Appalled beyond belief
Dec. 2nd, 2004 12:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annathepiperThese two news bits from today leave me so appalled it's not even funny. They're political, so if you're not in the mood to deal, better skip this one.
First up: if I ever get published, guess I'm not going to be on the shelves in Alabama public libraries! Neither are a whole host of other writers, if one lawmaker gets his way:
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1101896768316400.xml
Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
KIM CHANDLER
News staff writer
The Birmingham (Alabama) News
MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."
"Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle," Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.
Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
A spokesman for the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center called the bill censorship.
"It sounds like Nazi book burning to me," said SPLC spokesman Mark Potok.
Allen pre-filed his bill in advance of the 2005 legislative session, which begins Feb. 1.
If the bill became law, public school textbooks could not present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn't offer books with gay or bisexual characters.
When asked about Tennessee Williams' southern classic "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," Allen said the play probably couldn't be performed by university theater groups.
[more at URL]
And here's another wonderbunny of a news report. The last paragraph is particularly choice.
Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html
By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A01
Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.
Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.
Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.
The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.
Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:
* A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
* HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
* Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.
"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," Waxman said. "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."
When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say, and it is not known how many gay teenagers are HIV-positive. The assertion regarding gay teenagers may be a misinterpretation of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that 59 percent of HIV-infected males ages 13 to 19 contracted the virus through homosexual relations.
Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.
McIlhaney acknowledged that his group, which publishes "Sexual Health Today" instruction manuals, made a mistake in describing the relationship between a rare type of infection caused by chlamydia bacteria and heart failure. Chlamydia also causes a common type of sexually transmitted infection, but that is not linked to heart disease. But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.
Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and medical organizations. To be eligible, groups must limit discussion of contraception to failure rates.
President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years. It does not appear that the abstinence-only curricula are being taught in the Washington area.
Waxman and other liberal sex-education proponents argue that adolescents who take abstinence-only programs are ill-equipped to protect themselves if they become sexually active. According to the latest CDC data, 61 percent of graduating high school seniors have had sex.
Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about "safer sex" is an invitation to have sex.
Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that Waxman's report is a political document that does a "disservice to our children." Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."
Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex.
Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive sex education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.
Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."
First up: if I ever get published, guess I'm not going to be on the shelves in Alabama public libraries! Neither are a whole host of other writers, if one lawmaker gets his way:
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1101896768316400.xml
Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
KIM CHANDLER
News staff writer
The Birmingham (Alabama) News
MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."
"Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle," Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.
Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
A spokesman for the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center called the bill censorship.
"It sounds like Nazi book burning to me," said SPLC spokesman Mark Potok.
Allen pre-filed his bill in advance of the 2005 legislative session, which begins Feb. 1.
If the bill became law, public school textbooks could not present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn't offer books with gay or bisexual characters.
When asked about Tennessee Williams' southern classic "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," Allen said the play probably couldn't be performed by university theater groups.
[more at URL]
And here's another wonderbunny of a news report. The last paragraph is particularly choice.
Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html
By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A01
Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.
Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.
Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.
The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.
Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:
* A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
* HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
* Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.
"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," Waxman said. "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."
When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say, and it is not known how many gay teenagers are HIV-positive. The assertion regarding gay teenagers may be a misinterpretation of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that 59 percent of HIV-infected males ages 13 to 19 contracted the virus through homosexual relations.
Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.
McIlhaney acknowledged that his group, which publishes "Sexual Health Today" instruction manuals, made a mistake in describing the relationship between a rare type of infection caused by chlamydia bacteria and heart failure. Chlamydia also causes a common type of sexually transmitted infection, but that is not linked to heart disease. But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.
Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and medical organizations. To be eligible, groups must limit discussion of contraception to failure rates.
President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years. It does not appear that the abstinence-only curricula are being taught in the Washington area.
Waxman and other liberal sex-education proponents argue that adolescents who take abstinence-only programs are ill-equipped to protect themselves if they become sexually active. According to the latest CDC data, 61 percent of graduating high school seniors have had sex.
Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about "safer sex" is an invitation to have sex.
Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that Waxman's report is a political document that does a "disservice to our children." Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."
Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex.
Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive sex education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.
Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-02 09:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-02 09:55 pm (UTC)Does it count books that could be TAKEN as having gay characters? (snerk)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-02 10:03 pm (UTC)Just off the top of my head, the SF and fantasy and horror writers I can think of who'd go right off the shelves if this asshat got his way would be Tanya Huff, Mercedes Lackey, Anne Rice, Laurell K. Hamilton, Anne McCaffrey, Gael Baudino...
And there's J.K. Rowling, but they'd probably not even notice Remus and Sirius in the Harry Potter books in the greater flap over that series being chock fulla magic.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-02 10:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-02 10:39 pm (UTC)I really felt like my whole generation of freaks has fallen down on the job; in the mid 80's I remember helping a gay male friend give people pamphlets he'd written to the GMHC in NYC to get b/c that was the only way to find anything out about HIV (and us not knowing what all the words in the pamphlets were? it may have still been HTLV-2) and the big deal over C. Everett Koop mailing out stuff to every household in america saying to be careful with sex, and now that the schools are making sure kids are prepared, this is what is getting passed down?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-02 11:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-03 12:20 am (UTC)Um, having functioning genitals is an invitation to have sex. It's what the human race does best.
Thanks for the laugh about the "princess" being too bossy. Gave me a snicker.
Own worst enemy..
Date: 2004-12-03 03:12 pm (UTC)As far as federal programs being off course..that's normal,isn't it? I always take it from the word go that any government program,anywhere,anywhen as suspect..particularly in countries where the state controls the media..Scott
Re: Own worst enemy..
Date: 2004-12-03 05:40 pm (UTC)That's easy for you to say; you're not in the set of people this man is targeting. The sheer fact that he is in a position to even think about passing laws like this in the first place, Scott, makes him a LOT more dangerous to queer folk than to himself.
Wanting something done and getting it are different. My guess this is sort of a tornado in a trashcan and really won't go anywhere...
You're a lot more sanguine about this than I am. Unfortunately, I can't have as much faith, not after seeing the anti-queer backlash that whipped through eleven more states--including Kentucky--and resulted in more anti-queer-marriage legislation being passed.
That said, I hope you're right. Because a law like this would be unbelievably bad.
So who has(or would)have final say on what goes on the shelves?
Someone who's a librarian, perhaps, would be better able to answer that question than I. But I would expect that the Alabama government would be, if this law were passed, having the final say on what goes on the shelves of public libraries receiving government funding.
As far as federal programs being off course..that's normal,isn't it? I always take it from the word go that any government program,anywhere,anywhen as suspect..particularly in countries where the state controls the media..
You can't possibly call the idiocy being shoveled out through these programs "normal". I certainly don't. And it's not a matter of just being automatically suspicious of anything the government does; dismissing a government-sponsored program as "bad" just because it's government-sponsored ignores the fact that government programs can and have done good sometimes.
My issue with these programs the article talks about are not that they're bad because they're government-sponsored. My issue is that they're idiotic. I share Mr. Waxman's stance: if you want to teach your children to abstain from sex because you believe it's the moral thing to do, that's great. However, you have no cause to try to justify it by feeding them bogus science. It does the children absolutely no good.
And handwaving it and saying "Oh, it's a government program so of course it's going to suck" isn't constructive at all. People like these are in power because the American public voted them into power in the first place--so if you have an issue with what the government is doing, tell them.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-03 05:57 pm (UTC)Yeah, totally. As the article did in fact point out, those kids are going to have sex eventually anyway. Many of them before marriage.
Thanks for the laugh about the "princess" being too bossy. Gave me a snicker.
That's the part that really takes the cake for me, even more than the part about teaching kids that you can get pregnant just by touching genitals. (By that logic, I should have had several dozen kids by now. :P :) ) And even just a little more than the part about men "needing" sexual fulfillment and admiration and women "needing" financial support.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-03 08:32 pm (UTC)I LIVE IN THIS STATE!! ALABAMA!!
Don't you know I'm SOOOOO happy.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-03 09:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-04 12:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-04 12:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-04 12:56 am (UTC)IMO he's a jackass, and if it makes it so even my book, Society of Noght and Lies, isn't published in those states, or anywhere else, because of the one gay character in it, I'll be highly upset. Really, I see no problems with people being gay, or being married whether it in RL or in a book. I know he would die of brain spasms if he could read a story in progress I call Rising Noble.
Re: Own worst enemy..
