Book with pictures of graphic gay sex technique approved for k-12 in BC.

[CdnFox]

 

I wouldn't want a book depicting graphic hetero sex available to grade 1 students.  This is just wrong.  The video shows the images - this isn't some sort of thing where two people share a kiss.  This is inappropriate for children.

Are there still any on the left claimng this hasn't gone too far?

[OftenWrong]

I hope they'll at least teach 'em about getting aids, and shit...

[Guest]

I couldn't agree more with both of you.  It's ridiculous that this book is approved for use in schools.

I have to admit, because of how ridiculous I find it, to a suspicion that there is more to the story.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I couldn't agree more with both of you.  It's ridiculous that this book is approved for use in schools.

I have to admit, because of how ridiculous I find it, to a suspicion that there is more to the story.

Well i see that someone called in a complaint to the cops that it was child porn  in schools and the cops and the schools confirmed it's in the schools but said it doesn't constitute 'child' porn as defined by the act. Which makes sense - those don't appear to be children in the images, so while it may be READ by children i dont know that you could say it DEPICTS children. 

But that does confirm that it's in some schools and now that it's been cleared for all schools who can say.  It was definitely a problem in the states i see where it's now being pulled from a lot of school libraries.

Seriously, even in highschool it's inappropriate for most of the age groups.  Sure the 11's and 12's are old enough to be thinking about sexual behavior and such but i don't think a 12 or 13 year old should be reading 'picture' books about how to have oral or anal sex. Hetero OR homo.

If kids parents want them to read those books then they can acquire them.  But books like that don't belong in our schools, ESPECIALLY our elementary schools and right now that's perfectly allowed.

 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I couldn't agree more with both of you.  It's ridiculous that this book is approved for use in schools.

I have to admit, because of how ridiculous I find it, to a suspicion that there is more to the story.

I looked it up quickly.  My suspicion is not well founded. 

This is a good example of progressives completely shooting their foot off.  LGBGTQ issues should be taught in school.  The very best way to ensure they won't be is to use books like this.  It will only ensure that the exposure students get to the issue is surrounded by anger and conflict.

I do suspect that those who would include books as explicit as this in the curriculum do not want to do so with students in mind.  I think it's more to score ideological points.

Edited July 24, 2023 by bcsapper

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I looked it up quickly.  My suspicion is not well founded. 

This is a good example of progressives completely shooting their foot off.  LGBGTQ issues should be taught in school.  The very best way to ensure they won't be is to use books like this.  It will only ensure that the rxposure student's get to the issue is surrounded by anger and conflict.

I do suspect that those who would include books as explicit as this in the curriculum do not want to do so with students in mind.  I think it's more to score ideological points.

Agreed.

It's one thing to teach kids that some kids have two mommies or two daddies. Just like some kids have one mommy or one daddy, and some have a mommy AND a daddy and that's fine. That's totally within a kids' wheelhouse.   But "sometimes daddy's like to put their penis in other daddies" is not appropriate till their a lot older.

Same with puberty. " your body is going to have a bunch of changes, here's what's going on" is one thing. But sex ed should wait till an appropriate age, 8 years old is NOT an appropriate age.

And pushing this agenda just winds up setting things back. Its playing a dangerous game of identity politics with kids.

[Guest]

What the actual f***.

I feel old. In grade one, I thought girls had cooties. That they all stunk and were gross. Now I know its just the crackheads down town.

Now they are teaching kids what they should be allowed to be oblivious to.

I honestly thought as a young child that oral sex was telling someone you loved them. I thought SIDA was how you said AIDS in English (am French). 

You could imagine the horror as I told people adults that had oral sex with me all the time o_O

But I was at least allowed to have that innocence. Adults laughing in relief when they really knew what I meant. 

Now there is zero left to the imagination.

Couldn't you blur that s***?

This isn't homophobic. 

I caught my parents having sex. There are some things kids should not know as long as you can keep it that way.

 

[herbie]

You're all acting like this is being forced on elementary kids like some "Dick In Jane" lampoon.
Be offended if High School students were not able to see it if they wished to.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, herbie said:

You're all acting like this is being forced on elementary kids like some "Dick In Jane" lampoon.
Be offended if High School students were not able to see it if they wished to.

I'm not.  Given what children have available to them in terms of explicit content outside of school these days such images probably won't be as big a deal to them as they would have been when I was in school, but I would not be offended if this book was not available in the school library, or as part of the curriculum.  Any high school students who wanted to see it would be able to regardless.

How would you approach this if you were a school board?

What about comics showing opposite sex couples having oral sex?

 

 

[Moonbox]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

How would you approach this if you were a school board?

