“ Burkhardt's appearance was promoted by SkyTree Book Fairs, a newly formed organization marketing itself as "an alternative to the sexually explicit content distributed in Scholastic's book fairs."”
Hmmm, so this was a marketing ploy?
She's literally their marketing officer
Why would anyone listen to this degenerate porn-addled lady.
To be fair, "Degenerate Porn-Addled Lady" is probably really cool.
This woman, however, is not DPAL and wants to ban books, because she likes the completely unrelated thing: porn. If that's all it takes, I like pizza, so we should ban the Bible.
Sadly, they did:
Burkhardt's gambit has already had an impact. The Conroe school board, after listening to her story, voted to restrict access to Drama, the Scholastic book featuring a kiss, from all students in the 8th grade and below. One of the school board members, Melissa Dungan, suggested replacing Scholastic with SkyTree Book Fairs. "All glory to God," Burkhardt posted in response to the news.
I hope Scholastic sues them into oblivion.
What an embarrassing thing to put on the resumé
If it works, she'll never need another job, anyway.
Yeah, a marketing ploy by a fascist organization:
While SkyTree Book Fairs presents itself as an independent non-profit organization, it appears to be a hastily assembled offshoot of Brave Books, which publishes children's books by right-wing pundits and pseudo-celebrities.
Fuckin gross.
And there it is, ayup. These people are doing quite the full court press to drag us back into the 50s.
(1950s? Or 1850s. You decide)
Scholastic should sue the living shit out of all of them.
That sadly worked:
Burkhardt's gambit has already had an impact. The Conroe school board, after listening to her story, voted to restrict access to Drama, the Scholastic book featuring a kiss, from all students in the 8th grade and below. One of the school board members, Melissa Dungan, suggested replacing Scholastic with SkyTree Book Fairs. "All glory to God," Burkhardt posted in response to the news.
So she's not even objecting to LGBT+ content specifically? She's against all kissing in books? So no Snow White? No Frog Prince?
Y'all Qaeda
It's likely just a nothing excuse to ban the scholastic book fair and replace it with the "faith based children's" books company mentioned in the article.
And I bet there's kisses in those books too.
Only between consenting senators and their comely young(too young) constitutes.
When queer people said that they’d be coming for y’all’s romantic expression next we really didn’t expect it to be so dang quick
No bible, even, but we all know that consistency is never a problem for these dopes.
Especially no bible. The amount of sex (including butt stuff), incest, wanking, murder, and torture in there would surely have every conservative parent in an uproar
What about holding hands? Does that lead to porn addictions also?
Oh, and the Frog Prince involved kissing a frog. Some frogs produce hallucinogenic substances so kissing them can get you high. Therefore, reading that book leads to drug addictions! It's a two-fer!
Of course it's a plant by a right-wing org.
Scholastic fairs were amazing when I was in school. Good to see that they are still in operation.
Everybody I knew got that "How to Draw Robots" book.
And now, of course, we're all addicted to robot porn.
It's been so long ago that I don't remember what I bought from them. I read loads of books when Inwas a kid. Though I don't think I bought any of the "how to draw" series.
Reminder that "porn addiction" is not a thing. Sexual addiction is, porn addiction was invented by conservative/religious weirdos who think masturbation is "sinful." Religions are especially glib about calling things "porn and addiction" without justification. They want you to think you're sick, so they can provide you the "cure."
Just because you enjoy looking at porn and/or masturbating regularly doesn't mean you have a sexual addiction. If you have trouble maintaining employment or relationships because of your habits, you might, and you should talk it over with a secular licensed psychologist to make that determination and decide the best way to address it.
Hey, can you tell me where sex addiction is in the DSM-V? I can't seem to find it as a diagnosis.
Not to be pedantic, but the DSM is not the final word on the existence of different disorders. It is a tool to help doctors do their jobs.
