You must log in or register to comment.

Wuz314159 t1_jcamp8g wrote

>“It contained sexual content and descriptions of physical, sexual and
emotional abuse that do not meet the standards of developmental
appropriateness or independent reading material available at the

PLEASE tell me that they banned the Bible for the same reason.


Zenith2017 t1_jcarm4e wrote

>30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. >31 And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth. > 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.' > 33 And they made their father drink wine that night. And the first-born went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.


courageous_liquid t1_jcbrxiv wrote

>She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose semen was like that of horses.

ezekiel 23:20


ProleAcademy t1_jcb19q5 wrote

Context: the book most in question is Push by Sapphire, from which comes the Oscar-winning movie "Precious".

I read it this week. It's disturbing and explicit in parts, and uses a lot of profanity. It's also deeply empathetic, skillful, artistically necessary and in its own way, therapeutic.

It meets none of the traditional tests for obscenity and has been lauded over the years for a reason - it's unflinchingly honest and very effective at letting survivors of abuse know they are recognized, they are not alone and there is hope for them.

Central York SD was not using it in curriculum, which is for the best, but it was in the high school library until this ban was initiated by a complaint. It should be reinstated, although a content warning provided with it would be appropriate, as arguably would restrictions if parents want to impose them on their own child's library account. But removing it from the library altogether is absurd.


IamSauerKraut t1_jcb1ugz wrote

>Central York SD was not using it in curriculum, which is for the best, but it was in the high school library until this ban was initiated by a complaint. It should be reinstated, although a content warning provided with it would be appropriate, as arguably would restrictions if parents want to impose them on their own child's library account. But removing it from the library altogether is absurd.

Totally agree.

The complainers, who often do not have kids at the high school, seek to restrict what the kids of other parents can read. Let the kids at the high school make the decision to read or not to read, not these fake ass control freak complainers.


Lazerspewpew t1_jcc4no0 wrote

We need to stop tiptoeing around these people and acknowledge what they are and what they're doing. These people are Christian Nationalist Fascists who want every sector of American life forcibly governed by their batshit insane religious beliefs.


spiralbatross t1_jccqlgn wrote

Nationalist Christians aka Nat C’s


Lazerspewpew t1_jccsjbb wrote

A lot of them will rant and rave about "that's not us!", but a few of them have embraced the fascism. Both things are terrifying.


IamSauerKraut t1_jcdtx8n wrote

Why they continue to wage war on other peoples' kids I do not understand. They ought to just knock it off. Hey, trumpkin, leave them kids alone!


kormer t1_jcbtgo2 wrote

> he complainers, who often do not have kids at the high school

As opposed to 99.9% of the posters here who also do not have kids at that high school?


delusions- t1_jcbv5ib wrote

We're not trying to control policy like they are, now are we?

We're discussing it, and the people who ARE trying to. Interesting how you're trying to change the subject, though.


IamSauerKraut t1_jcbve2t wrote

Not seeing where any of the CYSD complainers are here in this thread. Unless you are one. Most of the folks commenting here are not objecting to books being made available to the high school students. We are not seeking to limit their reading materials.


Pink_Slyvie t1_jcbh1ip wrote

Honestly, I'm over parental rights. That's why I went through 30 years of hell. Had I been able to read the books kids can read now, I would have had a much better life.


dream_bean_94 t1_jcble87 wrote

Our society values parental rights over child welfare.


UnfairAd7220 t1_jcbujz7 wrote

'Parental rights' isn't as meaningful as merely 'being the (actual) parents.'

Students go to school under in loco parentis, while they are in school, simply to be able to run organizations of that size.

At no point ARE the Districts the parents.

These problems arise when Districts want to co opt the definition of 'parent' for themselves.

Whether its books that could be construed as (pick one) salacious, age inappropriate, content inappropriate, etc, or things like 'oh. What we say here you don't have to tell your folks' or even having a child choose to identify differently at school than at home, those are all red lines that Districts shouldn't be NEAR, forget crossing.

Child welfare is the care of the parents. Society gets to weigh in when parents have crossed certain red lines.

I'm just saying there should be distinct areas of separation.


delusions- t1_jcbvkqn wrote

You're saying a whole lot of nothing while implying everything.

>These problems arise when Districts want to co opt the definition of 'parent' for themselves.