I think that's what's dumb about this.  Whether or not this is as big a deal as folks make it out to be, it was perfectly predictable that some folks would make a big deal about it.  Sexually explicit comics really, really don't need to be part of the school library, do they?  That's a fairly reasonable expectation, I think, but you'll undoubtedly have people screaming HOMOPHOBIA for suggesting it.  

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I think that's what's dumb about this.  Whether or not this is as big a deal as folks make it out to be, it was perfectly predictable that some folks would make a big deal about it.  Sexually explicit comics really, really don't need to be part of the school library, do they?  That's a fairly reasonable expectation, I think, but you'll undoubtedly have people screaming HOMOPHOBIA for suggesting it.  

 

You're correct of course - which gets the parents who were concerned angry for being called names because they raise concerns which widens the rift and pretty soon you have gay vs anti gay where none of that existed before.  That's np the kind of 'awareness'  we need .

 

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, I agree that parents should be able to object to this book without any stigma attached.

[WestCanMan]

This shouldn't end with "a slight raising of standards", the people who approved this for k-12 have just proven that children should never be placed in their care.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

This shouldn't end with "a slight raising of standards", the people who approved this for k-12 have just proven that children should never be placed in their care.

Seriously, and justifies the parents weary about what their kids are taught in school.

There is no instance that this is appropriate in. 

Its just not a conversation you have with a 4 year old, let alone a 6 year old.

Sorry, but blowjobs, strap ons and fantasizing about getting pounded in the a** is not even appropriate to be taught to a 16 year old in class o_O.

Sure fine, they have access to porn at that age. Good for them.

Its still not your job to to show porn to them. That's like watching porn with your parents.

That's Jerry Springer show level awkward.

[Michael Hardner]

Since we all seem to be against making this book *available* in the library (as far as I can see, teaching it was never the issue so let's focus on the real here) let's talk about the process of how that happened.

Either some parents asked for it, or they didn't. 

If they did then they are approving these books for their children only, presumably.  I do get some say in what my kids are able to check out of the library, I think.  Do I get some say in what OTHER kids can see ?  I say yes... but less.

And if the educators unilaterally picked these books without request from parents then yes they have to justify why.

It's reasonable to ask questions about the process and to expect clear and timely answers.  We can't be allowed to be classified as below educators - it is a partnership.  And there will be disagreement, and we have to plan for that.

It's not reasonable for people to make angry accusations first and to ascribe motivations without any evidence at all.

[Zeitgeist]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Agreed.

It's one thing to teach kids that some kids have two mommies or two daddies. Just like some kids have one mommy or one daddy, and some have a mommy AND a daddy and that's fine. That's totally within a kids' wheelhouse.   But "sometimes daddy's like to put their penis in other daddies" is not appropriate till their a lot older.

Same with puberty. " your body is going to have a bunch of changes, here's what's going on" is one thing. But sex ed should wait till an appropriate age, 8 years old is NOT an appropriate age.

And pushing this agenda just winds up setting things back. Its playing a dangerous game of identity politics with kids.

I would go further and say that our legislators and educators have blown it by making unhealthy changes both to our curricula and human rights legislation. I would like to see our social mores return to where they were about 15 years ago, including the removal of same sex marriage.  Civil union for tax benefits is probably okay.  I already know it’s too late for that.  The same goes for trans rights and perhaps even gender affirmation for kids. We are watching the negative results of all this legislation unfold now.  Our men are becoming more feminine. There’s a huge rise in girls attempting to become male through dangerous, experimental surgeries and meds, and kids are being sexualized and exposed to behaviours that were considered taboo not long ago, probably for good reason.

Most people have gone along with these changes in the name of tolerance and being supportive, but it looks more and more like a complete lack of guidance.  Reckless is perhaps a better word.  When we think that gender can be chosen and we stop mentoring boys to become men and girls to become women, we sow confusion.

Putin and more traditional societies, including Islamic ones, are on firm ground when they criticize our societies, because we’re actually destroying the most fundamental building block of a successful civilization, the family.

 

Edited July 25, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. I would go further and say ...

2. Most people have gone along with these changes in the name of tolerance and being supportive,  

3. Putin and more traditional societies, including Islamic ones, are on firm ground when they criticize our societies, because we’re actually destroying the most fundamental building block of a successful civilization, the family.

 

1. Your point of view is valid, but only as valid as those of parents who ostensibly want those books in the library, on that level.
2. You don't know what motivates most people, even the people themselves don't know sometimes.
3. Yeah, well there's the rub.  If you want a dictatorship there's currently a PM who has expressed admiration for them - he's your guy.

Look - when there is NO TRUST - no trust between individuals, or between groups - then you need WRITTEN AND ENFORCED agreements in the form of policies.  Your input to those things is contingent on your ability to engage with a process without losing your marbles and declaring everyone involved as a cultural Marxist or whatever.  

