Take it from me: sometimes banning books is a good idea

August 30, 2024 26 Reactions

Conservative Christian bigots are campaigning to ban books from public libraries.

This is a familiar headline in the United States. Now the Battle of the Books has spread to Australia.

I live in Perth and the battle is being waged in a small town to the south, Albany. The sound and the fury in the media is all out of proportion to the size of Albany’s population. A meeting of residents called for the local government to restrict two books aimed at children – Welcome to Sex by Yumi Stynes and Melissa Kang and Sex: A Book for Teens by Nikol Hasler – on Monday evening. They also demanded that the comic book series Sex Criminals be removed from the library's e-book collection.

Reports in the media portray locals as neo-Nazis who are trying to withhold necessary education which, leaders of LGBTQI+ advocacy group Albany Pride claim, will make minors suffer. “Attempting to divide a town with bigotry doesn’t keep children safe – it actively harms them,” it said.

Unsurprisingly, the majority of these so-called bigots are parents and grandparents, while the pharisees standing in judgment and casting stones are for the most part childless. The former are trying to protect their children from swimming in a sewer of sexuality; the latter think that the water’s just fine and they should start surfing.

Or to use another analogy, the LGBTQI+ campaigners are pumping toxic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the parents are desperately trying to halt moral climate change.

The Albany story is significant because it screams of grassroots citizens no longer sitting back trusting that their kids will be protected in public spaces run by public authorities. They are awake to the woke agenda and have chosen to respond to the corrupt elements in the education of the kids in their picturesque port city.

Why should mums and dads believe the journalists and politicians and teachers and public servants who snigger that the more kids know about sex the better? They know their children best – certainly better than the childless activists – and they know that introducing them to books which would make the Marquis de Sade blush is a horrendous idea.

Albany Pride said the campaign to restrict the books was fuelled by conspiracy theories and part of a wider “moral panic” to link LGBTQI+ people with child grooming.

This is rubbish. There is no moral panic. There is moral outrage – and it is completely justified.

Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis

Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.

There is a time for everything under the sun. This is a time for anger. For parents not to respond in this way would be irresponsible.

The group petitioning against sexualised material for minors in the public library and online is Keeping Children Safe Albany (KCSA). Its members have plenty of friends and family members linked with the LGBTQ+ community. KCSA says “We need to stop this predatory behaviour, stand together and protect our children. We will Not stand by and let grooming and the sexualizing of our children become normalised.”

They’re not bigots; they’re parents. And parents protect their children.

Surely any caring citizen would uphold children being protected from undue harm? All it would take is for the leadership of Albany Pride to make a simple public statement stating that even a hint of any sexual grooming of minors has no place within the confines of Albany Pride, its events and its meetings.

In a technical age, this would take minutes to make public – unless of course it isn’t wholly true, and my lived experience of coming alongside members of the LGBTQ+ community in Western Australia shows that minors do get groomed by members of this community, and Albany residents have cottoned on to this.

I have a unique perspective on this controversy. I read books like these when I was a vulnerable teenager. I was damaged by them. They helped to suck me into a gay lifestyle. It took years of struggle to escape from it. I know from firsthand experience, better than anyone, that they are dangerous.

Minors can end up suffering desperately in adulthood from exposure to inappropriate material that opens curiosity to the paraphilias, information which cannot be satisfactorily processed by a pre-pubescent or even a teenage developing mind.

I run a network in Western Australia for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. This past week a group of eight men finished a nine-week recovery program. Most of the participants are same-sex attracted and have links with the gay community. Most of them have only recently come to realise after many years that, prior to being directly sexually abused as minors, they were groomed through sexualised material similar to that which has now been banned from the junior section of Albany public library.

It is for this reason that they failed to consciously protect themselves as children because their exposure to inappropriate sexual material had already led them to become secretive and even confused about matters relating to sex and sexuality. The perversions that invaded their childhood minds set them up for predators to later gain easier access to their bodily autonomy.

