The story of an Illinois high school making a gay pornographic play required reading for seniors has been reported since March 7th, but it has been ignored for the most part with only a handful of news outlets having taken on this issue. The fact that a public high school that requires such reading doesn't raise a fuss in the media shows how the media supports the gay agenda, of course. It also shows the arrogance of the Deefield, Illinois school administrators that tried to slip this advocacy for homosexuality into the curriculum without bothering to sponsor a discussion on including it among the community that pays the taxes for the school district.
The book, "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes," has numerous passages that describes gay sexual encounters in exacting, sometimes violent, detail.
Initially, this book was required reading for college-bound seniors, but a Deerfield community group was successful in getting the book removed from the required list and placed on an opt-in list.
Matt Barber, director of cultural issues with Concerned Women for America, was amazed by the explicit nature of the book.
Barber said, "This isn't a First Amendment issue. This is about school officials betraying the community trust. Heads need to roll here. Assigning this racist, pornographic smut to high school kids is nothing short of child abuse."
This same school district has been in hot water before for trying to slip in under the radar homosexual advocacy into the curriculum.
The school district and NSSA clashed last year over a freshman orientation session where students talked about bullying and other issues and included gay students relating their experience in high school.
And yet, the news media stays silent on this issue. It isn’t hard to understand why. The MSM wants neither to alert people who would stand against this effort nor report the success, even if minor, of these people trying to head off the instituting of the homosexual agenda in our schools.
Comments Policy
Only unsophisticated
March 12, 2008 - 20:24 ET by Chris NormanOnly unsophisticated conservative rubes would be offended by this...
Fill in your favorite MSM outlet
Potato, potahtoh. I'm not
March 12, 2008 - 20:26 ET by balboaPotato, potahtoh.
I'm not sure that making it mandatory reading is a good idea, but "gay porn"?
Would you want your teenager
March 12, 2008 - 20:37 ET by Chris NormanWould you want your teenager to be forced to read explicit descriptions of same sex - er - sex - no matter what context it's couched in? Cue Balboa typing "I don't know if it's explicit". Cue Chris typing: if it is, indeed, explicit, would you have a problem?
No, I agree that making it
March 12, 2008 - 20:39 ET by balboaNo, I agree that making it mandatory reading is a bad idea.
Common ground is a beautiful
March 12, 2008 - 20:49 ET by Chris NormanCommon ground is a beautiful thing.
What do you think?
March 12, 2008 - 20:53 ET by Warner Todd HustonChris,
Two excerpts from this trash...
Man: What do you want?
Louis: I want you to f*** me, hurt me, make me bleed.
Man: I want to.
Louis: Yeah?
Man: I want to hurt you.
Louis: F*** me.
Man: Yeah.
Louis: Hard?
Man: Yeah. You been a bad boy?
(They begin to f***.)
(Louis slips his hand down the front of Joe's pants. They embrace more tightly. Louis pulls his hand out, smells and tastes his fingers, and then holds them for Joe to smell ... they kiss again.)
...and...
Man: I think it broke. The rubber. You want me to keep going? (Little pause) Pull out? Should I --
Louis: Keep going. Infect me. I don't care. I don't care.
... Yep, looks like porn to me!
_______
On missing the obvious:
"I just think you could point to a million different stories... But to point at one and blame the liberal bias seems pointless."
--Comment by Balboa, Feb 3, 2008 - 11:21 ET, on Newsbusters, a site where "exposing and combating liberal media bias" is the WHOLE point the site exists!
Like I said, potato /
March 12, 2008 - 21:10 ET by balboaLike I said, potato / potahtoh.
Bal, The "potato /
March 12, 2008 - 21:14 ET by Chris NormanBal,
The "potato / potahtoh" argument isn't exactly intellectually sturdy.
WTH thinks it's porn. I
March 12, 2008 - 21:16 ET by balboaWTH thinks it's porn. I don't.
Sigh. There goes that common
March 12, 2008 - 21:23 ET by Chris NormanSigh. There goes that common ground crumbling away. How explicit and raw does dialogue have to be before you consider it pornographic? Wait. You think that this dialogue isn't gratuitous and so isn't porn, right? Okay, what if we call it "very explicit sexual dialogue", would you agree with that description?
Okay, what if we call it
March 12, 2008 - 21:27 ET by balboaOkay, what if we call it "very explicit sexual dialogue", would you agree with that description?
