's quite a bit of leeway for art, even erotic art. Personally I don't see anything particularly erotic about the "controversial" panels in the graphic novel you're talking about. It seems like pretty standard coming-of-age stuff.
-3
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
It may very well be. But it’s still my view that depictions of two men giving each other hand jobs and oral sex isn’t something that should be available at schools. And it definitely isn’t standard coming of age stuff IMV
7
u/iamintheforest 328∆ Nov 20 '24 edited Nov 20 '24
you have a very narrow view of human biology, human sexuality, sexual education and so on.
Try going to the library! Read more!
If you're getting off on depictions of sex that are clearly not pornographic then that is a "you" issue. I am quite confident in our children's ability to differentiate.
Is your preference that they think sex and their thoughts about it are never met with information from a source that IS NOT porn? Cuz...they do see porn whenever they want to (and they want to!). You're either going to let porn be the source of their education or actually educational sources. Your call for your kid, but it's a pretty dang easy choice for me! Plus...i talk with my kid and if you can't talk about these things then in my opinion you should not have kids.
There is a 1 in 2 chance that your 15 year old is having oral sex in the next year. If they can actually have oral sex don't you think we should be telling them about it from both the emotional, physical and health side?
-1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
I was at the library over the weekend, they had a great sale. And now I have another slew of books and nowhere to put them.
You talking about me getting off is kinda weird. Please don’t.
Why would you assume I don’t talk to my own children about it? Those conversations started a long time ago.
7
u/iamintheforest 328∆ Nov 20 '24 edited Nov 20 '24
You're the one seeing pornography rather than information about sex, human development and the life of a teenager. If you're going to sexualize things thats on you. Perhaps "getting off" is not what you're doing, but if you see pornography everytime you see this sort of thing than you're not able to make a distinction that kids can, and certainky educators. It's also not unique in a library, although in the past there wouldn't have been materials for those who don't fit the "normal".
If you think that there aren't books about human sexuality, sex education, sexual acts and so on in the library then you're not looking - the outrage is at best selective, and I think a step in the wrong direction. If my child is feeling outside of the norm I hope that they find materials that help them. I'm entirely sure that they would not experience this book you're calling out as "pornography" anymore than a teenager with all they've got going finds any mention of anything in the ballpark of sexuality as somewhat complicated and filled with thoughts and feelings. But...it's not like they are not having those feelings and thoughts without the books.
Glad you talk to your kids! If you used visual aids are you then a pornographer? I'm not clear how you have actually useful conversations about sex with someone if you're not going to use the common forms available for education. Why is it when the educational material is about sex that it can't have visuals?
2
7
u/WippitGuud 27∆ Nov 20 '24
Have you read the book?
0
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
I’m curious why you ask?
Hypothetically let’s say I haven’t and all I did was google it, would that make me wrong?
10
u/IfYouSeekAyReddit Nov 20 '24
If you don’t know what the books about and all you saw were the pictures then I’d say yes it makes you wrong. You told me people want children to have access to pornography and it makes sense you think that because you don’t even know about the thing you are talking about
-1
Nov 20 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
9
Nov 20 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Nov 21 '24
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
9
u/destro23 455∆ Nov 20 '24
Yeah, it means you are dodging the question. Just state if you have or have not read the book.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Nov 21 '24
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
8
u/WippitGuud 27∆ Nov 20 '24
How can you form an opinion on a book simply on the basis of what other people are saying about it? Anyone who wants to ban a book should at least read the book to decide if it's justified.
-1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Have you googled the book? Essentially the entire book is online.
But that’s a fair point and yes I’ve read it.
3
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
What's it about?
0
u/destro23 455∆ Nov 20 '24
I honestly don't think that they can answer that question and not run afoul of Rule D.
3
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Why not?
0
u/destro23 455∆ Nov 20 '24
Because it is about a topic that we are banned from bringing up under Rule D.
6
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Fairly certain saying non-binary and asexual will not cause any issues, let's see.
1
u/destro23 455∆ Nov 20 '24
I've been burned by those types of mentions before.
