Mysterious woman tells school board that Scholastic book sparked porn addiction
Mysterious woman tells school board that Scholastic book sparked porn addiction
Wait till she actually reads the Bible. She's gonna be sooooo horny after that I tell ya.
If a simple kiss gives her a porn addiction what does she think of what Lot's daughters did? Worse than a damn Folgers commercial
I love using that story to counter the "modern books are smut, have kids read the Bible" folks. Either that or the story of Dinah.
To those who don't know it. Dinah was raped. Her rapist decided he wanted to marry her and, being such a "nice guy," asked her brothers for permission. They agreed, but only if he and all men in the town were circumcised. The guy agreed and, being the prince, ordered all men to get circumcised. When all the men were "indisposed," the brothers came in, killed all the men, took the women and children as slaves, and took all their possessions.
Their father, Jacob, was angry with how they acted because they "caused trouble" and it could result in other tribes attacking them. Apparently, he was fine with his daughter being raped because the story just moves on to other things.
So this is just a normal everyday kid's story with rape, theft, and murder! Perfectly acceptable for any child to read because at least two guys didn't kiss!!!
Ezekiel 23:20 is gonna blow her mind.
Check out Song of Solomon, it's literally straight-up smut.
It's a valid strategy! 😌 https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/utah-republicans-are-furious-schools
So she's not even objecting to LGBT+ content specifically? She's against all kissing in books? So no Snow White? No Frog Prince?
Y'all Qaeda
When queer people said that they’d be coming for y’all’s romantic expression next we really didn’t expect it to be so dang quick
No bible, even, but we all know that consistency is never a problem for these dopes.
Especially no bible. The amount of sex (including butt stuff), incest, wanking, murder, and torture in there would surely have every conservative parent in an uproar
What about holding hands? Does that lead to porn addictions also?
Oh, and the Frog Prince involved kissing a frog. Some frogs produce hallucinogenic substances so kissing them can get you high. Therefore, reading that book leads to drug addictions! It's a two-fer!
Of course it's a plant by a right-wing org.
Scholastic fairs were amazing when I was in school. Good to see that they are still in operation.
Everybody I knew got that "How to Draw Robots" book.
And now, of course, we're all addicted to robot porn.
It's been so long ago that I don't remember what I bought from them. I read loads of books when Inwas a kid. Though I don't think I bought any of the "how to draw" series.
Reminder that "porn addiction" is not a thing. Sexual addiction is, porn addiction was invented by conservative/religious weirdos who think masturbation is "sinful." Religions are especially glib about calling things "porn and addiction" without justification. They want you to think you're sick, so they can provide you the "cure."
Just because you enjoy looking at porn and/or masturbating regularly doesn't mean you have a sexual addiction. If you have trouble maintaining employment or relationships because of your habits, you might, and you should talk it over with a secular licensed psychologist to make that determination and decide the best way to address it.
Edit: for anyone that wants to take umbrage at the fact that "sex addiction" isn't in the latest DSM-V from 2013, here's a 2019 review from psychology scholars: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=porn+addiction&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1701288070891&u=%23p%3DNjIPuUqk95kJ
And one from 2020: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11094516847889822262&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en#d=gs_qabs&t=1701288571080&u=%23p%3Dz2RDDmDZK2AJ
Hey, can you tell me where sex addiction is in the DSM-V? I can't seem to find it as a diagnosis.
Not to be pedantic, but the DSM is not the final word on the existence of different disorders. It is a tool to help doctors do their jobs.
You won't find Religious Trauma Syndrome in the DSM either, yet it is still recognized as a thing by a growing number of professionals. This example is still being discussed as to whether it should be its own category or if it should be rolled into CPTSD.
So I would demure to the consensus of practicing psychologists, not the DSM.
Maybe it’s a good thing that the DSM-5 shouldn’t be considered:
The Conroe school board, after listening to her story, voted to restrict access to Drama, the Scholastic book featuring a kiss, from all students in the 8th grade and below.
Bruh, in 8th grade the girl sitting next to me in science class told me she liked the smell of my pubescent BO and offered to blow me under the lab bench. Also in sex ed I had a very clear view of some girl giving her boyfriend a foot job under the table. Also 9/11 happened that year. I'll give you three guesses which one was the most traumatic.
she liked the smell of my pubescent BO and offered to blow me under the lab bench. Also in sex ed I had a very clear view of some girl giving her boyfriend a foot job under the table
that's not sexualizing kids, though. it's only sexualizing kids if it's queer.
Damn, I went to the wrong school.
So apparently this woman works for a competing (fringe right wing) book publisher. In which case Scholastic might have grounds to sue.
Way to admit your mind is as strong as wet paper.
She (didn't) got better
It's a slippery slope from learning that love and romance exists to porn addiction and blowing homeless dudes in an alley. This is why we must never teach children that affection exists. Only hate.
Surprisingly, that book was not one of the Captain Underpants series
Right, I laughed so hard. There were so many rude and crude kids books back in the day. Things far more controversial than a kiss. These people have actually lost it. And unfortunately so has at least one board member.
One time I read a book with the word "the" in it. Man, the dark places that took me. (/s if not obvious).
Where on earth do the book-banning nutjobs find these other nutjobs?
Wherever home-schoolers congregate, I imagine.
Lmao. For me, I just have a love for those anatomical books that peal back a layer, everytime you turn the page.
Jesus that's a slippery slope
Debilitating addictions are an illness. Should we kill all of the bees because some people are severely allergic? I can understand the mysterious woman feeling that way, but the sane response is treatment of the few susceptible, not prohibition for all the rest.
She's the marketing officer for a right-wing competitor to Scholastic. I am doubtful she has a porn addiction in the first place, and I'm 100% sure it wasn't "sparked" by Scholastic books for kids. And if it was, I submit her problem is different than she thinks it is.
If this is the case, she should be tossed out on her has and fined for being an asshole and wasting their time.
Bees, casinos, the sun, peanuts, bullets, humans, etc.
Oxygen.
Pretty sure there's way more worse things that on network TV, orjust youtube and the internet in general. Assuming she's not just making shit up, she would've encountered way more worse stuff in life. If not a scholastic book showing a kiss, she would've seen it somewhere else.
There’s worse things in the vast majority of teenagers’ minds no matter how repressed they’re raised.
And I've been turned into a lizard by that Scholastic book, but it's over now.
“ Burkhardt's appearance was promoted by SkyTree Book Fairs, a newly formed organization marketing itself as "an alternative to the sexually explicit content distributed in Scholastic's book fairs."”
Hmmm, so this was a marketing ploy?
She's literally their marketing officer
Why would anyone listen to this degenerate porn-addled lady.
What an embarrassing thing to put on the resumé
Yeah, a marketing ploy by a fascist organization:
Fuckin gross.
And there it is, ayup. These people are doing quite the full court press to drag us back into the 50s.
(1950s? Or 1850s. You decide)
Scholastic should sue the living shit out of all of them.
That sadly worked: