Politics

[drayer54]

 

[Irish#1]

Now we have nine congressmen wanting the speaker role. lol

 

[GoIrish41]

https://jghsenglish.edublogs.org/files/2015/10/Grendel-chapters-7-12-1e0tidt-x6q94y.pdf

Page 109? That line is more graphic than what they're reading at the school board? No, not even a little bit. Grendel is a classic for a reason. It was written 50+ years ago. Writers were more tactful and less explicit in their writings. Even in Shakespeare's time if they wrote about risqué things it was done through metaphor, like talking about sex as "making the beast with two backs." There's no illusion with that vulgar writing they're reciting at the board, they're spelling out every action and it's unnecessary filth. It does nothing for the story except illicit things younger kids aren't ready to understand or comprehend, it's disgraceful.

If parents don't want their children to have access to that garbage, that's their right as parents. If some parents want their kids to have access to it they're free to do that in their own homes. Let me ask you this, are you a parent with young children and would you allow them to read that crap before they're an appropriate age?

How many of the children of these offended parents have smart phones on which they could look up a news clip of, say a presidential candidate being able to grab a woman by the pussy? My guess is that most of these same parents pushing school boards to ban books would defend their decision to provide the access to their kids and the candidate for saying it. This is non- issue in this day and age. Kids have access to all manner of reading and viewing materials these days that many would find offensive and inappropriate and their kids seek it out like a young book in the 70s or 80s swiping a Playboy from dad’s collection in the 70s and 80s.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Sanitized but the same. Ezekiel is basically saying those women love the huge cocks and getting bukake’d.

Ban it.... or does this have significant literary, educational, or historical value for kids? Should kids read this and have it translated fully for them?? I have never heard this passage discussed in any of the church denominations I have attended.

Additionally ( but no where near all),
Genesis 19:33-36>>>(father-daughter(s) incest)

Multiple references to slaying whores in Genesis. and I mean slaying in both senses... with your penis and with the sword.

Genesis 38-8-9>>>Onan directed to have sex with his brothers wife in order to impregnate her. He does have sex with his brother's wife but instead "spills his seed" on the floor rather than seal the deal.

Solomons Song of Songs is literally prehistoric 50 shades of Grey:
4:16>>>"Blow on my garden, that its fragrance may spread abroad. Let my lover come into his garden and taste its choice fruits (cunnilingis)
5:4>>>"My beloved put his hand by the hole in the door and my bowels were moved for him." lol

 

[Sea Turtle]

King James version or GTFO

How about 'a woman is not to grab a man's testicles while he is fighting her husband'?

Seems only fair.

 

[Sea Turtle]

Uhhh yeah? That's a freshman in high school?

Romeo and Juliet were 13. People were lucky to live to 30. That's why girls hit puberty at like 12.

14 and 15? It's time to get married? 17? You better REAL quick or you're a spinster.

 

[GATTACA!]

Romeo and Juliet were 13. People were lucky to live to 30. That's why girls hit puberty at like 12.

14 and 15? It's time to get married? 17? You better REAL quick or you're a spinster.

Who said anything about marriage?

If you don’t think kids are having sex or at a minimum discovering their bodies fooling around together as freshmen in high school I’ve got some nice oceanfront property here in Cleveland to sell you.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

People need to understand that repressing sexual urges never ends well. Hiding from them... not discussing them... keeping kids in the dark psychologically is harmful over the long run.

 

[RDU Irish]

People need to understand that repressing sexual urges never ends well. Hiding from them... not discussing them... keeping kids in the dark psychologically is harmful over the long run.

I'm sorry your school didn't stock Hustler in the library in the pre-internet dinosaur age. You are obviously damaged over this slight. You are on the side of pervy MAPs who think drag queen story hour ending with some dude shaking his ass-less chaps in the face of a four year old is hunky dory. WTAF.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I'm sorry your school didn't stock Hustler in the library in the pre-internet dinosaur age. You are obviously damaged over this slight. You are on the side of pervy MAPs who think drag queen story hour ending with some dude shaking his ass-less chaps in the face of a four year old is hunky dory. WTAF.

