High school kids watch porn. Why can’t they read a true story about stuff that actually happened to other kids, which happens to contain a sex scene? Lots of books have sex scenes. One example that sticks with me is Mystic River, which I read around 9th grade. Should I have been banned from reading that?
So what if they watch porn? Its still not a good thing for young minds to be exposed to that shit, we shouldnt enable it further.
Just because kids watch porn doesn’t mean the government should supply kids with it. Nothing is being banned by not distributing it in schools. Kids, the same ones that watch porn even though it’s illegal, will be able get books that are not in school libraries.
It’s not porn lol, it’s a book
You can call it what ever you want but it’s still sexually explicit material.
So you want to ban Mystic River?
Do you have an exert from the book? That way we can compare the two
They abduct and rape a kid
That isn’t an exert we can compare.
Nothing is being banned. The gonernment isn’t banning Ferraris because they they are not handing them out.
I got my books from the school library. You’re saying they shouldn’t have given me Mystic River?
If it contains sexually explicit material, it should not given to minors.
Why do Republicans insist on “protecting” children from stuff?
It’s as if they think that if it’s not publicly available, then kids won’t have access to it. But so many parents are technically challenged and don’t even use their parental filters on their home routers. Just because they can’t protect their children with their own property does not give them the right to extend their façade of moral purity into the public sphere.
Also, what kids do you think are going to the libraries looking for this content? I, for one, would have never stumbled across any of these books. But if a person think they’re kid would, then what do you hope to accomplish by removing this source of vicarious experience? We know damn sure they ain’t coming to you as their parents to talk about their sexual orientation. The harm of removing sucks books is that the kids seek it elsewhere.
You can ban a book all you want, and you should be shamed to hell and back for even trying. But if the real intent is to “protect” children from stuff, then banning the book only ups the ante for acquiring the knowledge they seek. And that could quite literally kill them if they approach the wrong person or get involved with the wrong group in order to sate their curiosity.
Also banning books tends to have this Streisand effect where they end up being noticed more than they would have if the books were left alone.
So should school libraries just be completely unrestricted then? Anything and everything is on offer, because they might look elsewhere for that content?
And that could quite literally kill them if they approach the wrong person or get involved with the wrong group in order to sate their curiosity.
Where the fuck are you browsing books my guy. I started pirating shit in middle school clicking on every “free download” link, and it never got even remotely that sketchy.
I would trust the discretion of the librarian to filter out books that are low quality or not appropriate. But if enough kids and parents request a book that book should be added to the library because ultimately the librarian/district works for the parents.
The call should be made at the local level, not by politicians who don’t even live in the district.
It’s a memoir about growing up black and gay. It contains true events from the author’s life. Why should this person’s high school memories be banned for high school students?
What parts can an adult mind comprehend, but a teenage mind can’t?
It contains true events from the author’s life. Why should this person’s high school memories be banned for high school students?
That doesn’t mean it’s age appropriate.
Did anyone say it should be banned? I am a fan of common sense. This shouldn’t be available to 12 year old children at the school library. If parents want to provide it to their children, that’s fine but 12 year olds don’t need to be reading this.
Why is it not appropriate for a 12 year old?
12 year olds can watch movies and play games of people violently being murdered, but sex is off the limits?
What if a child was being abused and reading through another child’s account of abuse empowers them to speak to?
And complaining about dildos or sexual acts as if children by the age of 12 aren’t already beyond that? Shit I was masturbating by 10, and I’ve heard many women experimented with object insertion at similar ages.
In 2-3 years time many of those 12 year old children will be teenager’s experimenting with each other and not just their own body, it’s best to teach them before that point rather than wait until it’s too late.
In closing:
Of course they’re gonna know what intercourse is by the time they hit fourth grade
They got the Discovery Channel, don’t they?
We ain’t nothing but mammals… well, some of us, cannibalsWhat age are high school students in America?
I started my freshman year at 13, but my birthday’s pretty late in the year.
Not 11 or 12. YOu would be 14-15 as a freshman. You graduate around the age of 18.
This was provided to 7th graders. 11-12.
I agree in that instance it was inappropriate. Even that article says the retailer recommends it for high school students. I would be against removing it from high schools, not elementary schools.
I am not a fan of “banning” any book. I was an advanced reader but I wouldn’t have wanted to read this book at any age. That said, I don’t have an issue with it being in a public library where a parent could consent for the child to check it out. It shouldn’t be available for a 12 year old to check out by themselves. I am not a prude but it was some heavy content that should have someone put in context for a child.
Make the parents sign a waiver before allow kids to check out books with adult themes, sure. But banning books from libraries is something I will never agree with. I don’t see how anyone can be for personal liberty and then also ban speech. It’s not conservative, it’s fascist.