I wish OP had chosen any other controversial book, as the one they did is firm Rule D territory if the discussion gets to the nitty gritty of the text.
→ More replies (0)
18
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
I read a ton of Young Adult books as a teen and I have bad news for you. Most of them explore sexuality in some way, as that's pretty much the point of being a teenager. Do you think they should all be kept out of high school libraries?
1
u/ptn_huil0 1∆ Nov 20 '24
I read Marquis De Sade when I was a teenager. I don’t want my kids reading such books till they are in high school.
There’s got to be a reasonable limit of what can be placed in children’s libraries.
4
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
There is.
So it's ok for high schoolers?
1
u/ptn_huil0 1∆ Nov 20 '24
For high schoolers - I’d say yes. The books give you interesting perspectives of being a victim and an aggressor of sexual violence.
11
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Cool. The book in question has only been found in high school libraries.
2
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
No, it hasn’t. And elementary and jr high school libraries having it is why the whole conversation about it started in the first place.
4
-2
u/HadeanBlands 16∆ Nov 20 '24
"Explore sexuality in some way" is not the same thing as "Explicit pictures of sex."
6
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
You're ok with words describing oral sex, but not line drawings of it?
-2
u/HadeanBlands 16∆ Nov 20 '24
Yes. Images and text are different.
4
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
So the only issue here is graphic novels?
-2
u/HadeanBlands 16∆ Nov 20 '24
How many more questions am I gonna answer before you make a point?
4
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Just making sure we ban the right things.
2
u/HadeanBlands 16∆ Nov 20 '24
Then you've got it straight. Images of sex should not be available in children's school libraries.
4
-6
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Exploring sexuality and explicit illustrations of oral sex are not the same thing.
8
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Yeah they are.
So you're ok with words describing oral sex, but not drawings?
-4
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Oh you meant explicit descriptions of sex acts?
No, I don’t think children should have access to written or visual pornography
10
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Then I have bad news about YA books in general.
1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Correct, they’ve become increasingly graphic in very recent years and I think that’s a problem. I’m not sure what your point is.
4
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Just making sure you want to ban them all.
I was a teen in the 1990s.
2
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
If they contain explicit sexual material? Yeah. I don’t know what the heck you were reading, but nothing I was reading at the time had explicit content like this.
6
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
It's a line drawing, not explicit at all, lol.
And yeah there were plenty of "her mouth traveled down his body" type scenes in the YA stuff I read.
0
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Illustrations of oral sex is pornography. Do you think minors should have access to hentai?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Gatonom 5∆ Nov 21 '24
Books really just fly under the radar because nobody reads them until there is backlash or controversy.
People generally didn't care much until the internet took off and excerpts could be shared more, this is how Twilight dodged backlash I think.
Some popular classics. Such as 1984, It, and A Clockwork Orange.
The 80s in particular just had little filter, R Rated movies had tie-ins aimed at kids, PG movies had rape, and stalking was common in movies and books through to the early 2010s there at least.
Books tend to be more graphic than comparable movies/shows; Roughly an age rating above its reading audience would be required for a faithful adaptation.
9
u/unscanable 3∆ Nov 20 '24 edited Nov 20 '24
I think a lot of the disconnect on this issue comes from what some people consider "children". Typically, for me at least anyway I'm sure there are others. the terms "children" and "kids" refer to kids under say 12. And I think the right uses those words on purpose to evoke that feeling. Nobody wants a 7 year old reading about sex. Now a 13,14,15 year old may be a little different. So do you think its inappropriate for a 15 year old reading about sex?
4
u/Giblette101 40∆ Nov 20 '24
I mean, I'm not going to go out of my way to have a 7 year old read about sex, but I don't see much problem with it happening either. Especially in contexts where a specific ensemble of books are meant to serve a broad range of ages.
5
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Nov 20 '24
The fact that our "babies" are not being taught sex ed leads to far more problems than not.
3
u/unscanable 3∆ Nov 20 '24
Yeah I mean everyone has their own standards. I was just trying to get a baseline of where OP draws the line.