This is like the lowest energy post possible and unsurprising you reduce the complex nature of human development and societies complex nature applied to that development on a variety of cultures in a secular nation down to a hustler mag. Forgive me for totally dismissing this post with a huge lol and a healthy eyeroll.

The truth is that we know more about people now than we did just a few years ago and how repressive societies are harmful on people, specifically children, and their development. The discussion has been about exposing children to sexually explicit material and banning books. No one has once mentioned hustler or playboy, including me. We all agree porn has zero reason to be in schools and it’s not. We are talking books with literary and societal value and their availability to school age kids.

I have mentioned this before but my sister is gay. Has been as long as she can remember. Her identity and consequently hers and our acceptance of that fact) was repressed due to our Catholic upbringing and general societal pressure and he conservative southern culture. She has never recovered from the dissonance of both aspects. She is convinced as a Catholic she is going to hell and that our society reinforces that with their public policies and legislation. It breaks my heart that she exists in this mindset and her day to day existence is a continuous pressure on her mental well being. She suffers from depression and anxiety and has refused psychological help or even talking with therapists becasue its god's will she is the way she is.

 

[RDU Irish]

Your emotional personal anecdote does not mean middle school kids need the school library to offer books teaching them how to give blow jobs and graphic details of gay sex. There are infinite resources available - the school doesn't need to go down that road, ever. Sexual promiscuity and alternative lifestyles are highly correlated with mental anguish ...... so we should promote those paths? Sexualizing children is wrong. Anyone who supports it is a groomer perv.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

Except most books getting banned aren't that. The activists will always find the one most egregious example and harp on it while their real target is anything that is outside of their puritanical worldview.

Bingo.

 

[ulukinatme]

Sanitized but the same. Ezekiel is basically saying those women love the huge cocks and getting bukake’d.

Ban it.... or does this have significant literary, educational, or historical value for kids? Should kids read this and have it translated fully for them?? I have never heard this passage discussed in any of the church denominations I have attended.

Incorrect, not the same at all. Kids are going to read the sanitized version and most won't think two twice about it because it's innocuous on it's face. Hell, most adults probably won't even seek the deeper meaning because of the loose way it's written. That's kind of the point though, it's written in such a way not to illicit inappropriate feelings or thoughts. A learned adult will understand the difference, children will not. It's the same reason we don't understand adult jokes hidden in Disney movies when we're young, and we don't even question it till we're older.

The passage isn't discussed in church for good reason. Ezekiel is hardly an often quoted book of the Bible, quite frankly. It's not the Gospels, it's not the Pentateuch, it's not the Psalms. It's not Tobit obscure, but kids don't read it in Sunday school.

 

[Irish#1]

People need to understand that repressing sexual urges never ends well. Hiding from them... not discussing them... keeping kids in the dark psychologically is harmful over the long run.

It should be discussed. With your parents, not your teacher.

 

[TorontoGold]

It should be discussed. With your parents, not your teacher.

Are these books part of the curriculum?

The first time we talked about sex in school was the banana and condom thing in grade 10, which felt about the right time to discuss it. I can't imagine elementary school teachers would be too comfortable talking about sex with 12 year olds lol.

 

[drayer54]

Are these books part of the curriculum?

The first time we talked about sex in school was the banana and condom thing in grade 10, which felt about the right time to discuss it. I can't imagine elementary school teachers would be too comfortable talking about sex with 12 year olds lol.

The neighboring school district here was talking to 4th graders about anal.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

sorry the quote got messe dup ulk:

Incorrect, not the same at all. Kids are going to read the sanitized version and most won't think two twice about it because it's innocuous on it's face.

If you read the bible then you will read that passage as well as all the passages. If you study the bible you will read that passage ( and all the other passages) and seek to understand it. If you claim to be a Christian then you will and should read that passage (and all other passages) and understand it as it was intended within the context of its society and time of authorship and the culture and the audience it was written for. Or is skipping things in the sacred text of Christianity acceptable? Doesnt matter the translation because they all say the same thing. You cant ignore this and take a completely different tach on a more modern book and call yourself intellectually honest about both.