Absolutely.
In this case, does this
March 12, 2008 - 21:33 ET by Chris NormanIn this case, does this dialogue serve any specific purpose? Does dialogue between fictional gay men have to be this explicit to be believable? It sounds very gratuitous to me.
That's hard to say without
March 12, 2008 - 21:38 ET by balboaThat's hard to say without reading the whole book. It is very gratuitous, but that doesn't immediately mean it's senseless.
"Gratuitous" means not
March 12, 2008 - 21:41 ET by Chris Norman"Gratuitous" means not called for by the circumstances - that makes it sort of senseless.
Yeah, I realized that right
March 12, 2008 - 21:45 ET by balboaYeah, I realized that right after I posted. I meant explicit.
Well, we could argue about
March 12, 2008 - 21:54 ET by Chris NormanWell, we could argue about this forever and I've got to eat - my stomach has stopped growling and has begun to snarl. If this dialogue is literally porographic or not, it's way too graphic and offensive for a classroom of teenagers. It's sleazy and pretty depressing too. I'm going to read the cheerful murder mystery I started last night.
If this dialogue is
March 12, 2008 - 21:57 ET by balboaIf this dialogue is literally porographic or not, it's way too graphic and offensive for a classroom of teenagers.
Yeah, you can't make high schoolers read it. Definitely agree. And you're right, we could go round and round. Eat, CN! Eat!
"Eat, CN! Eat!" I'm up for
March 12, 2008 - 22:00 ET by Chris Norman"Eat, CN! Eat!"
I'm up for this job... 'night all.
Night Chris... Have a
March 12, 2008 - 22:05 ET by bigtimerNight Chris...
Have a good one.
Book and all.
Chris
March 12, 2008 - 21:28 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe there are people who believe one boy begging to be infected with a deadly disease up the bunghole is wholesome entertainment.
Different strokes, I guess, but it's porn to me.
♣ a seal
At some point, you have to
March 12, 2008 - 21:38 ET by Chris NormanAt some point, you have to wonder, how far does something have to go now? Is salaciousness and shock value an end in itself?
»→ Chris
March 12, 2008 - 21:42 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe it gives the teacher, Mr. Porker, a chance to see who gets a rise in the Levis
♣ a seal
Geesh boa... You're
March 12, 2008 - 21:28 ET by bigtimerGeesh boa...
You're suppose to know porn when you see it.
Put your glasses on.
The one pair without the rose-coloring.
Okay then, what WOULD you
March 13, 2008 - 07:18 ET by BobAnthonyOkay then, what WOULD you call it...classic literature?!
No.
March 13, 2008 - 10:18 ET by balboaNo.
Yikes, WTH. Arghhhh. Sounds
March 12, 2008 - 21:11 ET by Chris NormanYikes, WTH. Arghhhh. Sounds explicit to me - way too explicit. There goes another lobe I'm going to have cut from my brain. As to Bal's comment on Feb 3rd. I'd say, "Yeah, we do point to a million stories - then blame liberal bias!
»→ Chris
March 12, 2008 - 21:16 ET by Cool ArrowHe's too busy adjusting his potato.
♣ a seal
Potahtoh. :)
March 12, 2008 - 21:25 ET by Chris NormanPotahtoh. :)
Warner
March 12, 2008 - 21:12 ET by shawn228For once I agree with you ;-) From the excerps you have shown, this should no be in our schools today. Especially mandatory reading.
America's sweetheart does gangsta rap
shawn,
March 12, 2008 - 21:14 ET by R D HelmOr even voluntary reading, for that matter.
RRRRAAAAAAAALLLLLPPPPHHHH!
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
rdh
March 12, 2008 - 21:21 ET by shawn228Yeah, i guess even free speech has its limits. I hate it when i don't know how a story ends. Warner could have at least had the courtesy to tell us how it ends. Was Lewis a bad boy? Did man infect Lewis? lol just kidding.
America's sweetheart does gangsta rap
»→ Shawn
March 12, 2008 - 21:24 ET by Cool ArrowThey both end up indigent getting free AZT from the government so they can infect other boys for years to come.
♣ a seal
Bookmarked.
March 12, 2008 - 21:31 ET by tracheostomyFrame it boys, he'll prolly only slip up once. . .
Shawn: "Yeah, i guess even free speech has its limits."