What's this mean to you? > Child welfare is the care of the parents


>I'm just saying there should be distinct areas of separation.

No you're not "just saying" anything. Just like no one "just asks questions"


Pink_Slyvie t1_jcc1iv9 wrote

>Society gets to weigh in when parents have crossed certain red lines.

We should start weighing in when parents tell their kids they are worthless unless they worship an invisible sky daddy, and anyone who doesn't is evil. Teaching Evangelical Christianity to children is abuse.


SeptasLate t1_jccyjwm wrote

I'm not sure if I'm sold that the government should police a family's religious practices.


Pink_Slyvie t1_jcczfp3 wrote

They already are, but I'm not suggesting we police religious practices. I'm saying that if religious practices are abusive, they should be stopped.

Like why is genital mutilation still standard for so much of a the population


SeptasLate t1_jcd1jeu wrote

But we already intervene in cases if child abuse, it's just not everything people think is abuse actually is.

Worse yet, if you've worked with child welfare services in PA, or children that are in the system, intervention can be more disruptive and lead to the kids being in worse situations.


[deleted] t1_jchecmt wrote



SeptasLate t1_jchkabt wrote

Yeah but does that happen in Pennsylvania or beyond fringe religious groups?

I think allowing kids an avenue out of abusive situations is a good thing. But what determines "religiois abuse?" Theres also the unfortunate reality that, based on my experience with kids in the system, we currently struggle to help and support kids as is. For most kids going into the system isn't an improvement.

I'm also not really sold on the idea that religion is inherently abusive. Maybe there should be a focus on the aspects that are?


[deleted] t1_jchko5j wrote



SeptasLate t1_jchmdbd wrote

Im confused, arent there already laws against sexual abuse? Is your suggestion that we help kids being sexually abused or every kid that attends a catholic church?

I thought it would be something interesting like an lgbtq kid being forced to attend a fundamentalist church, which increases their likelihood of ending up dead or homeless as a teenager.


[deleted] t1_jchoszh wrote



SeptasLate t1_jciiyru wrote

That's a really unfortunate situation and I'm sorry you went through that.

I'm just still not sure how that applies to an entire institution or religion. I've dealt with shitty priests like that but I've also met nice ones that did great work for their community. It's similar to how I've had teachers that were straight up bullies but I don't see that as a condemnation of teachers or public education.

I do agree that there needs to be, and to a degree has been occurring, an acknowledgement of how people in positions of power treat those below them. There's been huge shifts in pedagogical approaches in the past decade or so focusing on this.

As much as I may disagree politically with these people I'm not sure how we ethically keep members of the community from participating in elections and government.

Those are very upsetting stories I think they highlight the problems with fringe insulated communities, more so than an issue with religion.


[deleted] t1_jcimvj9 wrote



SeptasLate t1_jcitjle wrote

I'm not sure how you can make an honestly compare Catholicism to the Klan. I also dont understand your use of quotes around catholic church. Yes the church is corrupt but that doesnt condemn all of its members.

Im not sure this example works. Parents are capable of beating their kids. They are not capable of sending them to hell.

I really don't see how either of these examples would be religious abuse that would require the state to support a kid, or how either of these are worse than having a kid enter the system.

As an aside, I'm kind of curious now, how to plan on keeping Christains away from elected offices?


[deleted] t1_jciuk9p wrote



SeptasLate t1_jciwdpt wrote

I'd rather have to live next to a Catholic than a Klansman but maybe I'm just crazy. I guess a difference is the catholic church also doesn't preach for the enslavement or destruction of my partner or neices. Again the institution is corrupt and has a horrible past but comparing parishioners to klansmen seems offensive to reasons why people are members of either institution, especailly to those who have been targets of the klan.

What's happening in this state where Republicans are stopping child victims from seeking justice. This also seems to be an issue with Republicans. Where do the catholic, Christian, and other religious democrats stand on the issue?

I'm still not seeing anything that would require a new practice of the state protecting kids from "religious abuse."


[deleted] t1_jcixsob wrote



SeptasLate t1_jciyux8 wrote

I haven't been aware of church calling doe the death of anyone recently?

Didn't pope Francis recently go to Canada to apologize and the catholic church in Canada is paying reparations set by the Truth and Reconciliation council? Isn't also possible there are members that are pushing for the church to make further amends? Im not sure why you're choosing to ignore that I've acknowledged and agreed that the institution of the church is corrupt and bad but that not every member us responsible for the genocide. I'm not sure what my great grandma in Ireland did to the Native Americans.

And as for supporting old institutions with sordid pasts I still vote Democrat despite their role in reconstruction era violence.

Amd what was that legislation in PA you were talking about that stops child victims for seeking justice? And what're religious democrats doing? To build off of that do we need to keep religious democrats away from politics too or just the republican ones?


[deleted] t1_jcj4gef wrote



SeptasLate t1_jclmgx7 wrote

Well that's upsetting to see how the institution shirked its responsibility to pay onto the average person.

That's also a very upsetting read about that republican legislation. Oddly enough the two catholic politicalicians from my area are strongly opposed to it. Makes you think don't it?

I don't know what your problem with Eric Adams. I think it's long time since the mayor of NY declared a war on rats. In the same line you also have religious politicians like Wolf and Shapiro, idk if I'd call them messes.

Man that last presidential election must have been rough for you. Either vote for Trump or throw away a vote on a third party in a swing state.

I think that's a gross oversimplification of religion amd ignores those who maintain their faith but try to change to the institution. I mean, "as dangerous as a nuclear bomb"? But you have your right to your opinion. I hope it was cathartic writing all of that out.

Still I don't see where there would need to be any new forms of protections created targeted at religious abuse. All real forms of abuse are already covered and the system is not likely to be better for most of those kids.


[deleted] t1_jclzdpw wrote



SeptasLate t1_jcm1gna wrote

OK the nuclear bomb thing is wild. Like an insane take.

I also think all of those are sacrifices we must make so we can win the war on rats (this was a joke). But also a weird amount of focus on a politician not from Pennsylvania. I like the ones from here.

Unfortunately, I do think we've given up on the purpose of this conversation and I'm no longer certain the purpose of these rants.


[deleted] t1_jcm7do0 wrote



SeptasLate t1_jcm8ird wrote

I personally think all parents shouldn't have a say in education and that it should be left to professionals.

While I think some of these Christian nationalist organizations are dangerous, calling the removal of precious from a library is a far cry from abuse.


[deleted] t1_jccr72j wrote

So when the hell do teachers get to be the teachers?

Parents want to direct what books can be in the building, what teachers can teach, what teachers can say, what teachers can hang in their rooms, what teachers can look like.

Just give the teachers their pensions, fire all of them, and make all these control-freak parents quit their day jobs and start teaching the classes as far as I’m concerned.


thenewtbaron t1_jcb1fvh wrote

Jesus. this is funny.

"Push" a novel about a young teen who was failed by the education system, abused by her family is banned from a high school for ... "not meeting the standards of developmental appropriateness"

yeah, I guess 16 year olds can't read about a woman being abused by her family... what age range is "developmentally appropriate" to learn that other people get abused? Do teenagers have to read children's novels until they turn 18.

"shush shush honey, I know tomorrow you are turning 18 tomorrow but I can't let you read about anything bad in this world... that is why we banned talking about war, slavery, native desolation, the holocaust(which we both know is fake).... anyway, good luck on giving birth to your second child"

Fucking snowflakes


thereisnodevil666 t1_jcb2oex wrote

It runs too close to home for most of the inbred shit that elected this school board. Uncle MAGA doesn't want his niece to realize what he's doing is a crime.


[deleted] t1_jcbuvb2 wrote



thereisnodevil666 t1_jcbw8z7 wrote

Yup. Totally. Pennsylvania Republicans definitely want to protect kids and punish rapists, who are almost always family members or clergy.

Democrats advanced a second bill to make a law giving survivors two years to sue their attackers and the institutions that enabled them. But the two Republican members of the five-member House Committee to Provide Justice to Otherwise Barred Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse voted against the measure.


drunkmonkey176 t1_jcapxx0 wrote

The biggest danger a child faces in Y'All Qaedastan is being murdered at school by a christian with a gun, forced to work 12 hour shifts in a factory, or being forced to marry their 50 year old rapist when they get pregnant. Please tell me again in what reality republicans give a flying fuck about kids.


