NY Times on the quandary of stocking "50 Shades of Gray" in public libraries: [link]

Given that I found John Norman's Gor novels in the high school library, I suspect that there's plenty of erotica stocked in public libraries, it's just that librarians & politicians don't know about it...

A couple people on my facebook friends list are talking about ordering "that" book. They're too embarrassed to post about it by name, but I assume they were talking about 50 Shades of Grey.

Are there not assumed to be books which have sex in them in public libraries, or is it just that no one's supposed to admit they exist?

That's ridiculous!

Odd fact: there is a very large collection of pornography in UCLA's Clarke Library. It's in special collections and needs to be checked through a librarian. The librarians who handle the special collections (absolutely no pun intended) hate dealing with it because it gets checked out regularly by sort of sketchy shady characters (public university, anyone can use the library).

no one's supposed to admit they exist?

This.

no one's supposed to admit they exist?

So everyone is conveniently forgetting the SHELVES of Jackie Collins books that could be found in every library? Not to mention the Gor books (ew), Laurell K. Hamilton (boring, but smutty), or countless others? Hell, what about Forever by Judy Bloom?

The Anne Rice S&M books.

They've all convinced themselves that those books aren't read for the sex. Whereas the only apparent appeal of the James books is the sex. I guess.

I love going into our local public library and smirking at the well-thumbed Hamiltons.

edit: Though I often run into books where some "helpful" person has put in notes saying "Don't read this part!" and then "Start reading here!" Or they've taking magic marker to the parts they object to. I'm sure they feel all uplifted and beatific when they return the improved books.

May I, as a Christian even, tell those helpful Utahns, "KNOCK IT OFF!"

Seriously, Connie, I would be BEYOND pissed.