Beautiful!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach
March 12, 2008 - 21:32 ET by shawn228this effects children trach. Nice try though
America's sweetheart does gangsta rap
(Louis slips his hand down
March 12, 2008 - 21:16 ET by MidAmerica(Louis slips his hand down the front of Joe's pants. They embrace more tightly. Louis pulls his hand out, smells and tastes his fingers, and then holds them for Joe to smell ... they kiss again.)
My dog likes to lick himself and then give me a kiss.
MA... LOL.. Do you
March 12, 2008 - 21:25 ET by bigtimerMA...
LOL..
Do you then pat your doggie on head and say good boy!?
Do you then pat your
March 12, 2008 - 21:32 ET by MidAmericaDo you then pat your doggie on head and say good boy!?
No.... (sigh) but like most dog owners I imagine his kisses are 'sweeter' at a later time when I haven't seem him performing his personal hygiene for a while.
What does your dog have
March 12, 2008 - 21:28 ET by Chris NormanWhat does your dog have against you? :)
midamerica
March 12, 2008 - 21:30 ET by shawn228are you the person that is responsible for the urban legend regarding a dog, a surprise party and peanut butter? :-)
America's sweetheart does gangsta rap
shawn... LOL...Bad boy!
March 12, 2008 - 21:31 ET by bigtimershawn...
LOL...Bad boy!
»→ MA
March 12, 2008 - 21:31 ET by Cool ArrowA lap dog?
♣ a seal
Two thumbs....waaaaay up
March 12, 2008 - 20:35 ET by acumen"Gay Porn as Required Reading in Ill. High School, Media Silent"
I'm sure the media will break their silence on this just as soon as they are through reading the book. Er....for background/research purposes only of course.
How many parents agree with this ? None is my guess.
March 12, 2008 - 23:29 ET by general companyThis is ridiculous, how many of these parents support this nonsense.
If they even thought about this here, there would be violence. Picture woman against school board. They don't play around here!
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
For once I agree...
March 13, 2008 - 00:16 ET by vaboxrboyI have seen this play onstage- all 7hours of it- as well as watched the movie on HBO. I wholeheartedly believe that it is not for youngsters. However, I am positive that this wasn't required reading for ALL students as I have a degree in English and still can't keep up with all the references and themes.
The teacher who put this on the list had his or her own agenda and should be questioned. Materials like this are usually presented to honors levels students. Most members of school boards aren't in education at all so stuff like this happens all the time because they are clueless.
First I have heard of this
March 13, 2008 - 01:00 ET by DarasenFirst I have heard of this one. Could you imagine how much we would hear if the book of Romans were made required reading?
Of course it is strill the Christains that want to force thier morality on everyone, Riiiight.
but mom, it says 'clean' on the lyrics
March 13, 2008 - 08:24 ET by mom_roxvb - the story indicated that the class was indeed an AP (advanced placement) literature class with only senior students. Had it been a college level course, it would have been identified as a Dual Credit course.
still - this is somewhat comparable to my experience from last weekend. My 11 year-old son wanted to download 5 songs onto his mp3 player. I had to reject 4 of them, even though two of those were the 'clean' version. (yeah, warning bells right there - if a song has to have a 'clean' version'...)
I explained to him that although there were no offensive words in the lyrics, the content was not appropriate for someone his age. Even if the offensive words in "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes" were redacted/changed, the content is still not appropriate for students.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
I really don't understand the outrage here.
March 12, 2008 - 21:07 ET by R D HelmAfter all, this is a government school, run by government agents.
These people were not hired for their competence or qualifications. They were hired to indoctrinate children, period.
Why would parents, who, for reasons known only to God, continue to pack off the most precious thing in their lives and hand them over to these people for nine months a year, expect anything better?
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
RD... I could not agree
March 12, 2008 - 21:20 ET by bigtimerRD...
I could not agree more.
I am so glad our children are done with schooling and half our grandchildren are.
Indoctrinate the children they will...govt. schools depending on where you live that is, is not something I would let my kids go to now.
From Global Warming, recommending medication, uni-sex bathrooms, sexual idenity therapists/and therapists period, to this porn/gay crap and I could go on with more...this has been absolutely despicable what the schools are intentionally doing to our kids.
Little leftist robots is what they want them to be when they grow up....in all ways shapes and forms.