Shambro1111 t1_jcaz0af wrote

Please provide data to back up these assertions


[deleted] t1_jcbdvws wrote



Tidusx145 t1_jcbgkhs wrote

Meh they were rebuked, that's all. Discussion is about learning and growth.


cashonlyplz t1_jcbh7yy wrote

I have no patience. Everyone can use google. No one wants to dispel their preconceived notions. I, personally, love being proven wrong. It doesn't happen often enough. 😏


ronan11sham t1_jcbg2iz wrote

I don’t take things personally on Reddit. It’s very hard for me to care what strangers think. I just wanted supporting info. I’m glad your happy a got pwned. You must have a very shallow and sad existence to try and put a stranger down. I pity you


Revolutionary-Ad4588 t1_jcbv1z8 wrote

Still being insulting when faced with facts. I wish you and your ilk could self-reflect for even a day. Understand why you’re wrong and no one wants your group to be invading our lives.


drunkmonkey176 t1_jcbwxme wrote

If I thought for one millisecond Y'all Qaeda trash were capable of evidence based logical decision making, I would point them to the newly legalized child labor laws in Arkansas, child marriage laws that were blocked in TN and WV, clergy being exempt from child abuse reporting requirements in UT, and any number of the relentless mass shootings that occur in this country. But since I know dark age fairy tales mean more to them than evidence and reality, I won't waste my time.


ronan11sham t1_jcc2uug wrote

I asked for data. That's it. Why would you not want that? Didn't state my opinion. So how was I wrong? WTF? There is too much hyperbole on reddit. You are very emotional and childish if you don't ask people, even ones you agree with, to back up their assertions. If you are not open to persuasion you are a fool. If you think one side is completely right and the other is completely wrong, you have cognitive dissonance IMHO. Keep insulting me, but it is the opposite of persuasive and usually hardens positions. I wont ask for anymore data as it seems to upset a lot of you and that was not my intent. Thanks strangers who I will never think about again.


javatrees07 t1_jcavw9y wrote

Their moral compass is so fucked up they can’t find their way to a parking lot.


in_Need_of_peace t1_jcb777g wrote

This is so fucking stupid


YonderMTN t1_jcdy7ai wrote

Agreed, and I'm almost past the point of caring about these alt-right mOmS FoR LiBerTy fuck wads who get elected to public office without a single original thought besides what fox news tells them is happening. I understand it's a slippery slope argument, but honestly? These communities can reap what you sow. Books might be the hot button issue, but they are not the worst thing influencing young minds these days. Tik Tok is.


polgara_buttercup t1_jcbabaa wrote

Party that screams “parental choice” won’t let others make those choices.

You’ve always had the ability to restrict what material your child has access to, the problem is, it requires you to actually be involved and do the work.


feudalle t1_jcbbhw7 wrote

No no. Everyone gets to choose as long as they choose the right thing. That's is the Maga way. Just like freedom of religion, as long as it's a Protestant Chistian variety.


kormer t1_jcbtpuw wrote

> Party that screams “parental choice” won’t let others make those choices.

You're free to purchase any book you want to read to your child at home. Nobody is taking that away from you.


BluCurry8 t1_jcby3vj wrote

Well with that logic, why have a school library at all? Let the parents just buy all the books and therefore their will be no more ridiculous book banning.


Reynolds_Live t1_jcaufsa wrote

I guess they thought they could get away with it this time.

Props to the teachers, students and others fighting back.


CoalCrackerKid t1_jcbeur7 wrote

I think the resident who said, "Apparently, they learned this: Next time, try to ban the books in secret so you don’t get caught," nailed it.


HeraldofCool t1_jcbgi52 wrote

The right "kids these days are soft and weak" Also, the right "books to graphic for my wittle baby"


BluCurry8 t1_jcbyqzr wrote

What really kills me is that I am sure these kids are playing video games that are far more racy and violent then books in the library.


Lazerspewpew t1_jcc476d wrote

Save the books, ban the fascists.


delusions- t1_jcbz1gr wrote

Yeah nah, I'll contribute directly to the candidates before I do to a nameless faceless organization that says "Your contribution will support candidates who are running to oppose the return of the racially motivated book ban .... and to give our students the world-class education they deserve."

so there's 0 way to follow where the actual money goes?


Low-Public-9948 t1_jcb1dg2 wrote

You’re/they’re asking for donations to have new school board candidates brought in?

