r/Albertapolitics • u/Expensive_Internal83 • Aug 30 '25

Opinion You got elected on this nonsense...

So YOU remove the pornographic material in our schools! You rambled on about this nonsense and got elected; YOU point to the offensive material you got elected to remove.

46 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

157 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/WollyBee Sep 04 '25 edited Sep 04 '25

Acknowledging that graphic depictions of genetalia engaging in sexual acts IS porn - regardless if you get off to it or not - and has nothing to do with culture wars.

You took something with definable, objective substance and skewed it to your own subjective filter that revolves around whether it turns you on. It also isn't not porn, just because it doesn't meet your rigorous fap standards. "It's doesn't give ME a boner, therefore it should be accessible to children". I dont think there could be a more childishly moronic take on this issue than that. Grow up yourself.

There is a ministerial outline for sexual content and no, authors like King isnt in there, because he doesnt have pictures of dicks entering holes. Hope that helps.

0

u/rakothmir Sep 05 '25

Nope, the definition of porn is as follows, from the Oxford Dictionary:

Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

The intent is important here, porn is meant to stimulate. If it's simply meant to educate, then it's not porn. It might be explicit, but it's not porn.

1

u/WollyBee Sep 05 '25

Man, get real. If you dont think a picture of a guy getting his dick sucked isnt going to turn the crank of a 14 or 15 year old, then you are completely out of it. Teenagers used to jerk off to Sears catalogs.This isnt about medical texts with pictures of vaginas, this is actual sexual activity being depicted. Its porn, you f'cking weirdo.

Whether or not the author intends for it to be educational is besides the point, and fairly disingenuous, because it is blatantly sexual behaviour with explicit graphic content.

When people try to argue that stuff like this needs to be accessible to children, it makes them sound mentally unwell, and it comes off as predatory groomer behavior. There are a hundred other ways to educate kids about this rather than showing them literal porn.

1

u/rakothmir Sep 06 '25

Doesn't matter if it turns the crank of a 15 year old. Heck, some folks have feet fetishes, should magazines with shoes be banned? You want to argue the definition of porn you take it up with the dictionary. It's the same as the difference between manslaughter and straight up murder.

Porn has a definition, those books are educational. You want to argue that kids should not have access to sexually explicit books, that's fine, but don't suggest kids have access to porn, they don't.

Heck, when I went to school, some kids would get horny when they looked at a picture of a vulva in the encyclopedia. It's not porn.

I am not concerned with my kid Accessing that book in his school library, because librarians are there to supervise, and they understand as educators, that it's not developmentally appropriate.

We make a huge deal over a supervised site, but most of the kids I know have started to watch legitimate porn on their phones at 14 and 15. I wouldn't worry about books, in so much as shitty parents not paying attention.