Even to broach the topic of paraphilias, as happens in the controversial book Welcome to Sex, is a form of childhood sexual abuse, and when adults cannot see this for what it truly is, alarm bells should be ringing at maximum decibels.

What could be so complicated about denouncing the sexualisation of children? Even Gays Against Groomers, a not-for-profit made up of “gays, lesbians, and others in the LGBTQI+ community who oppose the sexualisation, indoctrination, and mutilation of children under the guise of radical LGBTQI+ activism”, seem able to confidently and consistently do this.

Should society condemn and ridicule those whom certain media outlets publicly term as bigots because they attempt to remove sexualised material from the junior sections of our public libraries? Or should we be honouring the grandparents and parents who passionately protect their offspring from perversion?

Where do Australia’s many Pride networks draw the line on what is and what is not the sexualisation of minors? Until they make these boundaries crystal clear, society has a duty to safeguard children from sexual corruption.

What do you think? Is it harmful for children to read sexualised material?

James Parker is a former gay activist and abuse survivor who supports people and their loved ones around sexuality, gender and identity.

Image credit: meeting in Albany / Facebook

Showing 26 reactions

Sign in with

Emberson Fedders commented 2024-11-13 17:18:56 +1100

1) I was also there. Yes, they are lying.

2) They were asking to have the book put behind the counter. You should supervise your children at the library, particularly if they are very young. People shouldn’t have access to reading material restricted because others refuse to parent properly.

3) You were exposed to gay porn when you were young. That is horrible. But has nothing to do with educational books about sex.

4) If you find anyone introducing choking or fisting to a 3 or 4yo, please, report them to the police.
James Parker commented 2024-09-16 18:44:25 +1000

Emberson Fedders — (1) many people present at the special meeting in Albany told me that those they spoke to who voted in favour of sexually explicit books being in the junior section of the library for Kindy and upwards didn’t have children. We’re they lying? (2) Exercising parental authority is exactly what people are trying to do, but are being dictated to in the process. It’s easy for a parent to grab a book with sexual content from the shelf in the adult section of the library and to have the freedom to read this to their child (…your freedom honoured), but when parents don’t want this same material in the kids’ section of the library, they are somehow belittled?? (…their freedom DIShonoured). (3) No book turned me gay, and I have never even alluded to this. Yes, the book ‘The Milkman’s On His Way’ by David Rees plus other titles, along with the Colt gay porn I was showed in my early teens definitely steered my sexual desires and my sexual activity in a certain direction. (4) I don’t freak out at any biology being shown to any high schoolers; in fact, I encourage it. I do freak out at kids age 3 or 4yo upwards being introduced to choking and fisting as part of normalised sexual activity. Don’t you freak out at this, Emberson, or is this acceptable in your eyes for pre-pubescent and/or early teenage kids?
Anon Emouse commented 2024-09-10 05:58:18 +1000

Also, I’m sorry, “ Its expression has on many occasions led to, or at least hastened, a person’s death.”?

Pregnancy has done that, too. Should we stigmatize procreation?

Thirdly – I prayed and God seemed pretty okay with the gay stuff. Her only real problem was people taking Her Name in vain – people that call themselves Christians yet do not act Christ like at all. You know, the types who pray in public so that they may been, those that fight against charities.
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-09-05 16:42:38 +1000

This article is full of wild assumptions.

“Unsurprisingly, the majority of these so-called bigots are parents and grandparents, while the pharisees standing in judgment and casting stones are for the most part childless.” You have absolutely no way of knowing this. Indeed, I would suggest it’s the other way round.

“Why should mums and dads believe the journalists and politicians and teachers and public servants who snigger that the more kids know about sex the better? They know their children best – certainly better than the childless activists – and they know that introducing them to books which would make the Marquis de Sade blush is a horrendous idea.” Note a repetition of the lie from before. And EVERY parent knows what is best for their child. So why should some religious fundamentalist be allowed to dictate what MY children read? If you don’t want your child reading a book, don’t let them. Exercise your parental authority,

“I have a unique perspective on this controversy. I read books like these when I was a vulnerable teenager. I was damaged by them. They helped to suck me into a gay lifestyle. It took years of struggle to escape from it. I know from firsthand experience, better than anyone, that they are dangerous.” Note he doesn’t mention the name of the book, which suggests he is making this up. And a book (a book!) turned you gay? Really? That’s your argument?