Control. Absolute control from cradle to grave.
bt,
March 12, 2008 - 21:43 ET by R D HelmI blame the sheeple parents in this situation (and most others around the country). The parents, after all, are the ones who voted the school board in that allowed this.
If they care so little as to what the government is actually doing to their children, and they apparently don't care, then that is mainly the fault of the parents.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
RD... Agreed.
March 12, 2008 - 21:50 ET by bigtimerRD...
Agreed.
How many parents
March 13, 2008 - 04:23 ET by sarcasmoKeep up with school board politics in their "spare time"? They're barely able to keep up with which schools in town are or aren't crappy. Somehow, private schools educate kids without even having school boards -- it's one of life's great mysteries I guess. Without the school boards required by socialist education, parents would have one less set of politician control freaks in their lives. Parents might find that loss a good thing, considering all the various other control freak politicians obese government inserts in our lives.
The truth is, we all have an agenda for what we want teenagers to be forced to read (in my case, Orwell's 1984, which is sadly not-required these days, despite a huge & ever-snooping government!). Also, all adults (especially once they're parents) tend to forget just how naturally sexual the teenage mind already is, even without salacious books to read..To this day I recall, uh, having a very hard time in the presence of certain girls.
JMR
PS I'll bet if we checked somehow, 1984 is NOT required reading at that school. I'll bet it lives on the "optional" list where it's only likely to be read by those who don't most-need it.
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Back in the 1930's my
March 12, 2008 - 20:48 ET by MidAmericaBack in the 1930's my mother occasionally rode a pony to a rural high school where she was required to read Shakespeare. But that was a time before schools were instuments to undo the cultural damage inflicted on young people by families, churches and a racist, homophobic country.
Then they downgraded books
March 12, 2008 - 21:30 ET by Chris NormanThen they downgraded books by "dead white men"...unless, of course, they were gay.
Yet another case of bias showing by omission.
March 12, 2008 - 21:05 ET by c5thenMost of the MSM are atheists and agree with the homosexual agenda. Therefore they see no problem with this abomination.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Just short of selling organs
March 12, 2008 - 21:30 ET by dvdaughtryJust short of selling organs (I would consider, mightily a kidney), my kids will not go to public school
...Assigning this racist, pornographic smut to high school kids
March 12, 2008 - 21:57 ET by R D Helm...Assigning this racist, pornographic smut to high school kids is nothing short of child abuse."
So is sending a child to a government school.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
What's wrong with this picture
March 12, 2008 - 22:07 ET by Free StinkerWhat's wrong with this picture?
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
Free, that's easy.
March 12, 2008 - 22:12 ET by R D HelmThey (the government pervs) want the kids to be attractive to the predators.
And I'm only half kidding here.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Oh, well if you're only half
March 12, 2008 - 22:20 ET by balboaOh, well if you're only half kidding...
The Soda & Skittle Sheriffs
March 12, 2008 - 22:31 ET by Free StinkerThese soda & skittle banning idiots are like congress - going after steroids in baseball instead of renewing the laws allowing us to eavesdrop on Al Quiada. in the US.
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
Free, I agree.
March 12, 2008 - 22:39 ET by R D HelmIt's government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, while the house burns down around them.
As I said above, I was just kind of kidding here. But, I am having a really hard time with a government school introducing things to underage children that would get most adults arrested and prosecuted for child abuse/endangerment in many states, including mine.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
That's why we need to
March 12, 2008 - 22:48 ET by Free StinkerThat's why we need to either home school, or keep a really close eye on what your public school is doing.
R D
March 13, 2008 - 00:01 ET by DelsaHells Bells, I'm sixty and too young to read or hear that crap. Glad I home schooled my guys.
Genuine Question
March 13, 2008 - 08:46 ET by dvdaughtryI grew up with a couple of home schoolers and they weren't the best in social settings.
My question: Were your kids involved in sports, or some other social activties? How did you teach your kids social skills?
Social skills is a trait of the person
March 19, 2008 - 12:03 ET by Global_CitizenThere are an awful lot of public school kids who have no social skills and many homeschooled kids who are very sociable and at ease in crowds.
It has more to do with the traits and personality of the child than whether their homeschooled or public schooled. That fallacy is just a lingering bit of sophistry from those opposed to homeschooling.