I don’t see how anyone can be for personal liberty and then also ban speech. It’s not conservative, it’s fascist.
You’re free to do what you like. Why do you believe that freedom necessitates that the government buy books for you?
To be clear I agree with you that the government has no responsibility to provide a library to anyone. The first amendment not only includes freedom of speech and freedom of association; it also includes freedom to information. If the government is providing a library, such as in a school; it should not be banning books for arbitrary reasons. I tend to trust the discretion of the librarian for which books are available in the library.
And how do you define an arbitrary reason vs a legitimate one?
An arbitrary reason would be any reason that is used post hoc to ban books that wasn’t an issue until some outrage of the month (ie banning books like “black like me” or “to kill a mockingbird” because of anti-CRT panic)
I mean it’s fundamentally impossible to know about something before it’s, well, made known. Plenty of people have opposed obscene content in schools for ages. They simply hadn’t been made aware of anything specific or actionable until recently.
Yep I’m not subbed here because I think Democrats are blameless. Anyone in favor of banning books, regardless of party, is wrong.
Lmao quit the fucking dramatics. Removing something from a school library isn’t “book banning”.
Maybe if Tiffany Justice had access to books discussing dildos in high school, she’d figure out a way to remove the giant stick up her ass.
Quote from the book:
'I’d put some lube on and got him on his knees, and I began to slide into him from behind. I pulled out of him and kissed him while he masturbated. He asked me to turn over while he slipped a condom on himself.
‘This was my a** and I was struggling to imagine someone inside me. He got on top and slowly inserted himself into me. It was the worst pain I think I have ever felt in my life. Eventually, I felt a mix of pleasure with the pain.’
Im like 90% sure that quote violates lemmy.world’s rules against porn.
Ive had conversations about similar books, but I still dont get it. I honestly dont understand why that belongs within 300 feet of a school.
Seriously? I don’t think you could have sex ed for teenagers with less detail than this. The only porny word in the whole thing is “slipped”.
deleted by creator
Still doesnt belong in a school library.
deleted by creator
A quick search shows that around 6% of teens get pregnant, and around half were accidental. This number includes teens out of highschool 18-19. So we can assume the number of people in highschool will be lower. The percentage of unexpected/unwanted will rise.
I know this may sound odd talking about a hetero experience when it comes to a gay book, but my highschool experience with anything sex education was almost strictly abstinence.
Children are just going to do things because they don’t understand the consequences. You say “don’t do it” and people will do it just to spite you. You tell them “unprotected sex will get you STI’s that will kill you” and while the number of people having sex barely changes, both STI rates and unwanted pregnancy rates drop. It is wild what a tiny amount of sex education can do to save people’s lives.
Anyways as long as it’s a culture war issue and that topic can’t even be brought to the table then I don’t care about people prudish attitudes, and they can get bent. I’m giving them the same amount of respect they’ll give me. If we aren’t going to teach kids then having at least something that kids MIGHT want to read that has ANY sex education in it is a victory. There is no reason why other people’s religious views should effect other people’s children. If you want your child to have a higher chance of being raped then it should be up to the parents to make sure the school knows to not put them in sex education, not the other way around. It is better for every metric, out side of “feelings”, that sex education is better for children to have.
I thought school was supposed to be about preparing children for adulthood. Or has conservatism become wanting school to be nothing but a state sponsored day care?
I thought school was supposed to be about preparing children for adulthood.
No. If school was meant for that, we would focus on skills such as driving, balancing a checkbook, cooking food, etc. School is about preparing you for employment.
To be fair, I had a woodworking class, cooking class, auto class, and I also got into the school’s media team where I learned to edit videos. There technically was a health class with a week of bad sex education.
So maybe my school was “built different” but I am going to still choose to believe it was trash tier from the other schools I went to before it.
So you don’t actually care about making good policy, you just want to be mad?
What? I said “as long as it’s a culture war issue.” meaning that people are playing dirty, and refuse to not play dirty.
So I am saying restricting sex education is a bad policy, and the moral thing to do is to teach children, specifically young adults, about the world is a good thing. The policy I’m advocating for is good sex education, and conservatives want to argue for a system that allows for more pederasty. How can I not be against that?
But “good” policy is subjective. Talking policy in a partisan space like this won’t move anyone. I would be screaming into a void.
I also want good sex Ed. But I don’t consider obscene books in an uncontrolled setting to be even remotely decent sex Ed. It’s no better than just handing them Google, and telling them safe search is off.
If you find it obscene then make a book that queer youths can relate to that can replace it. As it currently stands if that book is the only thing that some queer youths can find commonality in then it is a good book to have for their mental health.
If they’re so desperate, they can read it on their own. School libraries don’t hold a monopoly on book distribution