And finally, reading books about sex ed does not “sexualise children.” Like many on the night, you are willfully misunderstanding what the word means. Or do you read a Year 11 biology text book and starting freaking out when you see a labelled picture of a penis?
James Parker commented 2024-09-05 13:50:34 +1000

My simple answer to your question is: ‘yes’, ‘no’, and ‘an ocean of mercy’. Please permit me to explain…

Let’s admit that there are as many variations and expressions of erotic OTHER-sex attraction (aka heterosexuality) as there are ‘heterosexuals’. One man’s lived-out sexual expression of his attraction to women can look incredibly different (and dangerously so) to another man’s sexual expression towards the opposite sex. Therefore, simple “yes” or “no” answers do not often suffice when discussing the topic of human sexuality.

With this in mind, I gladly respond to your question, “should homosexuality be stigmatised in public life?” and I do this with a three-fold braided answer, i.e. each responsive strand intertwines with the other two to make ONE full response.

Strand 1: no sane person chooses to be erotically attracted to their same sex. In fact, this inclination constitutes a great trial for most people, as it did for me at first. No person should EVER be stigmatised for having deep-seated homosexual tendencies but s/he should be accepted with the greatest respect, compassion and sensitivity. So, my simple answer to the PERSON with erotic same-sex attraction is a deafeningly loud ‘NO’ to stigmatisation.

Strand 2: with regard to the PRACTICE of erotic same-sex attraction (and thereby the entertaining of any fantasy that can lead to this), my simple answer is an equally deafeningly loud ‘YES’ to the defects contained within this form of sexual expression. Not only can it never be fruitful and bear new life, but it bears false witness to the dignity of men and women’s bodies and the purpose of human sexuality. Its expression has on many occasions led to, or at least hastened, a person’s death.

Strand 3: I more than most have messed up the worst in the area of living out human sexuality, yet I am forever grateful to the tender yet firm and loving mercies of God Who beckons me back to Him with a spirit of repentance, as He does every soul that is open to acknowledging Him as Creator. No one needs any longer to focus on and bow before the Golden Calf of misplaced sexual attraction (aka homosexuality and all other forms of sexual expression that are undignified and unfruitful) when we can all access the Lamb of God who takes away all that is sinful in this world and can tenderly heal the wounds inflicted upon our sexuality.
Anon Emouse commented 2024-09-04 21:14:00 +1000

Just answer a simple yes or no, James : should homosexuality be stigmatized in public life?
James Parker commented 2024-09-04 16:57:51 +1000

To David Page: you wrote, “I fear Mr Parker will never be comfortable with any sort of sex, and thinks it all belongs in the sewer. I think American children have much bigger fish to fry. The odd mention of human reproduction is the least of their worries.”

Please don’t fear anything on my behalf, Mr Page. I certainly don’t fear anything.

As for sex, I’m on the public record as having had several hundred sexual partners over the decades, with fifteen of those being adult males before I’d reached the age of consent (it’s called ‘child sex abuse’ and ‘rape’).

The ‘fruit’ of my homosexual practice was numerous sexually transmitted diseases and an inability to deeply connect in any healthily emotional way with any other men, or indeed with women. It also left me, as it has a number of my gay friends, with different types of strong cancer cells in my rear passage. Not pleasant!

As for the ‘fruit‘ of my heterosexual practice within the confines of marriage between me as a man with one woman (cf. comment by Trotsky Lives!), today I am a dad and thoroughly enjoyed the blessings associated with Father’s Day in Australia last Sunday (01 Sep ‘24).

The pleasure involved in the possibility of making new life that exists between one man and one woman totally outweighs any number of fleeting moments of sexual pleasure experienced between two members of the same sex.