Hell, most adults probably won't even seek the deeper meaning because of the loose way it's written.

Weird argument for skipping over what is obviously one of many sexually deviant passages in the fundamental tome of your religion but ok......in any event this same "point" could be said for these books they will never read in high school libraries. Instead of ignoring a passage because it conflicts with your personal belief, you intentionally seek out a passage that confirms your aversions, accept the bible in its proper context but ignore the context for the modern book. Weird.

That's kind of the point though, it's written in such a way not to illicit inappropriate feelings or thoughts.

The bible was written and compiled in a foreign language and translated and issued in multiple versions, but its quite clear from my image above that the meaning is explicitly clear within the context of the total passage and adjacent passages, as well as culturally and historically. The fact that KJV softened the concept with less explicit words changes nothing. If you truly seek to understand the bible then you must confront this passage and others that are sexually deviant and explicit in its content and intent. You seem ok to kick this to the curb while simultaneously seeking out the same type of passages in the modern books and ok with using that to solely judge the quality of the literature.

A learned adult will understand the difference, children will not. It's the same reason we don't understand adult jokes hidden in Disney movies when we're young, and we don't even question it till we're older.

So what. Its literature. Its in a book children are exposed to. Its sexually deviant. This could easily be singled out in the same manner people are singling out solitary passages from the modern banned book lists. You rebuttal can easily be applied to ANY book... so why all the bother about these modern books? Nonsensical and internally inconsistent logically.

The passage isn't discussed in church for good reason. Ezekiel is hardly an often quoted book of the Bible, quite frankly. It's not the Gospels, it's not the Pentateuch, it's not the Psalms. It's not Tobit obscure, but kids don't read it in Sunday school.

Its literally a part of the bible. You cant just dismiss it or ignore it like its not there in print and not a part of the canon. It was included by the founders of the faith for a reason. You dont get to rely on parts of Genesis because of the origin story, skip over Lot and the raping of two angles, Noah's incests, all the kids that God slaughters with vengeance, accept that parts of Leviticus are right and others can be ignored.....that is peak intellectual dishonety.

Its not the only passage either. There are tons of sexually explicit and deviant passages in the bible all throughout it. I can still remember in catechism I was waiting for it to begin and I came across the passages about what was clearly and incestuous incident. I asked both my parents and my teacher about it because I thought it was bad and they both dismissed my question more out of them just not wanting to answer my very direct questions.

 

[ulukinatme]

How many of the children of these offended parents have smart phones on which they could look up a news clip of, say a presidential candidate being able to grab a woman by the pussy? My guess is that most of these same parents pushing school boards to ban books would defend their decision to provide the access to their kids and the candidate for saying it. This is non- issue in this day and age. Kids have access to all manner of reading and viewing materials these days that many would find offensive and inappropriate and their kids seek it out like a young book in the 70s or 80s swiping a Playboy from dad’s collection in the 70s and 80s.

You think kids are looking up campaign talking points from 7 years ago? Really weird analogy, that conversation between Trump and Bush was a private discussion between them, it wasn't for public consumption like a book or movie.

Not every dad had a stash of Playboys in the house, some parents were better than that. Not all kids have unlimited access to the internet at their fingertips, some of us do a pretty good job locking things down. My daughter tried to con me last year into getting her a phone, the old "Every one of my friends has one!" Turned out her best friend did not, the daughter of two teachers. That family's more locked down than we are even, they don't do tablets and severely limit the media time and outlets they do have access to. Those kids are all on the Principal's list and are almost sickeningly wholesome. I realize in today's day and age that's probably the exception to the rule, but it's something to aspire to and not condemn. You advocate for anarchy, I'd rather do better for my kids and raise them the right way.

 

[ulukinatme]

this entire argument could be applied to any book.

Sure, to a degree. Do those books I linked adhere to that argument? No, no they do not. They're not appropriate for kids. Parents can choose to let their children read them if they want, schools cannot. One sanitized line certainly isn't going to break a book like the Bible. An entire paragraph or chapters dedicated to sex acts aren't going to magically clean up.

 

[Irish#1]

Are these books part of the curriculum?