You won't find Religious Trauma Syndrome in the DSM either, yet it is still recognized as a thing by a growing number of professionals. This example is still being discussed as to whether it should be its own category or if it should be rolled into CPTSD.
So I would demure to the consensus of practicing psychologists, not the DSM.
The diagnosis in DSM-V are the consensus of professionals. Diagnosis appear in it once there's sufficient clinical evidence of the <>, and the members come to a consensus.
It is true that you won't find e.g.. scrupulosity in the DSM-V, but you will find OCD, and practitioners that deal with religious issues recognize that scrupulosity is a manifestation of OCD. Religious trauma would be more correctly seen as a cause of PTSD of CPTSD, rather than a distinct diagnosis of it's own..
Simply being a practicing psychologist and acting as though a thing is real is not sufficient proof that a thing is real; after all, you'll find plenty of therapists--almost all of them treating therapy as a religious exercise--the will talk about addiction to pornography and masturbation, when the literature indicates that it's not a problem in the way that they act like it is. Therapists in Utah will quite often act as though any use of pornography is evidence of an addiction to pornography (see also: Jodi Hildebrandt). Some therapists still insist that being homosexual or transgender are mental disorders than can be cured.
The diagnosis in DSM-V are the consensus of professionals. Diagnosis appear in it once there's sufficient clinical evidence of the <>, and the members come to a consensus.
I think it's more accurate to say it's a consensus, not the consensus. The consensus necessarily does and should change over time, and the DSM-V is a decade old.
Religious trauma would be more correctly seen as a cause of PTSD of CPTSD, rather than a distinct diagnosis of it's own..
According to you and maybe the DSM, not necessarily the consensus of psychologists. It's not a decided issue whether it should be a diagnosis of its own or not.
Ultimately, maybe the woman in the article does have an addiction. Maybe she masturbates so much, she can't function as an adult. I don't know, but I know I've read a few studies, and they never used "porn addiction" (except to critique the notion), but they did use "sexual addiction."
However, despite all efforts, we are still unable to profile when engaging in this behavior becomes pathological. Common problems include: sample bias, the search for diagnostic instrumentals, opposing approximations to the matter, and the fact that this entity may be encompassed inside a greater pathology (i.e., sex addiction) that may present itself with very diverse symptomatology.
Maybe it’s a good thing that the DSM-5 shouldn’t be considered:
I don’t deny that there are issues or that these may be issues, but your source is a company offering to sell an alternative means of mental health support, not an institution of psychological research or a professional organization of psychological researchers.
The fact that they brought it up as some kind of gotcha kind of shows they don't know what they're talking about.
I'm no expert, either, but I've at least read books from credentialed psychologists who said the same thing as that article. One even called it a "rule of thumb," a tool to help guide you in the right direction.
My thoughts the same. Almost every time I see the DSM-5 mentioned, it’s by someone using it as a defense in a made up argument.
The Conroe school board, after listening to her story, voted to restrict access to Drama, the Scholastic book featuring a kiss, from all students in the 8th grade and below.
Bruh, in 8th grade the girl sitting next to me in science class told me she liked the smell of my pubescent BO and offered to blow me under the lab bench. Also in sex ed I had a very clear view of some girl giving her boyfriend a foot job under the table. Also 9/11 happened that year. I'll give you three guesses which one was the most traumatic.
she liked the smell of my pubescent BO and offered to blow me under the lab bench. Also in sex ed I had a very clear view of some girl giving her boyfriend a foot job under the table
that's not sexualizing kids, though. it's only sexualizing kids if it's queer.
Don't worry, everyone got called a fag at least once a week. I'm sure none of us ended up gay. Also there was one black kid and he got arrested for weed.
oh it's not been so long that I've forgotten that being a cis boy in school consists 99% of shouting about how everyone except you is gay. "the lady doth protest a lot and is therefore probably telling the truth" and all
When I was a kid, everybody was a removed because of any old reason. I was called a fag or removed at least once an hour for years. It had lost all association with homosexuality, bundles of sticks, or cigarettes. Only like 7% of us ended up getting the gay and they turned out fabulous.
