[X-Istence]

That page (and the rest of the book) is far less pornographic than the actual porn I and many other kids I grew up with had access to, and regularly shared between ourselves, and is incredibly tame.

I also find it very telling that you'd consider what is on page 168 pornographic in the first place, sexually explicit maybe, but it is not intended to arouse or cause sexual excitement, it's meant to portray a lived experience.

The sexual repression in the United States is part of the reason why so many people grow up with the wrong ideas around sex and why teen pregnancy is such a big thing. Open discussion about these things (including gender and gender identity in that) is the best way to allow kids to grow up to be functional adults that are well informed and able to have critical thought about how and what they do and are far less likely to fall prey to predators and people who want to do them harm due to their lack of experience.

[palmotea]

> That page (and the rest of the book) is far less pornographic than the actual porn I and many other kids I grew up with had access to, and regularly shared between ourselves, and is incredibly tame.

So your argument is school libraries should have Playboy and Penthouse on the library magazine rack because you had access to a Hustler? Softcore porn is "incredibly tame" compared to hardcore porn, therefore softcore porn belongs in schools?

That's an insane argument. The pornographic-ness of "the actual porn I and many other kids I grew up with had access to" has no relevance to decisions about what to put in a school library.

You sound like you aren't really reasoning, rather you're just coming up with justifications only in the context of achieving a particular result, and not considering other implications.

[margalabargala]

Sex education and access to educational material around sexuality is inversely correlated with teen pregnancy. The page in the book you mention has a non-detailed cartoon depiction of a teenager giving someone a blowjob for the first time, as part of a plot of them figuring out their identity (which is given far more page time). Especially taken in view of the larger work, I argue this does belong in a school and is categorically different from Playboy and Penthouse.

So your argument is basically that more teenage girls should get pregnant? While it makes sense that the current administration would take this step, considering the President's numerous attempts at teen pregnancy have been a contentious issue, what's your motive?

You sound like you aren't really reasoning, rather you're just coming up with justifications only in the context of achieving a particular result, and not considering other implications.

[palmotea]

> The page in the book you mention has a non-detailed cartoon depiction of a teenager giving someone a blowjob for the first time, as part of a plot of them figuring out their identity (which is given far more page time). Especially taken in view of the larger work, I argue this does belong in a school and is categorically different from Playboy and Penthouse.

That's a different argument than the one you made.

But your opponents still have a point: imagine an encyclopedia with an entry on pornography, where they included a full-color, photograph of a page from an old Playboy (perhaps one where they didn't actually show any of the naughty bits), purely as illustration. It hits all the criteria you mention, but the photograph is still inappropriate for school and superfluous. It's legitimate for the school, school board, or whoever is funding the library to refuse to pay for such an encyclopedia, on a account of that photograph. It was a poor choice by the publisher.

And the encyclopedia isn't "banned," you can still get it yourself somewhere else, the school or whatever just made a choice about what to carry or what not to carry which they do all the time and will always do.

> So your argument is basically that more teenage girls should get pregnant?

No, obviously not. And that you went there shows pretty flawed reasoning. You didn't seem to understand my comment, and you seem to be responding to a character to a drama you've got going in your head.

My argument was what you said didn't make sense: I already summed it up: "the pornographic-ness of 'the actual porn I and many other kids I grew up with had access to' has no relevance to decisions about what to put in a school library."

[margalabargala]

> But your opponents still have a point: imagine an encyclopedia with an entry on pornography, where they included a full-color, photograph of a page from an old Playboy (perhaps one where they didn't actually show any of the naughty bits), purely as illustration. It hits all the criteria you mention, but the photograph is still inappropriate for school and superfluous. It's legitimate for the school, school board, or whoever is funding the library to refuse to pay for such an encyclopedia, on a account of that photograph. It was a poor choice by the publisher.

I would have absolutely no problem with this existing in a middle or high school.

> you seem to be responding to a character to a drama you've got going in your head.

I was just applying the same false dichotomy and "so your argument is" logic you've been applying to others in this thread. I was wondering whether it would 1) appeal to you, 2) make you realize the error of your approach, or 3) reveal hypocrisy. Now I know.

[palmotea]

> I was just applying the same false dichotomy and "so your argument is" logic you've been applying to others in this thread. I was wondering whether it would 1) appeal to you, 2) make you realize the error of your approach, or 3) reveal hypocrisy. Now I know.

No, it's option 4: you didn't really understand the narrowness of my point (which I was really explicit about), and kinda aped bits of the structure without really getting it. The proof is how you want on about teen pregnancy in response to me, like that had anything to do with what I was saying or where I was coming from.

[mlrtime]

>That page (and the rest of the book) is far less pornographic than the actual porn I and many other kids I grew up with had access to, and regularly shared between ourselves, and is incredibly tame.

And you'd be ok with federal funds to be used to purchase "actual porn" and place it in schools?

The bill is about not using federal funds for this material.

[margalabargala]

This has been litigated a million times. Actual pornographic material is already not allowed in schools.

Books that include characters having a sexual encounter on page 168 is not that.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Great, you've identified how people who want books for children to include porn can include that porn without getting in trouble for it. Just need 167 pages of filler.

[margalabargala]

Cool. So if those mythical people actually exist and do so, we can address it if it ever happens.

Until then we should not pre-emptively throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>Cool. So if those mythical people actually exist and do so, we can address it if it ever happens.

My original comment that you and others replied to gives the name of the book, the author, the name of the site you can view the book for free, and tells you which page to turn to. It's not mythical, I all but deep-linked to it.

There is no baby in the swampwater you peddle. You probably don't have a baby and never had a baby... I have children. This is actually important to me.

[margalabargala]

The book you linked to is not pornography hidden behind 167 pages of filler. It is appropriate content for teenagers and I have zero issue with it existing in a public school.

I do have kids, and I don't appreciate the harm you are trying to do to the environment they are growing up in.