Eh, I don't buy that
March 22, 2008 - 18:11 ET by dvdaughtryEh, I don't buy that 100%.
Sure, personality may make it easier to teach, but learning to behave in group settings comes from experience.
Gotta get it somewhere.
There is zero redeeming
March 12, 2008 - 22:40 ET by Clear thinkerThere is zero redeeming value in this piece of trash.
Why would it ever be introduced in a PUBLIC High School?
It's obvious to me that someone has injected their own agenda into this school, and whoever it is should have their teaching credentials revoked.
"Abstain from McCain"
There is zero redeeming
March 12, 2008 - 22:46 ET by balboaThere is zero redeeming value in this piece of trash.
Do you say that based on the excerpt posted here or something more?
shows how the media
March 13, 2008 - 07:38 ET by Leonshows how the media supports the gay agenda
Warner, I've asked this question several times and am yet to get an answer.
What is the gay agenda? Seriously. People here whine about it, but don't seem to have any idea of what it is.
Are the gays trying to make everyone else gay? Is that the gay agenda?
How does a gay play being required reading fit into the gay agenda?
Just a little clarification would be oh so helpful
Ellen Degeneres Show yesterday
March 13, 2008 - 07:53 ET by PawpawNOn Ellen yesterday she devotes less than 1 minute to Spitzer and never says Democrat, but then goes into a full playing of OKLA congresswoman who is trying to get homosexual books out of school and then tries to call this congresswoman. This issue was about books in schools that try to indoctrinate young kids to accept homosexual lifestyle also and finally a congresswoman is standing up against it and now on a national stage EG tries to put it totally down and say that the woman is wrong. We need someone to start a thread on this.
If there's no political agenda (NOT just gay)
March 13, 2008 - 08:03 ET by sarcasmoThen why the need for socialist schools? The temptation for tax-funded indoctrination of other peoples' kids is too great for either the political left or right to resist it, as both sides continually prove right here. More politics & tax-money won't solve the problem, either, as Florida's own "conservatives" have amply-proved.
The only civil solution is to take school board politics and control freakery out of it by letting markets decide. Are there parents out there who'd want their kids to read about homosexuality above reading much-needed classics Orwell's 1984? Probably some. Are enough of them in one area to financialy justify a non-socialist school?? Maybe in San Francisco.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
The only civil solution is
March 13, 2008 - 08:49 ET by dvdaughtryThe only civil solution is to take school board politics and control freakery out of it by letting markets decide.
I am down with that. My problem is going to be how I am going to pay for a private (christian) school and still pay my property taxes.
Another thing, reading 1984 now was a lot more eye opening than in 1994 (Freshman-Sophomore year of HS). Wonder if it is over most youngsters heads?
It's a problem that might solve itself...
March 13, 2008 - 09:06 ET by sarcasmoSince at least in FL schools are largely funded by property tax. I just re-read 1984 a couple of years ago. IMO like a fine wine it has aged quite well. I'd make kids read Animal Farm, too. Education IS indoctrination. I just have a different agenda than the other indoctrinators. I find the most dangerous indoctrinators are those who claim to have "no agenda."
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Education IS
March 13, 2008 - 09:13 ET by Warner Todd HustonHear, hear!
I'd have an AMERICAN agenda as opposed to the self flagellating, Euroesque garbage that is now the prevailing slop fed to our kids.
Since at least in FL
March 13, 2008 - 09:34 ET by dvdaughtrySince at least in FL schools are largely funded by property tax.
I understand you saying that people will move to the desired school area and be active therefore be paying for the school the want.
I clearly remember reading Animal Farm back then, also. Additionally, I hated it because I could not wrap my head around the farm animals behaving like people. I just didn't get it.
It was some time before the ephiphany hit me like a ton of bricks.
I need to re-read it.
Once again agreed...
March 13, 2008 - 11:00 ET by vaboxrboyYou have no argument from me. The material is not at all appropriate for kids no matter how you look at it. And, I did take a look at the article again and noticed the details- i was far too sleepy when I read it.
And kudos for you for looking beyond the language and explaining to your son that the content is all too important and inappropriate. I wish more parents took the time to take your interest!
The indecency agenda
March 13, 2008 - 14:19 ET by greenfairieIt's beyond trying to encourage kids to be a-ok with being gay, although there is that going on as well. It's pushing graphic sex, violence ("Owie! Make me bleed, Big Bubba!"), vulgar language, etc. as not only normal and acceptable, but the sign of a true literate sophisticate.
