We live in a time of near-universal deceit. And the biggest damned liars on the face of the planet are the media-left. When they’re not knowingly lying, they’re spouting obvious lies because they’re too stupid and bigoted to bother searching for the truth.
Harsh words? Maybe — but if you think they’re unfair, then you must have slept through “Russiagate” and Covid. But those were only two of the most venal lies spouted by the lying liars of the legacy media. Another lie, lesser perhaps, but only in the scheme of the other absolute whoppers, is “the religious right is banning books!”
This is a doubly damnable lie because, firstly, the only people actively banning books are the left: specifically, Dr Seuss of all people, some of whose books are not only prohibited from sale but have been completely removed from publication. So, hang on to those old copies of And To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street and If I Ran the Zoo, if you have them.
Secondly, removing a book from a school reading list or even a school library is not “banning it”. You can still buy it freely if you choose. But if parents and school boards decide that certain books are too pornographic for their school library, well, you or I may disagree, but it’s not a “ban” by any stretch of the imagination.
It all comes down to where to draw the line. No one, for instance, would argue that old copies of Hustler ought to be on school library shelves. Nor would many wave placards demanding that schools stock Extra Spicy Lesbian Erotica, Desired by my Stepdad: A Taboo Stepdad Romantic Erotica, or Hot MILFs Getting It SO Good. Yet, those are all books freely available on Amazon.
But those are just pornographic, you may object. That’s absolutely true. But how is this not pornographic?
SnowAngel: so: spit or swallow? [/] zoegirl: i swallowed, but i don’t think i’m going to next time. i’ll just tell him very politely so he’s not offended. [/] SnowAngel: erm, i bet he’ll be okay with it. what’s he gonna say, “nuh uh, no way! in that case, no blow jobs for YOU, missy!” [/] zoegirl: I don’t want a blow job [/] SnowAngel: you know what i mean [/] zoegirl: doug tried to go down on me (geez, that sounds dorky), but I was like ‘”no no no no no. that’s ok.” [/] SnowAngel: why? [/] zoegirl: like you said, the whole odor thing. but in reverse. ack, i’m blushing just talking about it!
Or, how about:
As Jane’s mind wandered into jealousy and insecurity, she failed to realize that her hands had worked themselves on to Veronica’s ass. When she finally came to her sense and realized that her hands were massaging Veronica’s cheeks, a rush of anxiety went through her body.
Or this?
It embarrassed her, she said, that she made noises. But Charlie loved it. His cock strained against his jeans. He pulled back slightly and used his forearm to push her legs apart. He slid his hand beneath her panties again and found the spot he was looking for—heat and wetness and skin softer than any silk or lace—and slipped two fingers inside of her.
Oh, but that’s literature, you may argue, not porn.
Well, I tricked you. Two of the passages above are from books that are indeed at the centre of school “book banning” controversies. One is from an 18+ erotica book. Could you tell?
The Biden Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) launched an investigation of Georgia’s Forsyth School District, threatening to cut off all of its federal funding.
Because:
The “books were reviewed in January 2022 for explicit sexual content, specifically graphic details of sexual acts and not just references to sex or sexual acts.” It notes that “the Superintendent had authorized the removal of sexually explicit books, making clear that the books had not been reviewed for LGBTQI+ content or moral dilemma issues, just sexual explicitness.” OCR conceded that “the District limited its book screening process to sexually explicit material” as it reviewed whether the books “should remain on the shelves despite the explicit sexual content.”
Note that the OCR specifically investigated the school district for even considering whether graphic descriptions of sex (often underage) were appropriate for school libraries.
The “book screening process,” OCR contended, “may have created a hostile environment for students,” an environment the district did not take “responsive steps” to “ameliorate.”
It’s unclear what “responsive steps” the federal agency had in mind. But the logic behind its assertion that reviewing books for sexually explicit content creates a hostile environment is clear. It can be summed up in this syllogism: (1) LGBTQI+ students deserve to be represented in school libraries. (2) They are represented in school libraries through the explicit depiction of sex acts. Therefore (3) objecting to the explicit depiction of sex acts in school libraries constitutes hostility against LGBTQI+ students.
That’s right: if you don’t want material that’s indistinguishable from Amazon Kindle porn in your school library, you hate gay kids.
Arguing that the books aren’t porn seems pretty indefensible in light of the reactions of education officials when, for instance, a mother at a board meeting started to read aloud a book that her pre-teen daughter had been assigned. The officials cut off her mike and reprimanded her for reading such stuff at a public meeting.
As of 2023, access to porn at school is the civil rights issue of our time.
Newsweek
Now, I’m not here to argue against porn, or erotica books. Those things are perfectly legal and perfectly fine: for adults. Some of them, some of us may judge to be suitable for our kids (I read some pretty explicit stuff as a young teenager, after all). But that’s for us to decide, not the government.
And if other parents judge that they’re not suitable — the government has no business usurping their judgement as parents.
*The second quote (“As Jane’s mind wandered into jealousy and insecurity…”) is from an 18+ Kindle erotica.