The bureaucrats are more willing to listen to calm people, live and learn.

[OftenWrong]

27 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I would go further and say that our legislators and educators have blown it by making unhealthy changes both to our curricula and human rights legislation. I would like to see our social mores return to where they were about 15 years ago, including the removal of same sex marriage.  Civil union for tax benefits is probably okay.  I already know it’s too late for that.  The same goes for trans rights and perhaps even gender affirmation for kids. We are watching the negative results of all this legislation unfold now.  Our men are becoming more feminine. There’s a huge rise in girls attempting to become male through dangerous, experimental surgeries and meds, and kids are being sexualized and exposed to behaviours that were considered taboo not long ago, probably for good reason.

Most people have gone along with these changes in the name of tolerance and being supportive, but it looks more and more like a complete lack of guidance.  Reckless is perhaps a better word.  When we think that gender can be chosen and we stop mentoring boys to become men and girls to become women, we sow confusion.

Putin and more traditional societies, including Islamic ones, are on firm ground when they criticize our societies, because we’re actually destroying the most fundamental building block of a successful civilization, the family.

 

Yes you are right Zeitgeist, but "that ship has sailed". Gay marriage was introduced about twenty years ago. Time flies when you're in a a progressive nation, and eventually you reap what you sow.

What you have written there, what you are extolling as virtue, is everything the Christian church teaches about how people should live.

Just sayin, is all.

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

Yes you are right Zeitgeist, but "that ship has sailed". Gay marriage was introduced about twenty years ago. Time flies when you're in a a progressive nation, and eventually you reap what you sow.

What you have written there, what you are extolling as virtue, is everything the Christian church teaches about how people should live.

Just sayin, is all.

Yes I agree.  

[OftenWrong]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes I agree.  

You are a conservative. Welcome, welcome.

[OftenWrong]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your point of view is valid, but only as valid as those of parents who ostensibly want those books in the library, on that level.

Disagree. Not all adult views are valid. Not all adult content should be permissible in a library for little kids.

But those parent who want that can go out and buy the book for their kid themselves.

[Moonbox]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Look - when there is NO TRUST - no trust between individuals, or between groups - then you need WRITTEN AND ENFORCED agreements in the form of policies.  Your input to those things is contingent on your ability to engage with a process without losing your marbles and declaring everyone involved as a cultural Marxist or whatever.  

You can't have a written policy for everything, even in a highly polarized environment.  A basic standard of common sense is required and "there's no written policy" is a poor excuse for not exercising judgement.  

The culture wars have two sides, after all.  

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Either some parents asked for it, or they didn't. 

At the risk of sounding like I'm stereotyping people here, I'm gonna go ahead and guess that right at the heart of this issue there are some short, chubby girls with short purple & blue hair who collect liberal arts degrees, troll dolls and Costco-sized dildos. 

I honestly don't even think that gay men are responsible for this. 

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Your point of view is valid, but only as valid as those of parents who ostensibly want those books in the library, on that level.

Quite false.

First off - there's quite a bit of resarch into the harms of sexulaizing kids early and none that shows a societal benefit to doing so.  But - setting that aside....

If the book is in the library then their kids have access to it as well. If the book is not in the library parents who want their kids to see it can still do so outside of school.  So it's not an equal thing at all.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

I would go further and say that our legislators and educators have blown it by making unhealthy changes both to our curricula and human rights legislation. I would like to see our social mores return to where they were about 15 years ago, including the removal of same sex marriage.  Civil union for tax benefits is probably okay.  I already know it’s too late for that.  The same goes for trans rights and perhaps even gender affirmation for kids. We are watching the negative results of all this legislation unfold now.  Our men are becoming more feminine. There’s a huge rise in girls attempting to become male through dangerous, experimental surgeries and meds, and kids are being sexualized and exposed to behaviours that were considered taboo not long ago, probably for good reason.

Most people have gone along with these changes in the name of tolerance and being supportive, but it looks more and more like a complete lack of guidance.  Reckless is perhaps a better word.  When we think that gender can be chosen and we stop mentoring boys to become men and girls to become women, we sow confusion.

Putin and more traditional societies, including Islamic ones, are on firm ground when they criticize our societies, because we’re actually destroying the most fundamental building block of a successful civilization, the family.

 

I don't have a problem with gay marriage per se - I could understand the argument of people back in the day and why they were unhappy with it, and I don't think that the term “Civil Union” should have proposed any real problems. But obviously at this point it would be way too much to untangle it now.

I do feel that things have gone too far. Feel like society was very accommodating to a minority group and worked very hard to make sure they had their rights and to treat them honestly and fairly and that now those same people are demanding the loss of other people's rights. It's not about equity anymore it's about they want to have more than everyone else.