Maybe just fire the clowns that don’t want to educate the youth properly.

How do people think you learn what good and bad is, or what you like and don’t like, if you don’t learn what something is.


starrsuperfan t1_jcbn5l4 wrote

I guess we have had the usual gap between my Alma Mater appearing in the national news


WoozyMuon t1_jcc3hwj wrote

Does Pennsylvania not have a department of education?

And does this agency not regulate schools and the contents of schools?

Then why haven't they put an end to this?


BitchyWitchy68 t1_jccrmov wrote

Where books are burned eventually people are burned.


defusted t1_jcbm8ze wrote

It's just so much easier to keep people controllable if they're stupid. The easiest way to do this is to not let them be educated.


Terelinth t1_jccjxvc wrote

keep everyone uneducated, in debt, buried under inflation and engaged in culture wars so that the owner class can just keep redistributing wealth upwards, that's the play and the real magic is both the liberals and the conservatives fight to uphold the cycle of oppression


yankeeman9 t1_jcbyfe8 wrote

Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles Fucking book banners


MomsSpecialFriend t1_jcc2vm5 wrote

Why don’t these people just tell their OWN kids what they can see or read?


alternatingflan t1_jcdf1i1 wrote

How about adding more up-to-date books and library resources instead of this banning book spree.


SgtBaxter t1_jcf2taw wrote

Instead of the check for our school taxes, we should simply send in a list of books we want reinstated.


Rheum42 t1_jcdu4zq wrote

I'm assuming it won't make much of a difference there smh


timesyours t1_jce2c3t wrote

Let’s chip in to buy every damn kid in that district a copy of every damn banned book. If they ban more, I’ll donate more. These are awful, selfish people.


SolidAd2342 t1_jcc8sq1 wrote

Express your concern about this to your senator ……oh wait


Alfa505 t1_jccpxyx wrote

The book is not banned. You can easily go on Amazon and order a copy for your teenage child if you choose. Books depicting graphic sexual content do not belong in school library’s. Another Salacious headline to grab attention and enrage a mob.


[deleted] t1_jccvbk5 wrote



Alfa505 t1_jcdlsl2 wrote

You’re going to have to fill me in on my beliefs of child marriage. However if we’re going to make assumptions I can see how you think this book is appropriate sense you support pedophilia.


[deleted] t1_jcdr6ua wrote



Alfa505 t1_jcfbgeb wrote

Again that’s not a stance of the Republican party, just the blind opinion of a moron. I took the time to actually read this book and while I find it in part inspiring it is also incredibly graphic rape, incest and very sexually graphic (think rated R) as in the suggested age would be 17 or with parental consent. Now i can tell by the wisdom in your comments your parents started you on R rated movies at 6 months old but some people think developing minds should read age appropriate content. Sorry if that implodes your tiny liberal reddit hive mind.


[deleted] t1_jcfgsr4 wrote



Alfa505 t1_jcfvy43 wrote

That’s such a ridiculous statement you can’t be taken seriously.


[deleted] t1_jcfw9qw wrote



Alfa505 t1_jcg155l wrote

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


[deleted] t1_jcg1g6i wrote



Alfa505 t1_jcg2l48 wrote

“As it stands, minors 16 and over may obtain a marriage license with parental consent, and children under the age of 16 must obtain an additional waiver from a judge. “

Did you even read these or just like the gaslighting headlines?


[deleted] t1_jcg3kjo wrote



Alfa505 t1_jcg5pge wrote

Lol just because you keep calling people pedophiles does not make them that. I would need to see some case study where this is common place or even happening at all.


[deleted] t1_jcbotb4 wrote



BluCurry8 t1_jcbyxxn wrote

You think you were more mature than kids being raised today. That is seriously funny!! 🤣🤣


delusions- t1_jcbz6mf wrote

> we were A LOT more mature than the youth of today is.

rofl yeah ok

> we were A LOT more mature than the youth of today is... considering they eat tide pods for views on the internet....

and ya'll threw lawn darts at each other just for fun

You're out of your mind if you think any generation is significantly different than the other in terms of "maturity", other than the last 3 not having as much lead poisoning so are significantly less prone to being a piece of shit


CltAltAcctDel t1_jcbcl85 wrote

It would nice if the reporter put some excerpts from the book in the article so we could get a feel for what's in it. Some books are appropriate for HS libraries, some aren't.