A mendacious headline if I've ever seen one
March 19, 2008 - 11:42 ET by Global_CitizenThe hysterical anti-gay religious right is well known for exaggerating, and hell, flat out lying when it comes to telling their version of social controversies. Reading this headline, that "gay porn" will be required reading in high school is just the latest example.
When one sees the words "gay porn" most people would assume they're talking about porn as most of us know it... pictures of naked people having sex.
But no, the hyperbolic anti-gay right has inflated the definition of porn to things so innocuous not even Potter Stewart would recognize it as such.
Angels in America is literature. Legitimate and serious literature. Award-winning literature.
When I hear the words of Matt Barber (who as a professional lobbyist, is well paid to be shocked and amazed at things most of pay little regard to) I think of the wise words of Edward R. Murrow:
"To be persuasive, we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible, we must be truthful."
Matt Barber and Warner Todd Huston are not truthful, therefore not credible and not persuasive.
"The book, "Angels in
March 19, 2008 - 12:03 ET by NL207"The book, "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes," has numerous passages that describes gay sexual encounters in exacting, sometimes violent, detail."
Is the above statement true? I have $20 that says it is.
The noun, 'porn' may be defined thusly:
creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire [syn: pornography]
Your definition of porn is too narrow. Standard usage includes sexually explicit texts as well as images.
If the opening quotation above is an accurate description of this text, then by definition, the content of 'Angels in America' contains porn, that is, writings of a sexually explicit nature having no literary or artistic value beyond sexual titillation.
I don't think the book can
March 19, 2008 - 12:06 ET by balboaI don't think the book can be defined as having "no literary or artistic value beyond sexual titillation."
You won't get much agreement on that
March 19, 2008 - 12:18 ET by Global_CitizenAs vehemently opposed as many will be to the contents of this play, very few will agree it has no literary or artistic value. It's an award winning play. It's been shown on Broadway and made into a series on HBO. The subject matter it covers has a lot of current relevancy to many people in America, including more teenagers than you'd like to ponder.
If you contend there is no literary or artistic value to it despite of those credentials, you're living in your own little world that denies reality.
By your definition many classics such as Lolita, as well as most of the pulp romance novels sold at the grocery store, would be considered porn.
I think the measure of
March 19, 2008 - 12:32 ET by NL207I think the measure of agreement I will get was demonstrated clearly by the removal of that text from the school curriculum.
Not my definition. I quoted a dictionary, one of the standard dictionaries available online. They all contained the quoted usage as one of the definitions of 'porn'.
I don't see many pulp romance novels on school reading lists, do you? Nor do I see 'Lolita', which features pedophilia between an adult man and 12 year old girl, on any of the school reading lists I have seen lately.
I see you have silently conceded that the quotation about the content of 'Angels in America' is true. Now... YOU are the fellow who used a personal, non-authoritative definition of the word 'porn' which excluded sexually prurient texts to label Warner a liar. Since you have conceded the point that 'Angels ...' contains sexually explicit material, I think you are now obliged to take your smear and swallow it.
I think the removal of the
March 19, 2008 - 12:45 ET by balboaI think the removal of the book from the curriculum is right, but it doesn't mean this is gay porn.
My main point was that
March 19, 2008 - 12:57 ET by NL207My main point was that using this fuzzy definition of porn as a pretext to call Warner a liar is rubbish.
The fact that the book was removed from the curriculum because it contained sexually explicit material indicates the content is of questionable literary value. Is it porn? By the dictionary definition, yes!
Test: If this text was illustrated with pictures of the actions described therein, would you then call it 'porn'? I think the answer to that question is 'yes'.
Eh, that's a matter of
March 19, 2008 - 13:02 ET by balboaEh, that's a matter of opinion. How do you prove the material doesn't have literary value and is only there to titillate?
Deliberately obtuse
March 19, 2008 - 13:24 ET by Global_CitizenYou're making the case that "sexually explicit" = "porn". That's ludicrous and not an assertion that can be taken seriously.
Your "test" changes the scenario entirely so that it not only doesn't help your case, it actually reinforces just how lacking your argument is.
You're saying "if" it had pictures, it would be porn. But it doesn't, so it's not. You're sinking in your own ridiculousness.