Say Anything Blog

There’s a place for thought provoking books in libraries. 

But there’s no need to put sexually explicit or even sexually provocative books there, especially targeted to children.

Shame on them.

Nice post N.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

First off—the title of your post is a bit disingenuous—“Libraries push ‘erotic’ children’s books.” “Push?” The story referenced goes on to say “offered”—there is a difference there, right?  Pushed vs. offered?

Second—teens shouldn’t be able to read books about sex?  At the exact same time when normal adolescent (i.e. teen) thought may be partially focused (to a greater or lesser extent based on the individual) on sexual issues?

Third—I haven’t read any of these books, so I admit up front here that I don’t know what they contain.  I’d like, however, to hear/see what the “pornography” is in them from those of you protesting the books before making a decision.  If they include the fact that sex occurs, that homosexuals exist, that people masturbate, that pregnancies and disease are issues if one chooses to have sexual relations—well, for a few of those I just listed, I know that some on the conservative right see that as “pornographic.” That’s not my definition.

Fourth—Whistler:

There’s a place for thought provoking books in libraries.

Folks, I agree that my 6 year old shouldn’t be able to check out Henry Miller’s Tropic of Capricorn—however, my 6 year old doesn’t go to the library alone, and wouldn’t be interested in a boring looking “old person” book.  If a 13 year old lover of reading, however, is interested in Henry Miller or anything like it, I don’t think he or she should be without the ability to check it out of the local library, nor do I think it’s something he or she needs to go running to Mom or Dad to ask permission for.

I’m willing to bet that most, if not all, of these books are bit less sexually explicit than you Neiman. You’ve often been way beyond the boundaries of good taste when matters of homosexuality or sexuality get brought up.

I guess if there’s a question of whether or not the book is appropriate then it probably doesn’t need to be offered.

You don’t have to have a book in the library in order to be able to read it.  I certainly am against banning the same books to be sold.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I guess if there’s a question of whether or not the book is appropriate then it probably doesn’t need to be offered.

I don’t agree with that at all.  Again, who gets to question whether it’s appropriate or not?  Do we just get down to the books that no one at all questions?

So—libraries shouldn’t have Harry Potter, The Catcher in the Rye, Of Mice and Men, A Wrinkle in Time, To Kill a Mockingbird, Brave New World, Lord of the Flies, etc.?  Because people have questioned them and tried to ban them.  They are “questionable” in terms of their appropriateness, at least to some people. 

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.cfm

If you just don’t want public libraries, please say it.

Well I certainly wouldn’t agree with banning any of those.  But the books mentioned in the post would certainly qualify.

I certainly am against an anything goes sort of thing.

But then I’m not a big library kind of guy but I can tolerate contributing to them assuming they are respectful of certain standards.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Push versus offered: If they offered it to age appropriate youth upon request, these materials would simply be available. To refuse to restrict access based on any criteria whatsoever is to “push,” as a drug dealer pushes their drugs on as many people of any age as possible.

teens shouldn’t be able to read books about sex? Talk about being disingenous, there is nothing in the article that suggests these materials should be denied to age appropriate children, only that access should be restricted when children are not of an age to understand the ramifications of certain conduct and it therefore may prove emotionally harmful.

I haven’t read any of these books: Right! Neither will have most parents and therefore they will be ignorant of the sexual content. It is also a bit dishonest or naive on your part to say that if these books speak about homosexuality, masturbation and etcetera these materials, in your opinion, are not pornographic. How would you know, you admit you have not read them? What if they contain explicit photographs in a how-to manner of two men butt fuc*ing each other? I know of one book in our library that we forced to have moved to restricted access, wherein it had photographs of nude, prepubsecent children touching each others penis and vagina, breasts and in other ways “exploring sexuality!” Any child of any age could find the book on the shelves and read it, is that okay with you?

So is it a question of what thoughts are provoked? Who decides? Right! And your sexualy liberal views should not expose my grandchildren to what I consider pornographic materials, so reasonable restriction of access, at a minimum to age appropriate children is a rational policy that protects my grandchildren and allows your children to read such materials with you at home or in the privacy of their bathrooms.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I’m willing to bet that most, if not all, of these books are bit less sexually explicit than you Neiman. You’ve often been way beyond the boundaries of good taste when matters of homosexuality or sexuality get brought up.

It is unfortunate that you are incapable of just discussing the subject of the thread, rather you are more interested in character assassination. Gee, you must be a liberal!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

But the books mentioned in the post would certainly qualify.

You’ve read them?  So please tell me what is inappropriate.  As I stated in my first post, I haven’t read any of them.  I do know that if they are targeted at teenagers, involve themes of sexuality (including homosexuality), etc., they certainly shouldn’t be banned from libraries in my opinion.  So again, how come you get to decide the “certain standards” they are to be “respectful” of? 

There are people who agree with banning the books that I listed that you agreed shouldn’t be banned (Harry Potter, Of Mice and Men, Wrinkle in Time, To Kill a Mockinbird, etc.).  Why don’t they get to decide that their standards should be respected?

There are people who agree with banning the books that I listed that you agreed shouldn’t be banned (Harry Potter, Of Mice and Men, Wrinkle in Time, To Kill a Mockinbird, etc.).  Why don’t they get to decide that their standards should be respected?