The first time we talked about sex in school was the banana and condom thing in grade 10, which felt about the right time to discuss it. I can't imagine elementary school teachers would be too comfortable talking about sex with 12 year olds lol.

10th grade is when we had sex-ed, but I sure don't remember anything about a banana. lol

We had a doctor, a minister and a priest come in. It was very basic and centered around abstinence and consequences (VD's and pregnancies). No discussion on a guys manhood, the ladies cookie, BJ's, positions, LGBTQ, etc.

 

[Irish#1]

You think kids are looking up campaign talking points from 7 years ago? Really weird analogy, that conversation between Trump and Bush was a private discussion between them, it wasn't for public consumption like a book or movie.

Not every dad had a stash of Playboys in the house, some parents were better than that. Not all kids have unlimited access to the internet at their fingertips, some of us do a pretty good job locking things down. My daughter tried to con me last year into getting her a phone, the old "Every one of my friends has one!" Turned out her best friend did not, the daughter of two teachers. That family's more locked down than we are even, they don't do tablets and severely limit the media time and outlets they do have access to. Those kids are all on the Principal's list and are almost sickeningly wholesome. I realize in today's day and age that's probably the exception to the rule, but it's something to aspire to and not condemn. You advocate for anarchy, I'd rather do better for my kids and raise them the right way.

That's they way to do it. Anything they aren't permitted to see today, will still be available when they're older.

 

[TorontoGold]

10th grade is when we had sex-ed, but I sure don't remember anything about a banana. lol

We had a doctor, a minister and a priest come in. It was very basic and centered around abstinence and consequences (VD's and pregnancies). No discussion on a guys manhood, the ladies cookie, BJ's, positions, LGBTQ, etc.

Lol maybe it was one of those little carrots

Yeah our sex-ed teacher was our gym teacher as well, and scared the hell out of us. Laid out how our lives would be ruined if we got a girl pregnant or if we got some STD. Probably wouldn't work today.

 

[Irish#1]

What was the name of that book? How to win friends and influence enemies? lol

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Sure, to a degree. Do those books I linked adhere to that argument? No, no they do not. They're not appropriate for kids. Parents can choose to let their children read them if they want, schools cannot. One sanitized line certainly isn't going to break a book like the Bible. An entire paragraph or chapters dedicated to sex acts aren't going to magically clean up.

Elaborate please. Its not one sanitized line. There are hundreds of explicit and deviant passages in the Bible but that's ok for some reason and it will most definitely be found in most schools given a certain side's continued war to bring Jesus back into the schools. Is certainly being taught and is readily available in religous chools.

 

[ulukinatme]

If you read the bible then you will read that passage as well as all the passages. If you study the bible you will read that passage ( and all the other passages) and seek to understand it. If you claim to be a Christian then you will and should read that passage (and all other passages) and understand it as it was intended within the context of its society and time of authorship and the culture and the audience it was written for. Or is skipping things in the sacred text of Christianity acceptable? Doesnt matter the translation because they all say the same thing. You cant ignore this and take a completely different tach on a more modern book and call yourself intellectually honest about both.

Are you Christian? Who made you a Pope or even pastor to decide how a Christian lives their life? I've already said kids don't study Ezekiel in private school or Sunday school. You'll find it maybe in an adult bible study, but never any I've been to. I'm fine with one risqué line being sanitized because, as I said, it's going to go over children's heads and probably a lot of adults too.

Weird argument for skipping over what is obviously one of many sexually deviant passages in the fundamental tome of your religion but ok......in any event this same "point" could be said for these books they will never read in high school libraries. Instead of ignoring a passage because it conflicts with your personal belief, you intentionally seek out a passage that confirms your aversions, accept the bible in its proper context but ignore the context for the modern book. Weird.

You think one line, once again sanitized in some versions, in a 1,200 page book is more sexually deviant than the paragraphs of smut they're reading at those school boards? LOL, okay.

