Noted hack Aaron Rupar is doing his best to mock a Senator for reading from a couple of books parents have objected to in some places. You’ve probably seen videos of parents reading excerpts from these books at school board meetings only to have their microphones cut off because members of the board found the content too graphic. Rupar can’t cut off Sen. Kennedy’s mic so instead he’s inviting his audience to mock the old man for reading pornographic content. This is obviously NSFW.

Sen. John Kennedy having a very normal one during this Senate hearing pic.twitter.com/TafATlG1l7

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 12, 2023

Of course there’s no problem with adults having access to this material but this is a young adult book for ages 15 and up. I think many parents would recognize that older high school students these days probably wouldn’t be shocked by content like this given what is available on social media. But should it be available to middle-schoolers in a school library? How about elementary age kids? I suspect most parents would say no. The point is, there is a line that can be drawn between banning a book for all readers and limiting access to certain books to age-appropriate readers. This is a basic distinction the left has been eager to ignore in favor of an overly simplistic narrative about book banning.

Slate published a story yesterday which actually tried not to do that. Instead of pretending this is all a big joke, author Aymann Ismail takes a look at one of the books parents complain about the most and admits it made him pretty uncomfortable too. It’s a sex education book for kids called It’s Perfectly Normal.

Even before the article begins, there is a warning apparently inserted by an editor “This article includes explicit images from a sex-education book for teenagers.” That description is false and misleading because as the author admits, this is not a book intended for teens. It specifically identifies itself as suitable for ages 10 and up which would likely mean it would be available to some elementary school students.

It’s Perfectly Normal is harder to shrug away. It’s not difficult to see why this book has been an effective cudgel, both in recent years and practically since it was published: Its images are particularly blunt and graphic. That articles and social media posts about parents’ concerns over those cartoons have often blurred them out serves to prove their point. Earlier this year, a pastor in Asheville, North Carolina, made headlines after his mic was cut off during a school board meeting. “If you don’t want to hear it in a school board meeting, why should children be able to check it out of the school system?” he reportedly shouted. In an interview with an eager Fox News host, that same pastor described It’s Perfectly Normal as “hardcore porn.” On the cover, it says it’s intended for ages 10 and up, a point noted over and over again by rage-baiters wanting to frame the book as nefarious, somehow “grooming” children. Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor and presidential candidate, cited it as justification for his controversial Parental Rights in Education Act.

I felt sure that as a 34-year-old father of two there would be nothing in there that would offend my sensibilities. I’d heard nothing but glowing reviews from sex-ed pros about the child-friendly language in the book. But flipping through the book’s pages finally, I was a little shocked. I had an involuntary reaction to seeing the nude cartoons, like I needed to make sure I was alone and hide the book. I skimmed ahead to look at the rest of the book briskly. On virtually every page I stopped to examine, I was confronted with detailed drawings of genitals. It felt like every page had a cartoon of a naked body…

On Page 9, I came across the first illustration I recognized from the controversy. In the chapter “Making Love,” there are three graphic images that show adult bodies having sex. There is no visible penetration, but it’s still eye-popping. I was sure I wouldn’t hand this book to my kids when they are 10. And I began to wonder if in my own allergy to the book-burning fervor, I had been a little too dismissive of the parents at the root of this fight…

It’s Perfectly Normal, more than any other frequently banned title I have flipped through, challenged my view. The images are not “pornographic,” and it’s obvious that anti-gay sentiment is partly fueling the objection to the book. But the images are graphic, and it’s startling to me to think they’re intended for kids who aren’t even in middle school yet.

And that’s really the best part of the article. The rest of it consists of Ismail letting a sex educator and the author of the book try to convince him that there’s nothing wrong with the contents even for younger kids. His intuition that it is too graphic is based on his own sheltered upbringing they tell him. The book’s illustrator, Michael Emberly explained, “It’s not exactly like we are reinventing this topic. Reproductive biology is science. We didn’t have to make anything up.” And yet, Ismail is hesitant. He rightly points out that biology may be science but that doesn’t make every graphic cartoon appropriate for all ages.

That is true, I think. But then you turn to a page of a teenage girl bending all the way over and holding a mirror between her legs to inspect her genitals. And to another page that shows both an adolescent boy and girl masturbating alongside how-to instructions. In navigating this book, I struggled to identify which illustrations felt necessary, and which felt gratuitous and inflammatory to parents who might be even more prudish and queasy than I am.

What if the book simply included a link to a website featuring videos of adults having sex. Couldn’t someone make the same exact argument the book’s illustrator is making, i.e. biology is science and we didn’t make anything up. Does that argument admit to any limits? Or does it necessarily mean we should all feel fine delivering graphic porn to 10-year-olds? This is something I don’t suspect the author and illustrator have an answer for. I also note the book has supposedly sold more than a million copies which means they probably have a nice financial incentive to defend it.

Honestly, the whole story is reminiscent of an R-rated Monty Python skit about sex education. It starts with John Cleese talking about sex to a classroom of immature teens and moves on to him getting naked and demonstrating intercourse (with his wife) on a bed at the front of the classroom. I noticed that the clip is available on YouTube but its age protected, which is sort of the point.

I think parents can all agree that sex is perfectly normal for adults. And yet, that doesn’t mean we need to share cartoons depicting sex with 10 and 12-year-olds. There may be some parents who feel that’s a good idea but a lot of parents will not agree.

Even Slate staff writers can sense this particular book is crossing a line they probably would not cross with their own young children. And kudos to Ismail for being honest about it. No doubt he’s going to hear complaints from people on the left who are upset that people like me have noticed. But I’d suggest there are many more conservative parents who would find it even more objectionable than he does. The bottom line is that when it comes to which books belong in which public school libraries, parents get a say.

Update: Couldn’t agree more.

It seems to me a reasonable line that if reading the material into the public record is problematic—or in the case of parents, gets their mics cut off and them kicked out of mtgs—a debate about the age kids are exposed to said material is, to borrow a phrase, a normal one. https://t.co/x3NMKsJb7g

— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) September 12, 2023

Another good point.

Make Democrats listen to this with their kids in the room. I dare them. https://t.co/2UMDnGeqUm

— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) September 12, 2023