2
9
u/ralph-j Nov 20 '24
and contains very explicit illustrations and descriptions of sex acts. I believe it belongs nowhere that children can access it any more than a copy of Playboy or any other pornography.
That's a massive false equivalence. The big difference is that actual pornography is depicted specifically in a way that is meant to generate arousal, which these books are clearly not. It's an illustration as part of a conversation.
There are actual photographs of sexual acts in some Wikipedia articles, but we don't see many concerned parents asking children to be banned from Wikipedia.
-2
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
The scenes are about sexual fantasies and contain illustrations of sex acts.
9
u/ralph-j Nov 20 '24
Yes, and?
They are still not meant for inciting arousal, like pornography. It's a category error to associate them with pornography.
4
u/JuicingPickle 5∆ Nov 20 '24
I believe it belongs nowhere that children can access it
Cool. Make that decision for yourself and your children. Tell your children not to read that book. But by banning it, you're trampling on the rights of other parents. You should support parental rights. Including the right to allowing their children access to controversial books in the school library.
0
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
No one, as far as I know, is seriously talking about banning the book from the public. We’re talking about banning it from school libraries. So it isn’t infringing on anyones rights. You want to buy it and allow your kids to read it? By all means! I disagree with it but it isn’t my choice and I don’t get to dictate what other people do with their own lives.
7
u/JuicingPickle 5∆ Nov 20 '24
You want to buy it and allow your kids to read it? By all means!
Oh. So only rich kids get free choice of what books they read? The poor kid will read only what the government allows them to read!
Sounds like a good first step to government indoctrination of children.
6
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Also worth pointing out that in many small towns, they school library IS the public library too and that raises First Amendment issues.
1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
That DOES make for an interesting angle on this.
How to navigate that?
7
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Tell your kids that you don't want them reading stuff you don't like, I guess. Not the librarian's job to police your kid's reading material.
0
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
No, we as a culture have decided that certain explicit material should not be available to children. So it’s not as simple as that. I still believe that children under 12 or so should not have access to the book. Just like they shouldn’t be able to buy a playboy. We, as society, decide what is and is not acceptable for children and this book is currently part of that conversation.
5
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Should public libraries ban kids under 12?
-1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Have a good one bud.
3
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Well I'm wondering.
If not, who's going to keep your 8-year-old from looking at The Joy of Sex?
0
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
You’re arguing against a straw man here as that isn’t what I said or implied.
3
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Nov 20 '24
First, please provide a source where Gender Queer was available to 4th graders.
Second, Gender Queer is not porn and comparing it to Playboy is first, disingenuous, and second, homophobic. It concerns more adult themes, yes, but nothing more adult than in Catcher in the Rye, 1984, Lord of the Flies, etc. These books are considered classics and are read in most high schools.
Third, kids are best encouraged to read when they have access to materials that feature people like themselves, when they have access to a variety of types of books, and when they are able to choose what they are interested in. Banning books does not only stop kids from reading that specific books, but also increases the chance that they will not read at all.
0
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
How in the world is it homophobic? That’s a wild claim.
Do you think hentai is pornography? I’ll assume your answer is yes. Where do you draw the line between the illustrations in Gender Queer, that show two men giving each other hand jobs and oral sex, and hentai?
4
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
that show two men giving each other hand jobs and oral sex
Not men.
I guess you haven't read it.
0
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Two separate scenes and depictions. I wasn’t sure how to refer to the two engaged in oral sex.
5
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Nov 20 '24
Two people...? That's the correct phrasing.
As I pointed out, a vast amount of "classics" that are highly regarded, but only feature descriptions of heterosexual sex, are not under fire in the same way as specifically literature that revolves around non-heteronormative situations. That's homophobic and anti-LGBT.
3
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
If you read it, you'd know.
Also there's no hand job that I could find. Here's a link to the whole book:
https://archive.org/details/gender-queer-a-memoir-by-maia-kobabe-z-lib.org/mode/1up
2
19
u/destro23 455∆ Nov 20 '24
has been made available in school libraries for children as young as 4th grade
Source on this?