The bible was written and compiled in a foreign language and translated and issued in multiple versions, but its quite clear from my image above that the meaning is explicitly clear within the context of the total passage and adjacent passages, as well as culturally and historically. The fact that KJV softened the concept with less explicit words changes nothing. If you truly seek to understand the bible then you must confront this passage and others that are sexually deviant and explicit in its content and intent. You seem ok to kick this to the curb while simultaneously seeking out the same type of passages in the modern books and ok with using that to solely judge the quality of the literature.

Actually, it does. Sexually explicit language and vague sanitized language are not the same. I'll use the Disney analogy once again. Adults get this joke, a child does not:

So what. Its literature. Its in a book children are exposed to. Its sexually deviant. This could easily be singled out in the same manner people are singling out solitary passages from the modern banned book lists. You rebuttal can easily be applied to ANY book... so why all the bother about these modern books? Nonsensical and internally inconsistent logically.

PlayBoy is a publication too. Are children allowed to purchase it? Why not?

Its literally a part of the bible. You cant just dismiss it or ignore it like its not there in print and not a part of the canon. It was included by the founders of the faith for a reason. You dont get to rely on parts of Genesis because of the origin story, skip over Lot and the raping of two angles, Noah's incests, all the kids that God slaughters with vengeance, accept that parts of Leviticus are right and others can be ignored.....that is peak intellectual dishonety.

Its not the only passage either. There are tons of sexually explicit and deviant passages in the bible all throughout it. I can still remember in catechism I was waiting for it to begin and I came across the passages about what was clearly and incestuous incident. I asked both my parents and my teacher about it because I thought it was bad and they both dismissed my question more out of them just not wanting to answer my very direct questions.

When children study the Bible they're given passages that are relatable and understandable to them. They're given the Gospels, they're given Exodus and the story of the Israelites leaving Egypt. They're given the story of Adam and Eve (I'm surprised you didn't mention that one, even more incest than Noah's three sons and their wives repopulating the world). Tell me this, does the Bible detail at great length Adam getting an erection, thrusting in and out of Eve hard and fast until his semen is running down her leg? Does it talk in detail about Eve getting on her knees and wrapping her lips around Adam's member and giving him head? Give me a break. THAT is peak intellectual dishonesty. Yes, there is some sexual content in the Bible, but it's almost always written either tongue in cheek or vaguely so it doesn't offend or confuse younger readers and, lets be frank, the parts that are like that are not the excerpts you hear in your Sunday sermon.

 

[ulukinatme]

Elaborate please. Its not one sanitized line. There are hundreds of explicit and deviant passages in the Bible but that's ok for some reason and it will most definitely be found in most schools given a certain side's continued war to bring Jesus back into the schools. Is certainly being taught and is readily available in religous chools.

You find me a passage in the KJ Bible that's even half as sexually explicit and detailed as the paragraphs in "What girls are made of" or the illustrations in Gender Queer. I'll wait.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Your emotional personal anecdote does not mean middle school kids need the school library to offer books teaching them how to give blow jobs and graphic details of gay sex. There are infinite resources available - the school doesn't need to go down that road, ever. Sexual promiscuity and alternative lifestyles are highly correlated with mental anguish ...... so we should promote those paths? Sexualizing children is wrong. Anyone who supports it is a groomer perv.

This post right here is really the crux of how backwards it all is.

My personal anecdote was to highlight how complex societal and religious standard impact a person's mental well being. My sister certainly isnt alone at all in this dissonance from what you call alternative lifestyles (its not a lifestyle or a choice but Im not arguing that with you right now). The mental anguish as you put it results from the dissonance of the person experiencing their reality within the confines of a society and culture that is inherently antagonistic against them. That dissonance is the conflict. That dissonance is the source of the anguish that results in depression and anxiety and some case suicides. These books dont promote anything of the like as you say. Creating a literary product (non-fiction or fiction) using literary devices to discuss complex issues as it relates to sexual identity and relationships does not equal promoting that behavior. The Bible literally spells out how to treat slaves. Does that mean the bible condones it? Approves of it now? Should we have slaves at this very moment? Im gonna go out on a limb and say that every one of the true believers here will say that no it doesnt promote slavery, that it was part of the culture back then, and we should look at it in historical context, and that we learned from our historical mistakes. NOW apply that same internal logic to these modern books and you will see why all this book banning bullshit is just that....bullshit.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

You find me a passage in the KJ Bible that's even half as sexually explicit and detailed as the paragraphs in "What girls are made of" or the illustrations in Gender Queer. I'll wait.

smh. ok. incoming.

