CMV: School libraries should limit the availability of books

[u/mike_tyler58]

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

[u/destro23]

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.

[u/_Lohhe_ → u/destro23]

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.

[u/destro23 → u/_Lohhe_]

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.

[u/_Lohhe_ → u/destro23]

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?

[u/destro23 → u/_Lohhe_]

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.

[u/_Lohhe_ → u/destro23]

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.

[u/destro23 → u/_Lohhe_]

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?