Written or spoken words can't make someone catch the gay, only reaching middle age and being honest with yourself can do that. /s
only reaching middle age and being honest with yourself can do that.
Oof. I felt that one.
Same and my first blow job from a girl I was 14 and she did it right on the steps of our apartment building. Funny thing is I was talking to a friend at the time when she unzipped my pants pulled it out and started sucking.
Damn, I went to the wrong school.
So apparently this woman works for a competing (fringe right wing) book publisher. In which case Scholastic might have grounds to sue.
Way to admit your mind is as strong as wet paper.
She (didn't) got better
It's a slippery slope from learning that love and romance exists to porn addiction and blowing homeless dudes in an alley. This is why we must never teach children that affection exists. Only hate.
In related news, I'm going to take a trip down to the alley.
Any alley behind a Wendy's is a solid spot to cruise for the ol' dumpster blowie.
Sir this is a Wendy's.
I know... 😏
Surprisingly, that book was not one of the Captain Underpants series
Right, I laughed so hard. There were so many rude and crude kids books back in the day. Things far more controversial than a kiss. These people have actually lost it. And unfortunately so has at least one board member.
One time I read a book with the word "the" in it. Man, the dark places that took me. (/s if not obvious).
Where on earth do the book-banning nutjobs find these other nutjobs?
Wherever home-schoolers congregate, I imagine.
Lmao. For me, I just have a love for those anatomical books that peal back a layer, everytime you turn the page.
Debilitating addictions are an illness. Should we kill all of the bees because some people are severely allergic? I can understand the mysterious woman feeling that way, but the sane response is treatment of the few susceptible, not prohibition for all the rest.
She's the marketing officer for a right-wing competitor to Scholastic. I am doubtful she has a porn addiction in the first place, and I'm 100% sure it wasn't "sparked" by Scholastic books for kids. And if it was, I submit her problem is different than she thinks it is.
If this is the case, she should be tossed out on her has and fined for being an asshole and wasting their time.
Bees, casinos, the sun, peanuts, bullets, humans, etc.
Oxygen.
Jesus that's a slippery slope
Pretty sure there's way more worse things that on network TV, orjust youtube and the internet in general. Assuming she's not just making shit up, she would've encountered way more worse stuff in life. If not a scholastic book showing a kiss, she would've seen it somewhere else.
There’s worse things in the vast majority of teenagers’ minds no matter how repressed they’re raised.
And I've been turned into a lizard by that Scholastic book, but it's over now.
“ Burkhardt's appearance was promoted by SkyTree Book Fairs, a newly formed organization marketing itself as "an alternative to the sexually explicit content distributed in Scholastic's book fairs."”
Hmmm, so this was a marketing ploy?
She's literally their marketing officer
Why would anyone listen to this degenerate porn-addled lady.
To be fair, "Degenerate Porn-Addled Lady" is probably really cool.
This woman, however, is not DPAL and wants to ban books, because she likes the completely unrelated thing: porn. If that's all it takes, I like pizza, so we should ban the Bible.
Sadly, they did:
I hope Scholastic sues them into oblivion.
What an embarrassing thing to put on the resumé
If it works, she'll never need another job, anyway.
Yeah, a marketing ploy by a fascist organization:
Fuckin gross.
And there it is, ayup. These people are doing quite the full court press to drag us back into the 50s.
(1950s? Or 1850s. You decide)
Scholastic should sue the living shit out of all of them.
That sadly worked:
So she's not even objecting to LGBT+ content specifically? She's against all kissing in books? So no Snow White? No Frog Prince?
Y'all Qaeda
It's likely just a nothing excuse to ban the scholastic book fair and replace it with the "faith based children's" books company mentioned in the article.
And I bet there's kisses in those books too.
Only between consenting senators and their comely young(too young) constitutes.