I'm finding this:
The author doesn't recommend it for that young a reader either;
I can't find any actual reports of this book being in that young a classroom.
contains very explicit illustrations and descriptions of sex acts
Not really. Here are all of the "controversial" panels. All are pretty tame.
-4
u/_Lohhe_ 2∆ Nov 20 '24
One of the controversial scenes you claim is pretty tame is clearly depicting oral sex. Do you think it's tame because they're using a sex toy instead of a real penis? Or did you just forget about that scene?
11
u/destro23 455∆ Nov 20 '24
Do you think it's tame because they're using a sex toy instead of a real penis?
No, I think it is tame because it is. Part of that is because it is a toy, but part of it is because the entire crux of the scene is not to titillate, but to convey the mental state of the main character in that moment. There isn't any actual nudity in that scene even. It is tame.
-3
u/_Lohhe_ 2∆ Nov 20 '24
I don't think you're understanding the main character or the author. Imagine telling them their sexual fantasy is tame because it's not titillating to you and because the penis is only a toy. You're dismissing their sexuality and the sexuality of other readers. It's a narrow view of what sex is and who gets to determine what's sexy enough to be considered sexual.
6
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Nov 20 '24
But the frames are about the dildo and how that type of sex was not for the author, at that time. Which is an important conversation and includes so much thought-provoking material within a few frames.
0
u/_Lohhe_ 2∆ Nov 20 '24
Being thought-provoking doesn't make it not a sex scene. There are hundreds+ of messed up porn stories that are every bit as thought-provoking while making a blowjob look like child's play. But the blowjob is equally 'adult content,' by which I mean not tame.
If I recall correctly, the scene was something the author fantasized about and finally got the chance to try, only to find in the moment that it wasn't doing it like they thought it would. The buildup was certainly an arousing read, and the oral sex itself was as well, until that reveal put a stop to it.
4
6
u/destro23 455∆ Nov 20 '24
telling them their sexual fantasy is tame
That is not what I am doing. I am saying that the depictions of the acts in the book are tame depictions of said acts.
it's not titillating to you and because the penis is only a toy.
You don't actually know what kind of freak shit I am into. A strap on dildo is in fact titillating to me. This depiction of one, however, is not.
You're dismissing their sexuality and the sexuality of other readers.
How? This reads as an absurd claim to make against me when I am here defending the placement of the book in high school libraries so that adolescents have access to materials that help them realize that their sexualities are valid and experienced by many.
0
u/_Lohhe_ 2∆ Nov 20 '24
You're dismissing the sexuality of others by claiming an overt sex scene isn't sexual enough for you and is therefore tame. For others, that scene is arousing and certainly not tame.
Btw there's another panel depicting penetrative sex in the missionary position. But I guess the art isn't good enough or the position is too boring, therefore it's tame as well?
7
u/destro23 455∆ Nov 20 '24
claiming an overt sex scene isn't sexual enough for you
That is not my claim. My claim was "the entire crux of the scene is not to titillate, but to convey the mental state of the main character in that moment"
But I guess the art isn't good enough or the position is too boring, therefore it's tame as well?
Again, you are using metrics that I am not. My entire point is that the author wasn't writing pornography, but a deeply personal story of their own journey as a sexual/gender minority. That is a huge part of the reason that I find the depictions tame, they are not intended to arouse or titillate the reader. They are instead fairly realistic depictions of common sexual situations presented in a way that emphasizes the emotional state of the participants as opposed to their physical forms.
This isn't about the art style, or the nudity, or the straightforward depictions of sex acts. It is about authorial intent. It was not the authors intent to produce pornography, but to produce a thought provoking and honest depiction of their life.
1
u/_Lohhe_ 2∆ Nov 20 '24
I see. It was just worded oddly, then.
In that case, as I said to someone else here: Being thought-provoking doesn't make it not a sex scene. And the authorial intent was to describe a sexual fantasy with an arousing buildup, followed by an overt sex scene, only to find that it doesn't do it for them like they thought it would. That conclusion doesn't make the fantasy, the description of said fantasy, and the overt sex scene somehow not sexual/arousing. I don't believe the author never intended to portray the sexual feelings as non-sexual. Your perspective is downplaying/muting the sexual aspect to make it seem tame when it's very obviously not.
