[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.

[mlrtime]

Part of the crux here is k-12 is mixed all together, is this appropriate for high schoolers, yes. For K-5, no.