Books Make You Horny

What if banning books in schools that contain descriptions of sexual acts doesn’t actually prevent children from learning about and/or engaging in sexual activity? I know that’s an outrageous premise, and one that I’m sure will leave readers scratching their heads. Yet, that is the bold assertion I’m making in the wake of reading today’s guest essay from a distraught educator entitled, “This Summer I Became the Book Banning Monster of Iowa.”

The essay recounts how Bridgette Exman, an assistant superintendent, complied with Iowa’s new “Parental Rights Bill,” which forces schools to remove books from their library shelves that contain “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act.” Books banned from schools under this rule include, as the author points out, The Color Purple, Beloved, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, and The Handmaid’s Tale. None of those books could possibly be described as prurient. None are lewd, smutty, or salacious. In fact, the opposite is true. So what is the purpose in removing them from library shelves?

“We’re trying to protect kids,” said Sen. Brad Zaun, regarding the bill.

Protect kids from what? Do Iowans believe that removing Toni Morrison and Margaret Atwood from school shelves is “protecting” their students? Protecting them from what? Will censoring descriptions of sex, including sexual abuse, lead to a better-informed Iowan population? Does providing less information ever lead to better educational outcomes?

He just read a book.

Were these same parents harmed from reading?

Is that why they are on hellbent on “protecting” children? If so, I’d love to know which books cause them such pain that they are now using the power of the state government to save their children from the horrors that befell them. Was it The Scarlet Letter, which recounts the penalty for suspected adultery? Was it Slaughterhouse Five, which contains the following passage:

“He had a dirty picture of a woman attempting sexual intercourse with a Shetland pony. He had made Billy Pilgrim admire that picture several times. The women and the pony were posed before velvet draperies which were fringed with deelee-balls. They were flanked by Doric columns. In front of one column was a potted palm. The picture that Weary had was a print of the first dirty photograph in history.”

Having read most of those books as a teenager, along with The Catcher in the Rye, which is about a horny teenager, I can assure these worried parents that they did me no harm. Nor did Romeo and Juliet, which is also about horny teenagers. Ditto Tess of the D’Urbervilles. Now that I think of it, most of my high school curriculum was devoted to horny teenagers. Did those books make me a horny teenager, because I definitely was one? Or, is it possible that budding sexuality is a normal developmental stage for adolescents and works of classic literature reflect that truth?

Parents of Iowa, do you think restricting access to books will keep kids from having sexual thoughts or engaging in sexual activity? Does banning art ever have the desired effect? Because we keep trying it. Has it worked? Did kids stop feeling each other up? As far as I can tell, they did not.

Is it possible that restricting information actually does more harm than good?

Why hire school librarians if you do not trust them to make good choices? Why hire teachers if you do not trust them to educate? Why have public school at all if you are afraid to have them exposed to anything at all you might find objectionable? On the one hand, we hear so much talk from conservatives about “snowflakes.” On the other, conservative parents are doing everything in their power to protect their delicate children from exposure to ideas that might not conform to their personal belief systems.

Which is why that same “parental rights” bill prevents any discussion of gender identity and sexuality through the sixth grade. The bill also forces educators to report when students ask to use pronouns or names different from those assigned to them at birth. Most bizarrely, it also prevents instruction about AIDS and HPV; why would we want kids to have less information about sexually transmitted diseases?

Parents of Iowa, don’t you want kids to know how to protect themselves from these diseases? Or perhaps you think one can only catch viruses one knows about. I’m no medical professional, but it seems to me that a good way to keep your children safe is to teach them how to be safe.

Of course, these sorts of bills aren’t unique to Iowa. Dozens of states have either adopted or are considering similar legislation. Florida passed its notorious “Don’t Say Gay” bill. A bill in Indiana would have prevented schools from “teaching divisive topics.” Some states are pushing educators to post daily lesson plans, etc. etc. etc. It’s a free-for-all against teachers. Again, I ask: to what end?

Must our nation always be in a moral panic over the stupidest stuff?

Like it or not, children will grow up to be sexual beings. Like it or not, they will be exposed to material that discusses sex and sexuality. Would you rather that be in an education setting or on YouPorn? Whether you want them to or not, they will try to understand their own sexuality. However much parents try to prevent it, children will come across ideas that challenge what they have been taught at home. Some of those ideas might make them uncomfortable. Isn’t that what we should want from an educational curriculum? Shouldn’t we want to challenge our kids? To force them to apply critical thinking? To encourage them to make up their own minds? To “do their own research”? Don’t we want smarter kids? Shouldn’t we be excited when our kids pick up books instead of being terrified about what they will find inside? Parents, why don’t you trust you own parenting enough to believe that your kids will turn out ok even if they read something you might not like? Millions have read these books and I’m guessing very few of them ever attempted sexual intercourse with a Shetland pony.