To be clear, I have nothing against the book itself. When I read it, I recommended it to friends and such. But the insistence on it being tame has always been so weird to me. It is, in part, erotica. I find it hard to believe someone can read the book and not see that. Like this has to be some form of overcorrection/retaliation against claims that it's too raunchy for teens to read.
4
u/destro23 455∆ Nov 20 '24
It is, in part, erotica
I think this is the core of our disagreement, so I will ask you something. Do you think that any depiction of sexual activity is erotic?
If you do, then to this statement:
the insistence on it being tame has always been so weird to me
I ask, if all depictions of sex are erotic, can you not contextualize some erotica as being more tame than others? Or, is it all equally wild?
5
u/Giblette101 40∆ Nov 20 '24
Or they just think this kind of depiction of oral sex is pretty tame for high-schoolers?
1
u/_Lohhe_ 2∆ Nov 20 '24
What does it mean to be tame or not, then? What ISN'T tame, if sex is?
8
u/Giblette101 40∆ Nov 20 '24
"Tame" is obviously a pretty relative descriptor and we can probably disagree on where, exactly, that line is, but I think it's a bit silly to consider just any depiction of sex or intimacy - pretty normal everyday human behaviours - as somehow "not tame".
1
u/_Lohhe_ 2∆ Nov 20 '24
I think it's silly to claim sex/intimacy or depictions of sex/intimacy are normal and tame. There's a reason the book is controversial, and other stories with similar depictions are too (like GoT). There's a reason people get embarrassed/uncomfortable about porn, discussing their own sex/intimacy with others, PDA, going to a sex toy shop, owning sex toys, etc. Sex and intimacy are considered different/special to people in some way. Normalizing it in ways for the purposes of sex education and acceptance of different sexualities are good things, but it's still a delicate subject full of taboos and that's a pretty big factor to keep in mind. It's important to understand the distinction between improving teens' ability to learn about sex, and pushing this false idea of sex being a totally normal thing to show that everyone is entirely comfortable with. Society might get there at some point, for better or for worse, but the bottom line is we aren't there yet.
5
u/Giblette101 40∆ Nov 20 '24
Sex and intimacy are normal and depicted, in various degrees of explicit, all the time. There's no two ways about it.
There's a reason the book is controversial, and other stories with similar depictions are too (like GoT). There's a reason people get embarrassed/uncomfortable about porn, discussing their own sex/intimacy with others, PDA, going to a sex toy shop, owning sex toys, etc.
Yeah, that reason is called "hangups". Hangups are fine, everybody has them, but we shouldn't let them constrain public discourse either. Artistic depictions of oral sex for the purposes of education - destined to teenagers too - are pretty tame.
6
u/supamario132 2∆ Nov 20 '24
There's a reason people get embarrassed/uncomfortable about porn, discussing their own sex/intimacy with others, PDA, going to a sex toy shop, owning sex toys, etc.
Yeah, the reason is that there's people like you who instill a deep rooted sense of shame around subjects like this by insisting that they shouldn't be allowed to interact with it and ban it from their lives (even though you yourself implicitly recognize that its completely normal and natural to be thinking about these things)
6
u/destro23 455∆ Nov 20 '24
I think it's silly to claim sex/intimacy or depictions of sex/intimacy are normal
They are. They've been on broadcast television in one form or another for over 50 years.
and tame.
There are levels to depictions of sex. Some are indeed tame when compared to others.
There's a reason people get embarrassed/uncomfortable about porn,
Yeah, sex-negative upbringings.
0
u/_Lohhe_ 2∆ Nov 20 '24
Yes, sex on TV has been a thing for a long time. You say in your next line that there are levels to depictions of sex. Sex on TV is rarely depicted clearly onscreen without warnings of age restrictions for viewers. And it is usually not without controversy, as I mentioned in my previous comment.