 

[GoIrish41]

Not every dad had a stash of Playboys in the house, some parents were better than that.

I grew up in a working class Pennsylvania town in the late 60s and 70s. If a kid’s dad didn’t have a stash he had a friend whose dad did. Cliches aren’t built out of one-offs, my man.

Not all kids have unlimited access to the internet at their fingertips, some of us do a pretty good job locking things down.
Or did anyone say they did.
My daughter tried to con me last year into getting her a phone, the old "Every one of my friends has one!" Turned out her best friend did not, the daughter of two teachers. That family's more locked down than we are even, they don't do tablets and severely limit the media time and outlets they do have access to. Those kids are all on the Principal's list and are almost sickeningly wholesome.

Nice story. Most people aren’t nearly as Amish or ‘self’righteous.

I realize in today's day and age that's probably the exception to the rule, but it's something to aspire to and not condemn. You advocate for anarchy, I'd rather do better for my kids and raise them the right way.

I’ve not condemned anything. I’m simply stating a fact. The last place the average kid finds the majority of what he/she reads is in the school library. Our high-tech, superficial and voyeuristic society is bombarded by things far more offensive on a daily basis, no matter how diligent the parents are.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Are you Christian? Who made you a Pope or even pastor to decide how a Christian lives their life? I've already said kids don't study Ezekiel in private school or Sunday school. You'll find it maybe in an adult bible study, but never any I've been to. I'm fine with one risqué line being sanitized because, as I said, it's going to go over children's heads and probably a lot of adults too.

oy vey. If you want to call yourself a Christian but not understand the fundamental tome of your religion by all means go ahead. Im not judging anyone. I believe you will be judged one day but not by me certainly. Conversely why do you think you have the authority to deny/remove/ban a literary piece of work from someone outside of your family unit? Are you an American where this is literally antithetical to personal freedom?

You think one line, once again sanitized in some versions, in a 1,200 page book is more sexually deviant than the paragraphs of smut they're reading at those school boards? LOL, okay.

Again you reference one sanitized line. There are hundreds of gross and deviant things in the Bible that Im certain no one wants to read or they skip over in their study or dismiss because it conflicts with what they think is a pure piece of literature. You have already acknowledged that most people dismiss Ezekiel anyway. So why cant you just dismiss these books that have you so upset? You clearly have zero issues skipping over huge chunks of the fundamental canon you live your life off of.

Actually, it does. Sexually explicit language and vague sanitized language are not the same. I'll use the Disney analogy once again. Adults get this joke, a child does not:

Rabbits have lots of babies. So what. How does this compare to talking about the size of a cock and volume of ejaculate? Maybe you can look at Exodus and tell me how to handle my slaves?

PlayBoy is a publication too. Are children allowed to purchase it? Why not?

LITERALLY NO ONE SAYS PLAYBOY SHOULD BE IN SCHOOLS LOL.

When children study the Bible they're given passages that are relatable and understandable to them. They're given the Gospels, they're given Exodus and the story of the Israelites leaving Egypt. They're given the story of Adam and Eve (I'm surprised you didn't mention that one, even more incest than Noah's three sons and their wives repopulating the world). Tell me this, does the Bible detail at great length Adam getting an erection, thrusting in and out of Eve hard and fast until his semen is running down her leg? Does it talk in detail about Eve getting on her knees and wrapping her lips around Adam's member and giving him head? Give me a break. THAT is peak intellectual dishonesty. Yes, there is some sexual content in the Bible, but it's almost always written either tongue in cheek or vaguely so it doesn't offend or confuse younger readers and, lets be frank, the parts that are like that are not the excerpts you hear in your Sunday sermon.

Its absolutely dishonest. If kids cant handle the complete tome, then maybe its not for them to be exposed to? Isnt that your WHOLE ARGUMENT? lol