So I hear you can get an online library card to check out books digitally. Kinda the crux of the current argument really. Why rely on somebody else's biased opinion when you can check out the book yourself?
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
It's a queer kid's biography, not a work of fiction. If the kid was old enough to experience it, then the other kids are old enough to read about it. You're really bad at reading nuance.
Anyway, I also recommend Boys Run the Riot. Would be a good fit for a queer reading list
Sophistry? Nah dude, I'm just making fun of you because you're funny.
Entirely depends on the experience and presentation of it then.
Saying "If a kid was old enough to experience it then the others kids are old enough to read about it" is a hell of a bad idea considering what kids can experience in this world and just how much of it and how it's presented you'd want others to read about. I mean schools don't have people coming in talking about the joys of smoking or how great their drug trips were. Yet I can tell you that some people I knew in school were very much on the drugs and did very much enjoy them.
Nah, I've said I'm fine with that being a thing.
I'm less fine with the idea of a teacher directing kids to said location with a specific list of books presented to them up front.
As for "Why not check it out yourself".
1) Not interested in the book personally
2) Not American so I can't use the free online library to check it out quickly.
3) I'm not paying out money just to win an internet argument vs people who also haven't read the book and are basic their claims on what they've heard / been told.
4) The Wikipedia article for Gender Queer (which I'm going to avoid linking to here because I know some-one will report it as linking to porn just out of spite because of one of the images on said page, nicely describes the content of the book with sources.
As for Lawn Boy
I've seen the illustrations we're discussing, since passing judgement on them would be arrogant and foolish if I hadn't.
Yes, I'm very sorry for assuming you'd have done any research at all before declaring it all pornographic. That was foolish of me.
Can I just point out you've contributed something that might have a better wider discussion worthy aspect here (I'm not watching through like 1 hour or more with of videos on this one so who know if Toasted covered it or not but I highly doubt it).
Am I the only one thinking it's weird they still made her dye her hair Red?
Like only a a few years back there was all the push and talk about how media doesn't represent black people's hair and makes them change it to be more like white people to be accepted.
To the best of my knowledge Red isn't a natural hair colour among black people.
So why is that the aspect they chose to keep when she could have had her natural hair colour? Or hell go with the original tale and make her Blonde.
In comics and animation Red was a vivid colour and stood out but the live action version? Yeh it's not so needed to stand out and they're just doing it because the animated Disney one had red hair or something.
Just seemed like a weird detail to keep
Just checked.......... yeh I'm going with Erotica and BTW didn't you say there was no genitals shown?
Yep you did, based on what I just saw in 1 google search, that's a lie which now casts doubt on if you'd even seen the illustrations.
Congratulations, you played yourself here.
I didn't have to, I just had to rely on precedent because it was predictable how this would go unfortunately. You know I hoped I'd be proven wrong this time, you know. Part of me really hoped that things would have changed and but nope same old deceptions and same old bullshit. You know it's really tiresome playing this jumping through hoops BS knowing where it's going again and again hence I used precedent and hence precedent again was proven to be correct. You wonder why I don't feel the need to individually check over everything? Because it's such a waste of time when precedent does so well. Like how stupid and gullible do you think people are to fall for lies and how long did you hope they'd hold up?
The book Gender Queer, with the controversial strap-on scene, was written by an adult for adults about largely adult experiences. It describes masturbation while driving a car. That strap-on blowjob scene is between working age adults. The book claims gay erotic fanfiction reading was a prerequisite for friendship with the author through grad school. An autobiography including events from childhood does not make it a children's book.
You're either lying, or looked at the wrong thing, if you believe the illustration we're discussing was intended to be arousing.
Anyone else is free to just fact check this.
For 'Precedent', read 'Assumption' as the reason given to not bother even looking at the source material before labelling it pornography and supporting the conservative-religious efforts to make it less accessible to teenagers.
So are you arguing that the literal 3 panels blowjob sequence doesn't exist or that it can't be classed as erotica?
Yes feel free
Google search gender queer illustrations click images and it's the 6 image the one with the reddit URL
As for precedent read "The lie was so obvious, the tactics so recycled from the last time when Lawn Boy was brought up and the same people on the same side pushed the claim none of the content being objected to was in the book, only for months on it be revealed they'd got the wrong book. It was pretty safe to rule that in this it probably was going to turn out to similarly".
1) Maybe don't keep lying and hoping people will believe it otherwise people will expect the lie ad when two sides are making claims believe the side with the better record of being honest on the subject?
2) Not accessible in schools. Can you please tell me why you feel schools are obligated to make it accessible to children when it's been deemed not suitable for them? Are all schools meant to be providing access to all media now? Should school libraries be carrying copies of "Birth of a Nation" for students to borrow?
3) At the end of the day it's fucking underhanded and cowardly to just try to push said books rather than proper educations. "Oh but we can't get that" then fight for it because subterfuge and deception would just piss off parents who may well side with you but would want oversight when introducing their kids to such material and concepts as in the erotic graphic novel. Well done you helped undermine more trust in the system and the teachers in it making their job that much harder with increased scrutiny because people couldn't take no for an answer that books championed by people of a certain ideological persuasion shouldn't be in school libraries. Plenty of books don't get into school libraries like the Playboy annuals too and outright hentai mangas.
Hollywood had run out of ideas by the 1920s
One of the first movies ever created at Hollywood was the Count of Monte Cristo. So you could probably even say that they never had ideas
How explicit are we talking about? Because you can describe or show a BJ in a wide variety of ways. I saw Police Academy when I was probably 8, and then muliple times afterward. It features a blowjob scene, but heck if I ever realzed it. Also, watched Coming to America a zillion times as a child, implying a naked girl washed someone's dick underwater. There was a lot of T 'n A in movies when I grew up, but none of it plunged me into soul rendering world of corruption. The whale from Disney's Pinocchio scarred me more than any lady's bush from some 80's comedy.
It's very obviously not erotica to anybody who's approaching this in good faith. It's very obviously not drawn/written to be arousing, which is the #1 defining characteristic of erotica. The entire sequence is about how it didn't feel good and wasn't right for them.
Blah-de-blah, excuses for not having bothered looking at the material.
I'm sorry you claimed it showed no genitalia before
Tell me again about good faith when you just got caught lying and hoping people would believe it. That's not approaching in good faith when you refuse to even be honest about what the content was to begin with. Tell me, why is his time different? why should I or anyone else believe what you're now saying at all?
Dude it's obvious you either hadn't looked at it or just outright lied about the content of it and you're out here trying to chastise me for not looking at it?
Stop digging because you just keep making it worse for yourself here.
You're now either a hypocrite because you clearly hadn't actually looked at the stuff either and are out here chastising me for it.
OR
You're a liar who just tried to push bullshit and lie about the content you saw.
Which one you want to be because you're one of them lol.
"Hey, can we bring back the red scare yet? God I miss those days!"
Still doesn't. Your ignorance regarding the source material continues. I just wonder why you're so angrily invested in being against a book you've never seen.
What I said about it was true. Anyone can go and check. Someone puts a strap-on in their mouth, and then the following panel states that the protagonist found it unrewarding.
What's really kind of pathetic here is that you and Tstorm both actually know the content isn't intended to be arousing. You're not stupid enough to think otherwise. Which makes this whole insistent misrepresentation even more inexplicable and prudish.
Nothing new here. He sucks at reading everything or brings up crap that has nothing to do with anything. Always the goal poster who fails at everything.