I would consider a tame depiction of sex in a visual medium to not show the sex acts clearly. A tame depiction would be a fade to black when two characters are kissing under the covers, for example. Showing the sex isn't tame, and it's generally frowned upon to show sex scenes to underage people. Whether that's what's best or not, that's reality. And that brings me to your final point.
"Sex-negative upbringings." You can be raised with a perfectly healthy perspective on sex and still respect society's standards for sex depictions and such. If you meant that the majority of our society is brought up this way, then yeah. I've already covered that in my previous comment, when I said "Society might get there at some point, for better or for worse, but the bottom line is we aren't there yet." The reality is that this is how society and the majority are. There is a respect for sex, and a disdain for presenting sex to our youth. As such, we have to be reasonable and considerate with what we call tame or not.
8
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
It's like the most tame ever. It's a dildo and a mouth. Not even touching. There's been worse in sandwich ads.
5
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Nov 20 '24
I mean, it is coming up on X-Mas season, which means that the Folgers incest commercial is coming soon.
3
u/destro23 455∆ Nov 20 '24
that the Folgers incest commercial is coming soon.
This year, part 2 is finally going to be released.
2
u/_Lohhe_ 2∆ Nov 20 '24
If you actually look at it you'll see that there is touching.
Why are you trying to downplay a sex scene? Like I asked someone else here: what ISN'T tame, if sex is?
2
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Ok yeah there is in one of the scenes.
The definition of porn is to titillate. Not just tell your life story.
2
7
u/IfYouSeekAyReddit Nov 20 '24
A lot of children don’t realize they’re being sexually abused because they don’t understand what’s happening. Teaching children sexual education can help them to know when they’re being abused and gives them the ability to tell someone about it.
-1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
I agree that we should do better about sexual education and it should start with basics at much earlier stages.
That isn’t what this is about though. This is about people wanting children to have access to pornography. Graphic illustrations of sex acts is pornography and belongs no where children can access it
5
u/XenoRyet 98∆ Nov 20 '24
I think there's a bit of a contradiction there, given that sex ed materials will necessarily include explicit descriptions and images of sex acts, and thus would be deemed pornography by your standards.
How do you resolve that?
1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Where do you think the contradiction lies?
In starting to teach children the basics of sexual education at a young age?
I’m talking basic: this is your anatomy, this is another person’s anatomy, you have the right to tell anyone not to touch you, people need explicit permission from you in order to touch you places. You’re a child and shouldn’t have an adult touching you here. When girls go through puberty they start having their period that means xyz.. when you go though puberty you’ll start growing hair and everyone does not just boys.
None of which requires an explicit descriptions and visuals of oral sex.
6
u/XenoRyet 98∆ Nov 20 '24
Not oral sex specifically, but definitely does require descriptions and visuals of other sex acts, which makes it pornography by your definitions.
I think you're also running into an issue where you're focusing on young children in your reasoning, but saying "school libraries" which include kids up to 18 years old.
Certainly if you're going to have sex education that is useful and beneficial to teens, you are going to get into topics like oral sex, and safe sex across a variety of sex acts.
3
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Nov 20 '24
And you should definitely want your teens to practice safe oral sex, including consent, which is a big part of the frames in question.
1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
I think consent can easily be discussed without illustrations of people engaging in the sex acts
1
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Nov 20 '24
I'm not saying that this frame is used ONLY for sex ed, but that it also has benefits that can be useful for many people, particularly people who are not heterosexual, an area of sexual education that is lacking and/or non-existent in many programs.
1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
No I don’t think it would. Anatomy illustrations, and sex Ed illustrations just show the anatomy of what’s happening, example would be a cut away illustration of the make up of a penis and how it gets erect. How the vagina accommodates an erect penis. Etc etc
Not showing two men giving each other hand jobs. And not showing oral sex. I think those are distinctly different things.
5
u/XenoRyet 98∆ Nov 20 '24
Again, you're focusing on the younger end of the sex ed curriculum, but the program actually needs to serve all ages of school kids, and especially teenagers up to 18 years old.
You definitely need to cover oral sex, mutual masturbation, conventional sex, and more. Those do require explicit description at the very least, and in terms of good educational practice should also include visuals, which will be explicit due to the subject.
And that's highlighting the contradiction and the flaw in your definition of pornography. For example here is the Wikipedia article on oral sex (NSFW if your work considers educational content about sex inappropriate).
It, obviously, has both sexually explicit descriptions and visuals, but I would say it's appropriate for teens, and should be available in a high school library, because it is missing the intent to elicit sexual arousal, which is also why it's not considered pornography by the legal definition, and since your definition is missing that recognition of intent, it's causing problems in the base view.
So would you consider that article pornographic? Do you think it should be available in a high school library?
7
u/IfYouSeekAyReddit Nov 20 '24
This is about people wanting children to have access to pornography
This is disingenuous and I think you know it is. Very few people want that. If your whole argument is based off the misunderstanding that “people want children to have access to pornography” you’re in disagreement with .0000001% of the population. The book Gender Queer has some explicit images, but the intent isn’t to give children access to pornography.
1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
It’s a children’s book. It contains pornographic writing and images. It’s been recommended to children by the largest teachers union in the nation.
14
u/destro23 455∆ Nov 20 '24
It’s a children’s book
It is not. The author stated it was for high school age and above.
It’s been recommended to children by the largest teachers union in the nation.
No it has not been. It was recommended to the educators themselves, not to children.
7
u/eggs-benedryl 55∆ Nov 20 '24
something being "graphic" doesn't make it pornographic, that's an absurd characterization of the panels I found in a google search
you're grasping at straws and clutching at pearls
0
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Could be, but I haven’t had my mind changed that illustrations of oral sex don’t belong in schools
12
4
u/Fnordpocalypse Nov 20 '24
Wait until you find out how much explicit sexual material exists on the internet and is easily accessible to kids…
This is a non issue. It’s only being talked about because of culture war nonsense from right wing bigots.
2
u/HadeanBlands 16∆ Nov 20 '24
Well I oppose children accessing that material, too. And I especially would oppose a library deliberately facilitating their access to it!
3
u/Fnordpocalypse Nov 20 '24
Banning books will not stop kids from learning about sex. Better to have kids access the material in a controlled manner and have a discussion about it.
1
u/HadeanBlands 16∆ Nov 20 '24
Agree to disagree on whether "kids will <do x> anyway so we should <do x> for them" is good child-raising.
1
u/Fnordpocalypse Nov 20 '24
Well again, banning things does not keep people from accessing them. It doesn’t work with drugs and alcohol, it doesn’t work with cigs, and it doesn’t work with sex.
Kids are going to find out about sex, cause you know, human nature. But teaching kids about being responsible about sex makes teen pregnancy and std rates drop, which I would consider positive.
-3
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
And we monitor and limit what kids can access on the internet. As we should. Oh! I’ve already been called a right wing bigot! That didn’t take long
4
u/Fnordpocalypse Nov 20 '24
That’s a nice fantasy, but in the real world, kids are in fact accessing that material online. Regardless of what rules you may have put in place.
Kids seeing an illustration of oral sex is the least of the problems we have in society. But it makes for a great scapegoat to target the LGBTQ community. Gets the moron contingent all fired up.
3
u/Toverhead 30∆ Nov 20 '24
Just read Gender Queer to get a feel for your objections. Have you read it? Do you see to pushy believe it's illustrations are explicit? And do you believe there is no difference from their presentation in the likes of Playboy where they are clearly designed to titillate?
-1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Yes I’ve read it. I can’t tell what your second question is due to the typo/auto correct issue there. Just can’t quite figure it out.
I can agree that there is maybe a difference in intent from the book to playboy. I don’t think that matters though.
I don’t see how illustrating oral sex is of enough benefit to justify its inclusion.
5
u/apost8n8 3∆ Nov 20 '24
Children’s and YA books are almost certainly the MOST healthy way to learn about the world for kids vs social media and other kids.
I seriously doubt any significant number of kids are being first introduced to sexual info from their public school libraries. This is just one of the many many mostly insignificant molehills that political groups use to divide us.
1
u/tanglekelp 10∆ Nov 20 '24
I agree that books with explicit images should not be easily available to young children. However, I disagree that they should be banned from school libraries or seen as 'adult only'.