When queer people said that they’d be coming for y’all’s romantic expression next we really didn’t expect it to be so dang quick
No bible, even, but we all know that consistency is never a problem for these dopes.
Especially no bible. The amount of sex (including butt stuff), incest, wanking, murder, and torture in there would surely have every conservative parent in an uproar
What about holding hands? Does that lead to porn addictions also?
Oh, and the Frog Prince involved kissing a frog. Some frogs produce hallucinogenic substances so kissing them can get you high. Therefore, reading that book leads to drug addictions! It's a two-fer!
Of course it's a plant by a right-wing org.
Scholastic fairs were amazing when I was in school. Good to see that they are still in operation.
Everybody I knew got that "How to Draw Robots" book.
And now, of course, we're all addicted to robot porn.
It's been so long ago that I don't remember what I bought from them. I read loads of books when Inwas a kid. Though I don't think I bought any of the "how to draw" series.
Reminder that "porn addiction" is not a thing. Sexual addiction is, porn addiction was invented by conservative/religious weirdos who think masturbation is "sinful." Religions are especially glib about calling things "porn and addiction" without justification. They want you to think you're sick, so they can provide you the "cure."
Just because you enjoy looking at porn and/or masturbating regularly doesn't mean you have a sexual addiction. If you have trouble maintaining employment or relationships because of your habits, you might, and you should talk it over with a secular licensed psychologist to make that determination and decide the best way to address it.
Edit: for anyone that wants to take umbrage at the fact that "sex addiction" isn't in the latest DSM-V from 2013, here's a 2019 review from psychology scholars: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=porn+addiction&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1701288070891&u=%23p%3DNjIPuUqk95kJ
And one from 2020: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11094516847889822262&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en#d=gs_qabs&t=1701288571080&u=%23p%3Dz2RDDmDZK2AJ
Hey, can you tell me where sex addiction is in the DSM-V? I can't seem to find it as a diagnosis.
Not to be pedantic, but the DSM is not the final word on the existence of different disorders. It is a tool to help doctors do their jobs.
You won't find Religious Trauma Syndrome in the DSM either, yet it is still recognized as a thing by a growing number of professionals. This example is still being discussed as to whether it should be its own category or if it should be rolled into CPTSD.
So I would demure to the consensus of practicing psychologists, not the DSM.
The diagnosis in DSM-V are the consensus of professionals. Diagnosis appear in it once there's sufficient clinical evidence of the <>, and the members come to a consensus.
It is true that you won't find e.g.. scrupulosity in the DSM-V, but you will find OCD, and practitioners that deal with religious issues recognize that scrupulosity is a manifestation of OCD. Religious trauma would be more correctly seen as a cause of PTSD of CPTSD, rather than a distinct diagnosis of it's own..
Simply being a practicing psychologist and acting as though a thing is real is not sufficient proof that a thing is real; after all, you'll find plenty of therapists--almost all of them treating therapy as a religious exercise--the will talk about addiction to pornography and masturbation, when the literature indicates that it's not a problem in the way that they act like it is. Therapists in Utah will quite often act as though any use of pornography is evidence of an addiction to pornography (see also: Jodi Hildebrandt). Some therapists still insist that being homosexual or transgender are mental disorders than can be cured.
I think it's more accurate to say it's a consensus, not the consensus. The consensus necessarily does and should change over time, and the DSM-V is a decade old.
According to you and maybe the DSM, not necessarily the consensus of psychologists. It's not a decided issue whether it should be a diagnosis of its own or not.
Ultimately, maybe the woman in the article does have an addiction. Maybe she masturbates so much, she can't function as an adult. I don't know, but I know I've read a few studies, and they never used "porn addiction" (except to critique the notion), but they did use "sexual addiction."