Date: 2004-12-04 03:17 pm (UTC)Coming up with a bizarro bill and getting it into law are two different things..I still say this is a tornado in a trashcan.I will admit I've never been the target of such laws,but even if I were, I don't think I would worry too much. I have faith that most people see the ranters for what they are..There may be short-term setbacks, but I still have faith in people. In the long run,I think people will see these type laws for what they are-and the people who try to get them on the books for what they are.
Many..maybe even most government-sponsored programs may start out good-maybe even accomplish some good,but they too rapidly mutate into something far removed from what they were intended to be..and become virtually immortal,regardless of how inefficient and corrupt they become.Some government-run things are necessary,many aren't.
I suppose government idiocy just doesn't surprise me. maybe I'm too cynical,but I almost expect it.Maybe calling it "normal" was wrong..maybe just "expected" would be better.
Even if this particular censorship law gets passed,I wonder how many of the folks for this law realize censorship laws can come back around and bite them as well?Maybe not now, but later.
Censorship never works....Scott
Re: Own worst enemy..
Date: 2004-12-07 02:55 am (UTC)The simple fact that there is a legislative environment in this country these days that does not automatically shoot these things down out of hand scares the hell out of me.
Go look at the various anti-queer-marriage laws that have been passed in eleven states since this last presidential election--especially those which have also gone and banned marriage-equivalents such as civil unions, which has now been used to yank domestic partnership rights in Michigan. Look at the legislation that has been passed in Kentucky, which has pretty much assured that Dara and I will never be able to return to that state and live our lives the way everybody else gets to do. Look at the laws that have been passed in Virginia that make it illegal for queerfolk to even enter into private contracts with one another to give one another power-of-attorney and such legal rights, in a specific bid to make sure they can't even achieve a status vaguely resembling marriage, much less having the right to use the actual term.
Laws like these are getting passed, Scott. Laws like these are getting passed in your state. The legislative environment is all too friendly for people like this particular legislator to now stand up and start making his censorship noises--and to not get shot down immediately.
I know for a fact that there are people in Alabama who are appalled by this guy;
I will admit I've never been the target of such laws,but even if I were, I don't think I would worry too much. I have faith that most people see the ranters for what they are..
Go look at all the laws I've just mentioned above, and tell me that again.
And unfortunately this includes things like censorship of books with morals they don't like.
It might be a tornado in a trashcan, but in order to keep that tornado in the trashcan, lawmakers need to hear from their constituents that these sorts of laws are not acceptable.
In the long run,I think people will see these type laws for what they are-and the people who try to get them on the books for what they are.
Tell me that again when President Bush makes his next run to get the Federal Marriage Amendment passed--as he has specifically, outright SAID that he will do in this next term of his--and therefore writes into the Constitution of this country that my loving, committed relationship with another woman is wrong.
With the very President on their side, I am not faithful that this is going to go away without a fight.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-07 03:14 am (UTC)Of course, I think Faerie Blood would make this man have an aneurysm regardless of the fact that I've got a gay male couple among the minor characters. I tallied up the various things that would probably make him run screaming:
1) It's got MAGIC in it.
2) It's got strong female characters in it who are not playing second fiddle to the male characters.
3) It's got religious tolerance.
4) It's got "inhuman creatures"--the Sidhe. And a demon. And a troll. And assorted faeries and lesser fey critters.
And, thinking about it, if this guy got his way Elfquest would have to vanish off of the shelves of public libraries, too. ;P
no subject
Date: 2004-12-07 03:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 06:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 12:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 12:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 03:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 03:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 04:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 04:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 06:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 07:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 07:24 am (UTC)It should scare the poopy out of strictly readers too then!
In fact, even more so. You can still write in private... but readers would have a harder time getting a hold of your stuff. The readers would lose a lot more, since there's a lot more of them, with less to read.
(Unless of course your work was quite lousy and a lot of people wouldn't miss it anyway. LOL. ;) j/k)
First books depicting gays... Then books depicting people committing adultery. Then books depicting women as 'trying to be like men'. Then books depicting any sex. Then books depicting any "evil" religion. Then books depicting women exposing their skin. Then books criticizing religion. Then books criticizing the government. Then books depicting the future.
No more of anything really...
And the irony of it is... If Orthodox Jews suggested banning books which had people doing work on the Sabbath, or if vegans suggested banning books that mention hunting... I bet no president in his right mind would entertain those people.
Then again...
no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 05:55 pm (UTC)Yes! Yes, it should.
(Unless of course your work was quite lousy and a lot of people wouldn't miss it anyway. LOL. ;) j/k)
*snicker* I am fairly confident that I can string together coherent prose, but I am not yet assured that it is publishable prose. So till then, very few readers are getting hold of my stuff anyway. ;)
First books depicting gays... Then books depicting people committing adultery. Then books depicting women as 'trying to be like men'. Then books depicting any sex. Then books depicting any "evil" religion. Then books depicting women exposing their skin. Then books criticizing religion. Then books criticizing the government. Then books depicting the future.
Let's see--yeah, I'll be hitting a few of these, too, as I write more.
And the irony of it is... If Orthodox Jews suggested banning books which had people doing work on the Sabbath, or if vegans suggested banning books that mention hunting... I bet no president in his right mind would entertain those people.
I daresay that even our current President would dismiss these examples, just because these are things that would annoy him and those who share his mindset: "ban anything we don't think is moral". And never mind that it's quite possible for people of differing or even no religious faiths to be ethical, moral people.
BTW, welcome, and glad to see a new person stopping by on my journal. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 02:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 03:49 am (UTC)Yes, but that's the thing, even fewer might eventually regardless!
Because once these things are deemed "bad" for public libraries and such... Slippery slope... These people aren't going to want to stop there. You might have a problem putting such things on the internet... or heavens, your computer.
For example, in the U.S., a person can be prosecuted for having child pornography on their computer.
Now, I'm not saying that isn't the right thing - since child pornography exploits *real* children. And I agree it should be illegal...
But how about this one book I took out of the library once... I had no clue what I was in for. Someone on-line recommended the author to me, so I went to the public library and found something by her.
I think it was Catherine Coultiere (I could be mangling the spelling).
I also could be mangling the details a bit. But I'm pretty sure of most of the salient points...
In this book, which was in the public library, a man at least in his 20s, I think late 20s (possibly older), RAPED a 14 year old girl. And the scene was described explicitly.
In the state of this public library... a man over 21 having sex with a 14 year old could be convicted of statutory rape. It's ILLEGAL. And that's even if it's consentual! Never mind if it isn't.
Now, that said, I should note that, in the story the girl was (although against her will), married to the man. And it might also be important to note that she later *liked* it. (Though that only made it seem worse to me... Hard to explain without going into details of the context.)
And while the book was written in perhaps the 1980s or 1990s, the story was set in Europe, at least a few hundred years ago - and in that setting and period, nothing illegal occurred.
Plus, this is FICTION. No REAL 14 year olds have been exploited in the making of this book. (hehe)
Did I like the story myself? No, it kind of made me sick. Not because I think it was pedophilia (pedophilia refers to sex between an adult and a PRE-puberty child). But I didn't think much of it, I didn't finish the book, and I don't seek out that author, I can tell you.
But do I think they should tear it from the library shelves? No. I don't think they should put it in the children's section. HAHA.
But even though the scenes depicted in the story were law-breaker scenes, I don't think it should be censored.
Now, that said, I ABSOLUTELY do NOT think that gay sex should be illegal.
But EVEN IF IT WAS, there's no reason to rip books from the shelves of public libraries.
If I can feel that about a book containing a 14 year old getting raped. Then I don't see why someone who thinks homosexuality is a sin, even if they think it should be illegal, wanting to censor it out of libraries.
And again, where does it stop?
Do we chuck Jayne Ann Krentz off the shelves of public libaries because not only do her books contain explicitly erotic sex scenes, there's also often gay characters in her books.
And then will they be eventually ripped from the shelves of stores?
I use Jayne Ann Krentz as an example, because on the whole, her stories are actually WHOLESOME in the extreme. Despite having explicit sex scenes. And though I can't remember any explicit homosexual sex scenes, I can't say for sure that none of her books contain any (she has tons of books published, I believe), and the gay relationships of some characters in the ones I have read have been mentioned in no uncertain terms.
I wouldn't want my 10 year old* reading these books, obviously. But I certainly have a hard time imagining that there'd be any good grounds at all for deeming these books unacceptable for a public library.
And certainly not unacceptable for sale.
And what's to stop the really prudent religious people from going after that too?