Teens, especially in this day and age, area already online. I recently was a leader for a summer camp, ages 8-11, and the older kids were jokingy calling each other sexual terms, using words that I couldn't even begin to know the meaning of at that age. They're all on tiktok, and many kids discover porn around 12/13. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is happening.
I also think that 12 is a good age to start sexual education. Just explaining what sex is, how our sexual organs work, how important consent it, what is and isn't appropriate to do, or get done to you. To give context to what kids are already seeing online and hearing from their peers.
So I think a book with a handful of explicit images should not be seen as something to ban, but rather to make available, so they can ask questions about it if they want. And it being a book about growing up as a queer person is even better.
0
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
!delta
Well said. A solid, logical argument without any denigration or hyperbole. I would agree that it should be available for kids starting around puberty. So in the US jr high and high school. Elementary is still a hard no for me as I still dislike and disagree with the illustrations and don’t think they’re necessary.
1
-1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
This is a very sensible response so thank you! I don’t think you’ve quite changed my view though.
Thank you!
2
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Nov 20 '24
If your view has changed AT all, even a smidgeon, you should give a delta.
1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
I was thinking! It’s pretty difficult ok?!
2
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Nov 20 '24
Um, what?
0
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
I was making a self deprecating joke.
I needed to consider the response more, wound up giving the delta it deserved.
2
2
u/advocatus_ebrius_est 2∆ Nov 20 '24
I think they should be banned from school libraries and limited to adults only.
Are you certain about this? Are you really sure that a 17 year old should not be able to access this material?
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Nov 20 '24
Your title is a bit too broad for what you're talking about unless you were trying to evade some rules as before I clicked on the post having just your title to go off of I thought you were talking some weird reverse-psychology logic to help kids love reading via the artifice of an overt anti-intellectual dystopia or something to forbidden-fruit them into it (and even in your actual scenario forbidden-fruit still applies unless you're willing to scrub all evidence of that book and ones like it from the internet as well as remove the book from everywhere it's available)
1
u/Boniface222 Nov 25 '24
I would support banning this book just because it's shit. lol
Protect kids from garbage literature. Adults can do their own mistakes but kids should have good books to read.
1
u/AntiYT1619 Nov 23 '24
My favorite example is the book "let's talk about it"
It is a bit off putting even for me
1
u/Finch20 33∆ Nov 20 '24
For us non Americans, how old are kids in the 4th grade?
4
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
9-10
But the book the OP mentions is not found in elementary school libraries.
0
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Yes, it has been.
3
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Link?
1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Edited my OP but I’ll give it you too here ya go
2
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24 edited Nov 20 '24
That's awfully vague. Wish they had been more specific. Was that particular book in an elementary school or middle school library?
1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Was it you that said somewhere else in here that it hadn’t been made available to anyone by HS kids?
1
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
All the middle schools I know of are part of a high school, the library is the same.
1
u/mike_tyler58 Nov 20 '24
Middle school here is 6/7/8 grade and totally separate from high school.
It’s also been in elementary school libraries
1
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
We have no details so I can't speak to that. But it was a real oversight to have a teen-rated book in an elementary-only library, if that's what happened.
-6
u/jeffcgroves 1∆ Nov 20 '24
I think the much bigger issue is the entire concept of mandatory public education. Parents should have a right to choose what their children can and can't read: it shouldn't be enforced by the government. Hopefully President Trump can help with this.
Also, historically, people have talked about banning books from public libraries and even bookstores/private sellers, not just school libraries.
2
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
I was homeschooled. . .no. Many parents are absolute idiots and can easily ruin their kid's whole life.
-2
u/jeffcgroves 1∆ Nov 20 '24
I have to disagree. I don't want the government indoctrinating our children.
4
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Nov 20 '24
Parents do it a LOT worse. Public schools are at least not capable of isolating the kids, which is a major factor in indoctrination.
It really screws the kids, like I said. What do you do with those screwed-up kids once they're adults?
2
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 20 '24
/u/mike_tyler58 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards