Library Drama and Clever Rhetoric

In a recent (July 26 publication) opinion piece by Warren County resident Richard Jamieson, the author employed a neat rhetorical maneuver that I believe is worthy of examination.

Mr. Jamieson made two statements which he surely believed, and I agree, are not terribly controversial. One that “no sexualization of any sort should be in the juvenile section of the library.” Two, that “by definition, anything within the LGBTQ realm is about sexuality.”One is a matter of opinion, the other a declaration of fact, but again: I do not believe either statement is controversial.

But! Did you see what he did there? In a single sentence, sexualization shifted to sexuality. The two words may look the same, but I assure you, they are not.

When one says that “anything within the LGBTQ realm is about sexuality,” the word “sexuality” is being used very broadly to include such topics as what kind of person you might fall in love with. This broad definition of “sexuality” would include a couple romantically holding hands as they walk down the street. One may choose to narrow the definition of “sexuality” such that it is only concerned with sexual activity, but in that case, it is no longer true that “by definition, anything within the LGBTQ realm is about sexuality.”

To underscore that point, one need only look one month back in the archives of the Letters to the Editor relating to this exact discussion. On June 30, the Royal Examiner published a letter from “one of the 53″ detailing her concerns with one particular book, “Prince and Knight.” This particular letter had a follow-up on July 11. The problem with this particular book? Quote from the July 11 letter: “The innocuous-looking book has cute pictures of ‘Prince and Knight’ as Groom and Groom.” Quote from the June 30 letter: “Samuels has made their position clear, as I have mine. They are fine with 3-year-olds reading a story that glorifies same-sex attraction and gay marriage: I am not.”

Is this book about sexuality? If we take the broad definition, then certainly. Is it sexualized content? Hardly. If it were, then we would be having discussions about the rampant sexualization of our churches, heterosexual brides and grooms standing side by side and desecrating our sacred spaces with their pornographic wedding ceremonies.

It is interesting to me that Mr. Jamieson complains that it’s unfair to claim “viewpoint discrimination” and insists that it’s pure coincidence that the books “identified [by] CSL for removal because of pornographic content” happen to have LGBTQ themes. Yet the definition of “pornographic content” is stretched to include a wedding — so long as the wedding is a same-sex union. “Sexualization” is stretched to include an acknowledgment that same-sex couples exist.

As I said at the beginning, it’s a neat rhetorical maneuver. But regardless of flowery words, if your definition of “pornographic content” includes material that would be considered child-friendly with straight individuals, then perhaps “viewpoint discrimination” might not be such an unfair accusation.

Joe Plemmons
Front Royal

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.