(* I don't have children that was hypothetical.) ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 04:06 am (UTC)Like I said in my other comment... I don't even think Jayne Ann Krentz depicts actual homosexual sex in her books. But she has gay characters in some of her books.
And I mean, the word "gay" is mentioned, in addition to "more than really good friends" and "partner". Even though I don't think I've read anything along the lines of "This couple is gay and are having hot & steamy homosexual sex."
And like I said in my other comment... her books are actually QUITE heterosexual. And for the most part, quite wholesome stories. (Like nothing illegal is ever glorified. And though there are explicit erotic scenes, they're not what most anyone would call "kinky"... unless you think anything outside of the missionary position is kinky.)
BUT, her characters are almost always engaging in pre-marital sex. haha.
And we know the same people who have a problem with gays, also have a problem with pre-marital sex.
So what's next? What's up next on their agenda?
Anyway, yeah, it definitely does seem as if these people want to include "perceived".
And yeah, who's going to be the one to come along and say what's gay and what's not...
What about the purple socks, for instance???
http://www.purple-socks.com/socks.htm (http://www.purple-socks.com/socks.htm)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 04:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-19 10:28 pm (UTC)Yeah, and that's enough to "glorify" the "homosexual lifestyle" in the minds of conservative evangelicals. (Where "glorify" here is synonymous with "depicting queerfolk as totally normal people".) I read recently that some of those folks are trying to boycott Proctor and Gamble because of their being the number one advertiser on shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and how they described that show in particular as being all about how "five gay men teach a straight men how to dress like them, to emulate their implicitly 'superior' lifestyle", or some such.
That amuses the hell out of me in a dark sort of way, and my beloved
Re: Jayne Ann Krentz--yeah, practically every suspense/romance writer I can think of has premarital sex all over their stories. Certainly, just thinking about the various suspense/romance novels I have on my shelves, I know that the vast majority of them have at least one sex scene between non-married persons somewhere in the plot.
As for purple socks, well, I guess I'm just doomed. I have several pairs! Some with stripes! :)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:06 am (UTC)But of course I think it's ridiculous how they say "glorifying". Please, get a grip!
I hate how people try to twist everything for the full sensational effect.
I just saw this today, perhaps you'd be interested:
http://www.chompy.net/blogs/sarah/archives/002840.html (http://www.chompy.net/blogs/sarah/archives/002840.html)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-13 04:28 am (UTC)Well, not only that, but Queer Eye is awfully big on playing into that stereotype. Of the fashion conscious gay man. Most of gay men I've been friends with over the years have not been particularly stylish. Well, I shouldn't say that, I don't mean to say they were all uncool or whatnot. I just mean that none of them could be considered fashion victims. And some have been quite nerdy in their dress sense. And indeed, at least 2 were into overalls and hunter wool over shirts. haha.
Thanks for the link! I was kind of wondering when someone was going to get around to bitching about divorce. Half of me is irritated at it, of course--government shouldn't be messing with people's ability to get a divorce. But half of me is also at least vaguely, disgruntledly mollified that at least one or two folks out there are a little bit more honest about wanting to 'preserve marriage' from more than just queer folks. ;P
I've learned as of tonight that Bravo's coming out with a spinoff show: Queer Eye for the Straight Girl. I am mildly miffed that the cast of this show includes only one (1) lesbian! It seems to be all about how people popularly perceive queer boys to be 'stylish', indeed. I'd much prefer to see a female-oriented version of this show to be five bull dykes teaching chicks how to change tires, fix engines, and the like. ;) As was brilliantly suggested by my redoubtable friend
no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 03:56 am (UTC)Yes, but that's the thing, even fewer might eventually regardless!
That's the part that scares me.
I think it was Catherine Coultiere (I could be mangling the spelling).
Catherine Coulter, perhaps? She's written scads of romance novels; when
Did I like the story myself? No, it kind of made me sick. Not because I think it was pedophilia (pedophilia refers to sex between an adult and a PRE-puberty child). But I didn't think much of it, I didn't finish the book, and I don't seek out that author, I can tell you.
Ugh. I don't blame you for bailing on the book; based on what you've described, I think I would have done so as well. Unfortunately a lot of romance novels, historically, have had that sort of 'helpless young female forced into sex against her initial consent with big brawny male but later discovers that she likes it' thing going on. I've seen enough romance novels to know.