[deleted] t1_jcbos8p wrote



CltAltAcctDel t1_jcc32k5 wrote

The people have apparently proved it to those that removed the book. Parent(s) challenged the book. Book was reviewed. Book was removed.

It’s reporter’s job to gather information and provide it. So we either have to draw our own conclusions based on almost zero information


kormer t1_jcbu593 wrote

They're not allowed to print excerpts because that would violate the paper's decency guidelines. Just like last week when the TV stations had to cut away from the Desantis press conference when he was showing actual pages from the books.

That right there should tell you everything you need to know.


BluCurry8 t1_jcc116v wrote

copyright infringement more likely. You are clearly on the internet just Google the book and read the excerpt.


delusions- t1_jcbzjo3 wrote

Right, that there's like 3 blatant books that probably could go and no one would've made too much of a fuss, then there were 197 other books added on


USMBTRT t1_jcbaky9 wrote

Books are added/removed from library lists all the time. You obviously can't carry every single book in existence. Someone is always making decisions on what to put on the shelves. Every person making a big deal about this, regardless of their stance, is just looking for cheap political points.
Oh look, OP conveniently included a link to donate to a Democrat PAC. What a surprise.

Fabricated outrage is so financially lucrative for politicians.


steelceasar t1_jcbctyy wrote

>Books are added/removed from library lists all the time

This seems like a pretty disingenuous argument in the context of banning books don't you think? It's not like it's unavailable or out of stock, it just doesn't conform to conservative worldviews so they want it banned.


USMBTRT t1_jcbfiaz wrote

What's the functional difference between a librarian saying, "lets replace this one," and a parent saying, "I don't want that one?" Do you think librarians are magically impartial or immune to bias? Do you think the left has never pulled books from shelves that don't fit their ideology?


steelceasar t1_jcbgemv wrote

>Do you think the left has never pulled books from shelves that don't fit their ideology

I would like an example if you don't mind.

And the functional difference is that librarians have degrees in education and library science. The others are hand ringing Karens with a fox news addiction and an obsession with controlling society.


USMBTRT t1_jcbqa4g wrote

Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mocking Bird, and Dr. Seuss (But only when Melania Trump reads it, not Michelle Obama) to name a few.

And while not a book, but just a general point on censorship, California, New Jersey, and other states passed laws or school policies to ban pro-gun clothing in schools.

It's worth noting that, according to PEN America, for a book to be put on the banned list, it doesn't actually have to be banned - just that someone has requested that a school look into whether something is age appropriate or not.

Edit: They're both on the ALA Top 100 Banned Books list. I used those sources because they specifically call out the people banning them. Also love how direct evidence of the Dr. Seuss hierocracy is completely written off because you don't agree with the website that compiled the tweets.


steelceasar t1_jcbt5ip wrote

So, neither Huckleberry Finn nor To Kill a Mockingbird were banned if you read your articles. There was just a discussion about the use of racial language, and it was determined that they needed to be properly contextualized as part of a curriculum so as to avoid romanticizing them. You are playing dumb by citing the PEN definition of banned to avoid this obvious difference. Also, wearing shirts with guns on them has nothing to do with book bans and bringing them up is you grasping at straws to make an argument that is not founded in reality.

Edit: also your third article is just a reposting of a bunch of tweets in tabloid fashion to create a false controversy.


BluCurry8 t1_jcc0kta wrote

You bring up an interesting point the article. It you are going to ban Push, To Kill A Mockingbird a mockingbird should be banned. The white trash father raped his daughter and produced 2 more children. To expand further, we are taught about To kill a mockingbird in the context of racism and basically institutionalized racism, but not that rape and incest that is clearly happening under everyone’s nose in the book should get punished. No one raises a finger to protect the daughter in this book. Really we do have selective pearl clutching in this country!


[deleted] t1_jcbcqp1 wrote



USMBTRT t1_jcbexhd wrote

I'm not a Republican, but I do vote in every election (sometimes the same way as you, I suppose).

But I lost you on the second sentence. What is my comment supposed to be a prime example of???


[deleted] t1_jcalo6c wrote

They need to put 50 shades of grey back in the library.