Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ManOnTheMun25 t1_jde8f6n wrote

This particular book talks about prostate massage among other things.
People that dont want their children seeing that stuff arent crazy or
It has nothing to do with homophobia.
Its not a apt comparison.


TheOracleArt t1_jdm0w9g wrote

This is a book aimed written for and aimed at late teens and is supplementary sex education for gay kids because, funnily enough, the practice of safe gay sex is not taught in schools the way straight sex is. When I was at school (many moons ago) we learnt about straight, penis-in-vagina sex, the anatomy around this and what safe sex precautions to take. There was nothing covering this for gay sex. Now you may say "well, gay sex is a minority, so there's no point covering this." Well, if it's not covered in normal educational classes at school, it should be addressed elsewhere. Gay kids shouldn't be the ones just left to "figure it out" and possibly be taken advantage of or not be properly prepared the way sex education tries to prepare and warn straight kids.

This book was written to address that. So yes, it shows a diagram of the male body and erogenous zones and mentions that the prostate is an erogenous zone....cause it is? Are you equally shocked and appalled that in normal sex education, they note that a penis is also an erogenous zone too? In a book educating about gay sex...they're going to talk about the functions of gay sex. I'm not seeing how it can be anything else but homophobia that you're clutching pearls over the idea that a book might acknowledge that the prostate is a well-known erogenous zone. Would you equally freak out about a sex education book mentioning the clitoris?


KovolKenai t1_jdfaqlf wrote

Oh shit, prostate massage? Those terrorists were totally justified in calling in a bomb threat, in that case. I'm sure there's not any questionable material in any of the straight books, so this is completely fair and has nothing to do with *checks title of post* LGBTQ+ material.