Here's one, and the relevant quote: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=porn+addiction&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1701288070891&u=%23p%3DNjIPuUqk95kJ
Maybe it’s a good thing that the DSM-5 shouldn’t be considered:
https://www.pchtreatment.com/dsm-5-issues/
I don’t deny that there are issues or that these may be issues, but your source is a company offering to sell an alternative means of mental health support, not an institution of psychological research or a professional organization of psychological researchers.
The fact that they brought it up as some kind of gotcha kind of shows they don't know what they're talking about.
I'm no expert, either, but I've at least read books from credentialed psychologists who said the same thing as that article. One even called it a "rule of thumb," a tool to help guide you in the right direction.
My thoughts the same. Almost every time I see the DSM-5 mentioned, it’s by someone using it as a defense in a made up argument.
Bruh, in 8th grade the girl sitting next to me in science class told me she liked the smell of my pubescent BO and offered to blow me under the lab bench. Also in sex ed I had a very clear view of some girl giving her boyfriend a foot job under the table. Also 9/11 happened that year. I'll give you three guesses which one was the most traumatic.
that's not sexualizing kids, though. it's only sexualizing kids if it's queer.
Don't worry, everyone got called a fag at least once a week. I'm sure none of us ended up gay. Also there was one black kid and he got arrested for weed.
oh it's not been so long that I've forgotten that being a cis boy in school consists 99% of shouting about how everyone except you is gay. "the lady doth protest a lot and is therefore probably telling the truth" and all
When I was a kid, everybody was a removed because of any old reason. I was called a fag or removed at least once an hour for years. It had lost all association with homosexuality, bundles of sticks, or cigarettes. Only like 7% of us ended up getting the gay and they turned out fabulous.
Written or spoken words can't make someone catch the gay, only reaching middle age and being honest with yourself can do that. /s
Oof. I felt that one.
Same and my first blow job from a girl I was 14 and she did it right on the steps of our apartment building. Funny thing is I was talking to a friend at the time when she unzipped my pants pulled it out and started sucking.
Damn, I went to the wrong school.
So apparently this woman works for a competing (fringe right wing) book publisher. In which case Scholastic might have grounds to sue.
Way to admit your mind is as strong as wet paper.
She (didn't) got better
It's a slippery slope from learning that love and romance exists to porn addiction and blowing homeless dudes in an alley. This is why we must never teach children that affection exists. Only hate.
In related news, I'm going to take a trip down to the alley.
Any alley behind a Wendy's is a solid spot to cruise for the ol' dumpster blowie.
Sir this is a Wendy's.
I know... 😏
Surprisingly, that book was not one of the Captain Underpants series
Right, I laughed so hard. There were so many rude and crude kids books back in the day. Things far more controversial than a kiss. These people have actually lost it. And unfortunately so has at least one board member.
One time I read a book with the word "the" in it. Man, the dark places that took me. (/s if not obvious).
Where on earth do the book-banning nutjobs find these other nutjobs?
Wherever home-schoolers congregate, I imagine.
Lmao. For me, I just have a love for those anatomical books that peal back a layer, everytime you turn the page.
Debilitating addictions are an illness. Should we kill all of the bees because some people are severely allergic? I can understand the mysterious woman feeling that way, but the sane response is treatment of the few susceptible, not prohibition for all the rest.
She's the marketing officer for a right-wing competitor to Scholastic. I am doubtful she has a porn addiction in the first place, and I'm 100% sure it wasn't "sparked" by Scholastic books for kids. And if it was, I submit her problem is different than she thinks it is.
If this is the case, she should be tossed out on her has and fined for being an asshole and wasting their time.
Bees, casinos, the sun, peanuts, bullets, humans, etc.
Oxygen.
Jesus that's a slippery slope
Pretty sure there's way more worse things that on network TV, orjust youtube and the internet in general. Assuming she's not just making shit up, she would've encountered way more worse stuff in life. If not a scholastic book showing a kiss, she would've seen it somewhere else.
There’s worse things in the vast majority of teenagers’ minds no matter how repressed they’re raised.
And I've been turned into a lizard by that Scholastic book, but it's over now.