Hell, I even remember that sort of attitude going on with F'lar and Lessa in the very first Dragonriders of Pern book. One sentence in particular stands out in my mind, from the part of Dragonflight after Lessa has Impressed Ramoth and started settling in at Benden Weyr, and after F'lar's Mnementh has flown Ramoth:
"He had been a considerate and gentle bedmate ever since, but, unless Ramoth and Mnementh were involved, he might as well call it rape."
Now is it just me, or does this suggest that F'lar actually took Lessa to his bed when she was unwilling? Before this point, there are all sorts of indications of mutual attraction between him and Lessa, but this one sentence really just jumps out at me.
Now, that said, I ABSOLUTELY do NOT think that gay sex should be illegal. But EVEN IF IT WAS, there's no reason to rip books from the shelves of public libraries.
Indeed. Murder is illegal, and yet, I don't see anyone campaigning for removing all books that contain murders from public shelves. Hell, if they did that, they'd have to take the Bible off the shelves, what with all the people killing one another in that. ;P
no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 03:19 pm (UTC)I think what put me off of it was that it went a little farther beyond just a 'helpless young female gets shown a thing or 2 about sex by the grown man of the world', the girl was a tomboy, and very independent... And he straightened her out with that too. Pfft.
"He had been a considerate and gentle bedmate ever since, but, unless Ramoth and Mnementh were involved, he might as well call it rape."
I have no idea of the book or story you're talking about. But yeah, why say it that way? The most gentle intercourse is still rape if it's done by force - say at gun point. And the most violent intercourse is not rape if it's consensual.
I'm put off by authors who somehow think it's "exciting" or "sexy" somehow to bandy about that word. Sort of makes the author seem somehow uneducated about the issue... Or worse, it could even make them sound flippant about the topic of rape.
Though I think the reality is probably that the author is unskilled. Was this an established author with experience who wrote that? My guess is it's probably rather common among writers inexperienced in writing erotic descriptions.
I've also noted that there seems to be a youth slang jargon becoming popular, to use the term "raped" instead of the more traditional "screwed".
I've also noticed that "rape" also seems to be used now as a variation of geek speak, replacing (or appending) "owned" (or "pwnd"). I've heard homophobic young men to brag about "raping" another guy... in a video game. It always struck me - do they realize how that sounds?
But then I've never even understood the term "screwed" or "fucked", meant as "taken advantage of" or "beaten" or how that got started. But this kind of pinpointed it for me - roots of misogyny in some way:
http://www.petebevin.com/archives/2005/01/09/homophobia.html (http://www.petebevin.com/archives/2005/01/09/homophobia.html)
You know, somehow a lot of people think, even if only subconsciously, that it's a bad thing to be on the "female end" of sex?
And this isn't just about sexist heterosexual men with sexist attitudes. It's across the board.
I've seen as much sexism from gay men as I have from straight men. And so it wasn't at all surprising really once I learned about a rather widely social construct among many gay men (some claim all, but I doubt that), to categorize themselves and others into "tops" or "bottoms". And tops pair with bottoms, and not with each other.
And there are gay men who are reluctant to admit to being "a bottom", and the ones who say they're both - other gay men will chuckle and say "He just doesn't want to admit he's a bottom."
Now, mind you, I don't understand why they all wouldn't be both - being both would make a hell of a lot more sense to me. But I even moreso don't understand why the guys would consider it to be at all embarrassing to being a "bottom" anyway.
And let's be clear here, this isn't about sexuality - in that it's not about homosexuality... Because as far as I've ever known, there's no categorization among lesbians this way at all.
Indeed. Murder is illegal, and yet, I don't see anyone campaigning for removing all books that contain murders from public shelves.
Yes. And even moreso - any books about real murders!
That's the analogy I've used when talking about that JFK assassination video simulation. It would appeal more to crime buffs than teen video gamers. And yet there's all this outrage over that. Well then, they'd have to get rid of the History Channel... Or is it the Discovery Channel?
I haven't had cable in years myself, but I know there's one cable station that some of my friends jokingly call it "the murder network". Kind of like some of my friends call that Lifetime Network "The Victims Network"
That serial killer has a LiveJournal... and "celebrity status". I think that's definitely more disturbing than a crime buff or a conspiracy buff tinkering with a computer simulation of the JFK assassination.