Actually, except in the very distant past wherein some extremists may have sought the banning of such books, banning (Forbid, to legally prevent some thing to be read at all) is rarely if ever demanded by people objecting to the content of such materials. They most often seek an age appropriate restriction or in the cases of school assignments ask for alternative literature for their students to study. Neither, can by any rational interpretation of the term be considered ‘banning,’ which is the usual lying claim of liberals whenever any literature, no matter how pornographic is objected to by responsible adults.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

OK, I’ll go with you on that one—since my first post, I’ve fallen into the shorthand of “banning”—you’re right in your definition.  Is that okay for a “lying” liberal?

So, I’ll go back to my first post:

Folks, I agree that my 6 year old shouldn’t be able to check out Henry Miller’s Tropic of Capricorn—however, my 6 year old doesn’t go to the library alone, and wouldn’t be interested in a boring looking “old person” book.  If a 13 year old lover of reading, however, is interested in Henry Miller or anything like it, I don’t think he or she should be without the ability to check it out of the local library, nor do I think it’s something he or she needs to go running to Mom or Dad to ask permission for.

and then quote the original story:

move explicit books from teen shelves to adult sections.

So while it might not be banning, I still disagree with moving books from a teen section to the adult section and requiring teens to get parental permission for books such as those I mentioned (the ones I do have experience with) and most likely those listed above (though again I don’t have experience with those).  Honest enough?  Or still “lying”?

Neiman - It is unfortunate that you are incapable of just discussing the subject of the thread, rather you are more interested in character assassination.

Just making an observation, Neiman. Truth be told, I can be every bit as vulgar and beyond the boundaries of good taste in matters of sexuality as you. The difference being, I tend not to do it online.

Did I just character assassinate myself there?

Lighten up.

What if they contain explicit photographs in a how-to manner of two men butt fuc*ing each other?

There’s a bit of what I’m talking about. And you know as well as I do that that is hardly the kind of vulgarity you’re capable of.

Furthermore, Gee, you must be a liberal!

Most definitely. I always was.

So while it might not be banning, I still disagree with moving books from a teen section to the adult section and requiring teens to get parental permission for books such as those I mentioned (the ones I do have experience with) and most likely those listed above (though again I don’t have experience with those).  Honest enough?  Or still “lying”?

I don’t recall accusing you of lying, if I did I apologize for my excess.

Moving the books is the least severe age appropriate restriction I can think of, while I think such material at certain ages should demand parental permission or at least public awareness of the content; nonetheless, moving such books to an area not easily, visually available to age inappropriate children seems to me to be not very severe.

If it doesn’t bother you if your children view explicit pornography, why would parental permission offend you? Maybe, a library card with an unrestricted label might keep you from feeling as if you are promoting pornography for your children.

When you deny all reasonable accommodations to parents not sharing your sexually liberal views, you are forcing your views on their children, which is hardly the fair and American thing to do. Why not just negotiate fair age appropriate restrictions that will give your children full access to pornography while not making it available to age inappropriate children of parents objecting to such materials?

There’s a bit of what I’m talking about. And you know as well as I do that that is hardly the kind of vulgarity you’re capable of.

I am, to my sincere regret, capable of gross vulgarity, part of my old hard, rough Marine background I suppose; but it is to my shame, it is not something I wish to engage in on any occasion and I wish I never had. My point though, was why don’t you offer your wisdom on the subject of the thread and allow me to not be reminded of my occasional excesses without any warrant?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Furthermore, Gee, you must be a liberal!

This was solely a literary device to tie in the “character assassination” charge with the often made charge against liberals of engaging in such tactics. It had no greater depth than literary gymnastics because of my love of the written word.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman, I don’t feel that I’m promoting pornography, explicit or otherwise, to my children, or to anyone else’s.  I ask this honestly—what is your definition of “explicit pornagraphy?” We don’t need to get into crass descriptions—does it have to be pictures or photographs, such as you have described in a couple of your earlier posts, or do graphic words alone qualify?  What about some of the books listed in your original post—what if they’re teen-targeted books that describe sexual relationships (heterosexual or homosexual) but not in graphic ways (though I’m not sure how we judge what is too graphic and what isn’t).

Who decides what books go where?  How does a library decide what books go in the “don’t need parental consent” and “do need parental consent” sections?  One instance of sex?  Two?  Four cursewords or 28? Big can of worms is my worry—on-your-own reading is one of the greatest educational tools there is, I just don’t like the idea of teenagers only being able to explore some pre-approved set of literature.  I know the response is likely to be something along the lines of “do what you want for your kids, but don’t tell me what to do with mine.” I understand that opinion, honestly, but I just think teenagers need room to explore intellectually the world of literature without having to ask permission, from anyone.

I say this all with respect and hope that it comes across that way.

mdmdc: Good comments! They were quite respectful.

It seems to me that the solution can never be “do nothing” nor can it be official “censorship” (Supression of objectionable material). Rather, those people wanting unfettered access to all written materials for their children have the responsibility to seek ‘reasonable’ accommodations with those parents that want materials of a sexual nature, absent any need to define pornography, to be available only in an age approriate manner. That requires the library to work with all interested parents to seek moderate, reasonable age appropriate restrictions for their community, as SCOTUS said, according to local community standards.

That will mean a wide variety of definitions and rules, but no child will be denied materials appropriate to their age group and no children of inappropraite age groups will be exposed to materials beyond their maturity. After that, it is up to parents to be aware of what their children are reading, sometimes to censor certain materials for their children other times to facilitate open discussion of such materials.

While I do not believe that sexually explicit material is ever in the best interest of our children or society, in this time in our history, the best we can hope for is reasonable accommodations for each group, while avoiding the course of doing nothing at all.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.