Explicit sexual content, defined by the province as detailed and clear depictions of sexual acts, including masturbation, penetration and ejaculation, will not be accessible to students in any grade.
also
Religious texts, such as the Bible, will be allowed on the shelves.
I’m shocked… really, like, i 100% knew that was going to be in there article. So actually, I’m not shocked. Fuck you Alberta.
NGL this sounda like a nothing burger. The news are “Adults Only” books are no longer awolled in schools? What non smutty book even fulfills that criteria?
The bible is still not removed, which has incest, adultery, more incest with rape, prostitution, more prostitution. I can list more. My question is, what is wrong with regular books, with sex in them?
Lolita, The French Lieutenant’s Woman, IT. All books I read as a teen with explicit sexual content…
And you borrowed these books from your school’s library?
To clarify: You borrowed fucking Lolita from your school’s library? And you want other kids to be able to do the same?
Yeah. A couple of years after I first read it, I wrote a coursework essay about the unreliable narrator, using Lolita and Pale Fire as my primary texts (the latter also by Nabokov). What’s the problem with that? I’m assuming you’ve not read either if you’re getting this outraged, lol
Ah. We clearly had different experiences of high school. Lmao.
So is it or is not explicit btw? Does it contain ‘detailed and clear depictions of sexual acts, including’? Because you seem to lean into whatever is the opposite of what I say lol. But we’re taking about OP.
I mean it’s pretty graphic when he compares her ring to a football pump before going into licking it, but it’s also hilarious
I don’t know what to tell you. If this metaphor qualifies as a ‘detailed and clear’ depiction of sex for you, sure I guess? I see what you’re saying in that case.
Maybe I’ve just been exposed to more clear and detailed written depictions of sex lol.
yes we get it you’re a conservative, you don’t have to prove it by continuing to try to twist facts to match your predetermined worldview
Did you reply the wrong comment?
deleted by creator
Were you homeschooled by a pigeon? Fuckin hell, I can’t believe people like you exist outside of satire.
How did it go again… “I know pornography when I see it.”, wasn’t it?
Which, honestly, is actually rather impressive as far as non-answers to things in general go in that it not only made the speaker simultaneously sound both like a condescending prick AND some sort-of super creepy dude who is waaaay too into porn, all while assuring us that these qualities gave them the necessary authority to… Identify porn, I guess? Ya know, like that wood book fellow
All David Gemmells books.
My brother an I came up with ‘Gemmell theory’ which breaks down all his characters by archetype. Female archer, strong willed, ‘manly’ in some regards, yet sexy. Warrior. Has seen some shit, probably had a deal with a demon and/or has a destiny. Bard. Light comic relief. Probably a mate of the warrior. May know a little light magic. You get the idea. I think there are only about 5 archetypes in Gemmell theory.
Oh for sure. There is of course a gentle-soul warrior that is cursed with killing being his only real talent, and the giant that hide a lot of emotions under surface. Most of his books are very symilar to eachother, to the point that he uses exactly the same comparisons, metaphors and jokes sometimes… I still think he’s a master-writer. Gemmel writing heroic fantasy is like Kubrick directing a porn. Genre is not enough to obscure the genius behind it.
Oh I think those two are the same as the warrior, lol. My archetypes have a little tolerance. But there’s definitely a dual strand – the ‘dark’ hero (waylander) and the ‘light’ one (druss). Both ends up characterised by both aspects usually though, which is why in Gemmell theory they’re unified.
Best one was lion of Macedon. I still think about that sometimes.