[tablespoon]

> There is a clear difference between Hustler and a graphic novel that contains some sexual representations.

Not in this case. Those images are 100% graphic porn (of the cartoon/hentai variety). I saw the pictures upthread. Porn that presents itself as "educational" is still porn (IIRC, that's also a actual real-people-having-sex porn genre).

> These books aren't attacked because they contain pornographic scenes. These books are attacked because of the people, identities, and viewpoints they represent and affirm.

You do realize those aren't mutually exclusive? The wrong people attacking it on the wrong grounds is not justification for stocking pornography in a school library.

[barbazoo]

> Not in this case. Those images are 100% graphic porn (of the cartoon/hentai variety). I saw the pictures upthread. Porn that presents itself as "educational" is still porn (IIRC, that's also a actual real-people-having-sex porn genre).

As I said, the first picture is taken out of context and the second one isn't even in the book. This book is porn the same way other educational material about anatomy and sexuality are porn.

[tablespoon]

> As I said, the first picture is taken out of context...

There isn't a context that could make that first POV/frontal view picture of someone getting a blowjob not-porn.

If that's appropriate for school, so is hentai.

[claudiawerner]

Such images are shown in books about human sexuality, or sex guides. The purpose of those books is not to tittilate in an erotic sense, but to provide information or education.

To go further, almost everyone agrees that a cartoon of a man and woman having sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation is not necessarily pornographic; this is a standard sort of picture in age appropriate sex education materials.

Granted, these images concern sexual reproduction. However this only makes me question why people deem that image appropriate, but images of other positions or acts not worthy of learning about in other contexts.

The fact is that we do learn about sex at school for other reasons. "Safe sex", consent, and in many cases contraception are all taught.

So hypothetically, if we're fine with images to educate about reproduction, and images to educate about consent or safe sex for nonreproductive purposes, what makes the images in the book so different as to deserve to be forbidden knowledge?

[tablespoon]

> Such images are shown in books about human sexuality, or sex guides. The purpose of those books is not to tittilate in an erotic sense, but to provide information or education.

How-to sex guides and the like are not appropriate for a high school library.

> To go further, almost everyone agrees that a cartoon of a man and woman having sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation is not necessarily pornographic; this is a standard sort of picture in age appropriate sex education materials.

Is it? I don't recall having been shown anything like that.

And I would say a cartoon of two characters having sex and showing penetration would necessarily be pornographic. A medical illustration wouldn't (think stiff, cutaway diagram, narrowly focused on the necessary parts), but that's not a "cartoon."

> Granted, these images concern sexual reproduction. However this only makes me question why people deem that image appropriate, but images of other positions or acts not worthy of learning about in other contexts.

I think you need to figure out the difference between sex education and a sex guide on your own. You're playing fast and loose with categories, and getting yourself tied in knots as a result.

[claudiawerner]

>How-to sex guides and the like are not appropriate for a high school library.

I wasn't saying they necessarily are; I was saying that such a representation isn't necessarily pornographic.

>Is it? I don't recall having been shown anything like that.

I do, even if it was many years ago.

>I think you need to figure out the difference between sex education and a sex guide on your own.

I have figured it out; the fact is that there is a continuum of representations of sex between a cut-out diagram of the interior anatomy of a penis penetrating the interior anatomy of a vagina, a diagram showing how a condom is applied, a picture of one adult on top of another in a book in a "How are Babies Made" sort of book for children, and showing how sex with a strap-on works. I don't see any reason to consider any of these necessarily pornographic - as all lack the primary intention to titillate.

[barbazoo]

It's so lazy to just see that picture out of context and decide that young people shouldn't read the book. Context matters and it's part of that author's story. Had you read the book you'd know that this wasn't an enjoyable act for the protagonist or a how-to for the reader but part of their difficult youth trying to figure out their sexuality and identity. Many people might feel like this and I'm convinced having this book available to them will make the lives of LGBTQ youth easier to cope with.

And again, this wasn't even a penis in that picture. This is definitely not a book to be considered porn. And if you haven't read it, I don't think you can convince anyone otherwise.