(Mostly Christian) students objecting to 'Fun Home' book in reading programme

[Anakin McFly]

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/20 ... al-reasons

While some of those people just need to get over themselves, the idea of pressuring students to read sexually-themed stuff - whether or not something is received as porn is really an individual thing - that makes them uncomfortable or is potentially triggery or goes against their conscience makes me uncomfortable, especially when it entails overriding their lack of consent. (I know I just made a thread about how trigger warnings are often harmful, but if an individual sees something they think might be traumatic and make their own decision not to view it, it'll make it worse if people pressure them to.)

[Gendo]

Yeah, there's some unfortunate conflating of issues here. Because the material deals with homosexuality, it's understandable that people are going after a Christian who said that he's refusing to read it. But he's made it clear that homosexuality has nothing to do with it, and given the nature of the material, and his statement, there's no reason to doubt him. This is not a gay rights issue.

He is refusing to look at sexually explicit graphic material, because it's a form of pornography, and he believes it is a sin to look at pornography. If a school were requiring students to read through an issue of Playboy magazine would people be more understanding of a student who refused the assignment on moral/religious grounds?

[Anakin McFly]

Hopefully. I read that the book includes illustrations of women masturbating and having oral sex, and while apparently not presented in a titillating manner for the purpose of arousal (which is the basis of the author's argument that it's not porn), it's undeniably sexually explicit. And we're talking teenage boys here who'll get turned on by anything, especially depictions of lesbian sex; all the more if they've grown up in a conservative environment where even far milder material was not an option.

I saw lots of people arguing that not all nudity is sexual, but as long as an individual finds it sexual and gets aroused by it, for all intents and purposes it is sexual to them. Unfortunately, this then risks the slippery slope to justifying things like Muslim dress restrictions for women on the basis that seeing an ankle might get them aroused against their will.

[Ptolemy_Banana]

He is refusing to look at sexually explicit graphic material, because it's a form of pornography, and he believes it is a sin to look at pornography. If a school were requiring students to read through an issue of Playboy magazine would people be more understanding of a student who refused the assignment on moral/religious grounds?

I wouldn't.