Last week, in our “In The News” column, I included a story concerning a press conference held by Florida governor Ron DeSantis. The story was related to another recurring subject we have covered here on our site. Desantis has decided to address head-on the issue of certain books that have found their way into our children’s schools.
These books are written under the guise of “supporting” LGBTQ children who are struggling with their identities. However, as many parents have been trying to point out, most of these books include graphic descriptions of sexual encounters, sexual acts, and even instructions on how to perform these things. Those who actually read the text, if they are honest, cannot deny that these books cater to the prurient interests of a certain segment of society. Let’s call these books what they truly are – P*rnography.
(NOTE: Certain words in this article must be self-censored to avoid getting WritersWeekly improperly categorized in search engine algorithms.)
This particular story is of special interest to us as the main focus was not the fact that DeSantis was addressing these books. The focus was not even that his office had announced he was going to show examples of the text of these books. The focus of this story was the fact that several media outlets, including online streaming sources, opted to cut their live feeds of this press conference to avoid displaying “sensitive” or “explicit” content.
As I mentioned above, we have addressed this issue before in WriterWeekly. We cover the subject mainly through our “In The News” column. Our comments above the stories should leave no doubt in the reader’s mind as to our stance on elementary and high school students reading such p*rnographic material without their parents’ knowledge.
What shocks us each time we post one of these stories is how many comments we receive that actually support minor children reading this stuff! It’s kind of creepy to think we actually have readers that support p*dophile-style grooming of young children. But, believe it or not, we get lambasted by certain folks that feel children must have access to books written by adults about children having sex, and far, FAR worse.
Usually, they attack us from a supposed position of defending against “book banning” – as if keeping explicit smut out of the hands of young children equates to snatching away people’s rights under the First Amendment. They say the next step will be government sanctioned book burnings in the street. I call B.S. There can be only two reasons someone would be defending these books being in our schools: 1) These folks are of a political ideology that traps them into having to defend every wacky social experiment that their ideology comes up with and tries to sneak into our society, or 2) They are actual pedophiles who WANT young children groomed and sexualized.
All comments to WritersWeekly have to be reviewed and approved, or rejected, by Yours Truly. I simply trash the comments that support these books being in our schools.
Some of these folks try to say that these books aren’t that bad, and they are just written to help youngsters figure out who they “really are.” Again, I call B.S. How many times have you already seen news stories of parents who try to read some of these books out loud at school district meetings, only to have their microphones shut off, or be commanded to stop reading by the chairman of the meeting, or even be escorted out of the room by cops? It’s happening more and more across our country. If these books are so innocuous, then let’s share them with everybody!
So, here is my question: If these books are inappropriate to read out loud among adults, how can they possibly be appropriate for minor children to read?
Don’t think for a minute that I’m some kind of prude. I was a soldier in my early 20s. I spent plenty of time single. I’ve seen some stuff. I don’t pass any judgement on any adults for what they want to read, view, or experience in a consensual manner.
But, I’ve also seen the devastation firsthand that s*xualizing children causes. I worked those cases during my cop years. And, I cannot even put a number on how many child molesters I interviewed after arrest who, at some point in their confessions, pointed out that they were viewing p*rnography as children. And THEY said it was a factor in the development of their deviant urges. So, if you are one of those who don’t want to listen to the “polly-anna” parents who are raising hell at school board meetings, then listen to actual child molesters who WANT to have sex with little kids – this material is dangerous to young minds.
Anyone with half a brain would want to protect children from grooming by individuals and organizations who think it’s their job to teach other people’s kids about sex. But, it seems that, in some circles, the opposite is happening. This filth is being forced on children.
So, let me drive my point home concerning these books that people have commented on, defending their being in elementary school libraries. One of the online platforms that cut the live feed to prevent viewers from being “disturbed” by the content of these books was TWITTER. In fact, according to the news story, “In addition to live feeds being cut, Twitter also marked video of the coverage as ‘potentially sensitive content.’”
Think about it. The content of these books, that people keep trying to get into our kids’ schools, is too explicit – too sexual – even for Twitter!! So, to better understand the contrast between acceptable Twitter content and “Sensitive” content, I decided to do a little research to find out just what Twitter feels is acceptable to allow its viewers to see on its platform.
I did a simple Google search of “sexy pics Twitter” and found plenty of example that were nothing short of lewd and graphic. If you doubt me, go ahead and google that term yourself. Be sure to turn “Safe-Search” off. We thought about displaying some censored examples of our findings, but those images and links are not appropriate for this family-oriented website.
So here’s my point: Twitter feels is okay to carry graphic p*rnography on its platform for people to view. Yet, this same platform felt it needed to protect its viewers from the books that Gov. DeSantis was going to reveal during a live press conference.
And, Twitter is facing BILLIONS in fines for failing to protect children from explicit content. YET, A BOOK AVAILABLE IN SCHOOL LIBRARIES WAS TOO OFFENSIVE FOR EVEN ITS ADULT MEMBERS?!
And, as a side note, NOBODY in the media seems to be discussing the fact that there are plenty of books available that honestly discuss homosexuality, transgenderism, and all that other stuff without turning it into a literary peep show. Why can’t school libraries stock those books? Why do these people insist on presenting sexually explicit material to kids who are just trying to figure out who they are?
The government has laws in place to protect children from accessing p*rnography online, in movie theaters, in convenience stores (magazines), strip clubs, and so much more. Yet, that law does not mention school libraries at all. This means the only legal outlets to get this grooming material to kids is through, you guessed it, printed books in schools.
So, it begs the question – how can these books belong in the hands of our young children if adults need to be protected from their content?
It’s time for Americans to call this campaign to expose kids to this kind of trash exactly what it is – pedophilic grooming.
What are your thoughts on young children reading sexually explicit books? Tell us in the comments section below.Brian Whiddon is the Managing Editor of WritersWeekly.com and the Operations Manager at BookLocker.com. An Army vet and former police officer, Brian is the author of Blue Lives Matter: The Heart behind the Badge. He's an avid sailor, having lived and worked aboard his 36-foot sailboat, the “Floggin’ Molly” for 9 years after finding her abandoned in a boat yard and re-building her himself. Now, in northern Georgia, when not working on WritersWeekly and BookLocker, he divides his off-time between hiking, hunting, and farming.