I wish there was more mention of the reproductive nature of sex not just to American children but to kids worldwide, rather than focus being misplaced on the unfruitful, damaging, and even deathly sex which not only belongs in the sewer but oftentimes smells like the sewer as well — the kinds of sexual practice mentioned in Hasler’s ‘Sex: A Book for Teens’ which parents are healthily outraged to see in the junior section of their children’s public library.

As for ‘desperately [seeking] for the approval of people’ (cf. comment from Anon Emouse), I can assure you that the desire for anyone’s approval left me a long time before I ever started writing public articles similar to the one above. (Lol!!)
Anon Emouse commented 2024-09-04 11:14:32 +1000

Mr. Parker is trying to desperately for the approval of people who would want nothing more than to shove him back in the closet
David Page commented 2024-09-04 11:10:57 +1000

I fear Mr Parker will never be comfortable with any sort of sex, and thinks it all belongs in the sewer. I think American children have much bigger fish to fry. The odd mention of human reproduction is the least of their worries.
Anon Emouse commented 2024-09-04 00:00:55 +1000

James,

Would love to hear your thoughts on what Trotsky has said below.
Trotsky Lives! commented 2024-09-01 11:12:14 +1000

This is turning into an unproductive discussion, Anon.

You object to “heteronormativity” and the stigmatisation of homosexuality and transgenderism. That assumes the basic premise of gender theory, that any kind of sexual expression is acceptable (provided that no one is hurt). “Heterosexuality” becomes just another genderized lifestyle.

But the parents and grandparents in the photo above probably don’t accept that premise. To them, there is only one acceptable form of sexuality — within a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman. Our society, our civilisation, is built on that model. It is the best way to raise children, who are the future of our society. Marriage is not “heterosexuality”, which is just a neologism created to match “homosexuality”.

The institution of marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman which deserves respect and social support. Various brands of “sexuality” are just individualistic ways of attaining comfort or pleasure.
Anon Emouse commented 2024-09-01 10:40:47 +1000

Yes, it shouldn’t be shown.

However, in America, there is a large contingent of people who think that a book like “And Tango Makes Three” (a book about a real life gay penguin couple in the zoo who adopted an orphaned penguin) constitute “damaging” or “overtly sexual” materials, because they are under the impression that children should not be exposed to anything other than heteronormativity. And that is what I push back against when I use the term “homophobic”.
James Parker commented 2024-08-31 16:54:57 +1000

Hey Anon Emouse,

I’ve never read or seen ‘Prince and Knight’ so I can’t comment. If it contained overt sexualisation that is inappropriate for minors, then yes, I’d ban it.

Please understand that nobody is fighting, or trying to divide, the Albany community by asking for ‘My Princess Boy’ or indeed ‘Gender Swapped Greek Myths’ to be removed from the kids’ section of Albany Public Library, naming merely two other books in that section which celebrate everything LGBTQ++.

No one is talking about ‘Top 250 LGBTQ books for teens: coming out, being out, and the search for community’ to be removed either.

We’ve all got plenty of wonderful gay and queer friends and family members, Anon Emouse (it’s a shame you can’t be courageous and share your identity with us). This is NOT about the topic of LGBTQ+ although you appear to be making it as such (this could possibly be your own heterophobia and discriminating outlook on the world at large).

The issue at hand is whether EVERY adult will step up and be united in preventing the abhorrent evils of childhood grooming, the sexualisation of minors, and the direct sexual abuse of young people, all of which can swiftly bring about lifelong layers of trauma.

Why do you think common-sense lesbians, gays, bisexuals, queers, etc are all united with others in society wanting ANY books banned which overtly sexualise minors at an inappropriate age?

Please, once again, kindly consider answering my reasonable and simple question with a three-letter or two-letter response (either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’) in line with the theme of this article: are you against the unnecessary and damaging sexualisation of minors?
Anon Emouse commented 2024-08-31 13:23:43 +1000

James Parker,

Do you honestly believe that the book in question in my comment “Prince and Knight” qualifies as "overt sexualisation and paraphilias”? If you do, I feel sad for you.

Too often, LGBTQ representation in children’s stories is seen as taboo while heterosexual representation is not. (Think of ANY children’s story with a mother and a father in it. Are you telling me, in all seriousness, we cannot have a children’s story with two fathers or two mothers?)
James Parker commented 2024-08-31 10:50:18 +1000

Mr Mouse,

It appears you failed to grasp onto the principle message of the article I wrote which was about the “sexualisation of children” — referring to any form of sexualisation, when it is a parent’s duty primarily to educate their children on sexual matters.

As someone who’s been at heart of the LGBTQ+ community, who today walks alongside those in the LGBTQ+ community, who serves abuse survivors within the LGBTQ+ community, there is no reason to bring up the old war cry of “homophobia” to try and silence people.

We aren’t talking about “homophobia” here, but rather about “overt sexualisation and paraphilias” in the company of minors who cannot sufficiently process this kind of material, which DOES harm their sexual development (even the gay guys mentioned in the article who have dared to look beneath the surface of their daily lives admit this!).

Are you for or against the protection of children’s healthy sexual development, Mr Mouse? It’s as simple as that. Yes, or no? You cannot have a foot on both sides of this fence and be true to the dignity of children’s sexual development.
Anon Emouse commented 2024-08-31 07:41:05 +1000

But you’d be okay with a “Princess and Knight” book – which, by your logic, grooms children into heterosexuality?
mrscracker commented 2024-08-31 06:40:47 +1000

Certainly Mr. Mouse. And any other book aimed at grooming children into alternate sexual ideologies. That’s not the business of schools. Our children struggle to keep up with other nations in Math & Science. They can barely find other countries on a map. Academics are the business of schools.
Anon Emouse commented 2024-08-31 05:05:27 +1000

Mrscracker, you know what I meant and please stop avoiding the question. Would you ban “Prince and Knight”?
mrscracker commented 2024-08-31 04:50:04 +1000

Would I want to ban a book presenting a romantic relationship between a man & an animal? And serving a human being for dinner?
Anon Emouse commented 2024-08-31 03:06:36 +1000

Mrscracker, would you want to ban that book from a school?
mrscracker commented 2024-08-31 02:58:38 +1000

Mr. Mouse considering the way things are progressing, one day the knight in the story will fall in love with the dragon & the prince will be dinner.
:)
Anon Emouse commented 2024-08-31 01:27:06 +1000

“Prince and Knight” – a children’s book about a prince who didn’t find any princess whom he liked, but ended up working with a knight to rid the realm of a dragon. The prince and the knight end up falling in love.

Is this something that should be banned? There’s no sexual content in the book. And I would invite anyone to explain to me why this is a book that should be banned, but a book about a princess and a knight should not. Because if your objection is solely that there is a same-sex couple – your objection is not about “Sexualizing children” – it’s homophobia.
mrscracker commented 2024-08-31 01:13:56 +1000

We had a hearing several years ago about drag queens proposing to perform at a local library reading for very young children. Often the books chosen to be read at those events are about same sex attraction or gender confusion.
One of the young men who wished to participate in this was recorded as stating they would be “grooming the next generation.”
I don’t know if he actually meant that the way it sounded but it would be hard not to get the general message being conveyed.
James Parker commented 2024-08-30 11:25:59 +1000

I too am a parent, Gerrit, and am DEEPLY concerned by what every child is being exposed to today.

When I was at the heart of the LGBTQ+ community I believed I knew everything and had the right to dictate to others that “my normal” should be celebrated as normal by everyone else. How blind and misguided I was.

That is why I will never stop fighting against the same perversions I see thrust at kids today which robbed me and so many others of our childhoods and left us crawling broken and hyper-eroticised into adulthood.
Gerrit Ballast commented 2024-08-30 10:35:01 +1000

A refreshing read that considers the views of parents! Thanks James.
James Parker published this page in The Latest 2024-08-30 08:17:48 +1000

Like what you are reading?

Here are some more articles you may enjoy