You might be a parent in Real Life, but that right there already tells me you're no prude. A prude would object to the fact that the books contain sex scenes and deal with sexuality at all.
We could assess my bona fides but if you assume I am insincere then I don't imagine any evidence will suffice.
How about we consider the phrasing and the context for a moment? "Moronic prude" is much like "religious nut-job" in that it is inherently pejorative. It is a label useful only for dismissing the opinions of others. (How could they possibly have values in perspective? After all, they are prudes?)
So, when I read Lumpy's post, I tried to look beyond the label to the context: "the sex scenes and outright violence in some of the books would have the moronic prude parents today suing everyone in sight for every reason." Ok, now I think I know who he is referring to. Beyond the occasional talk radio I listen to, I've lived in the Bible belt and even spent a few years in Utah so I've been exposed to the, er, militantly religious. But taken in that context, his point seemed ... hyperbolic -- i.e. oooh, the religious right taking legal action against teachers who have their students read Starship Troopers or Ringworld or the Lensman for the rampent sex scenes. Surely there are men with less straw in them. Does he really think religious conservatives are so prudish or did a better example (e.g. Ian Banks, Guy Gavriel Kay, Tannith Lee or other authors of the grimly dark or erotic) just not spring to mind?
Basically, we met after school, exchanged books, played dungeons and dragons, talked about video games. ... This lasted for 3 months, until the parent of one of the members got wind that we were going to be playing dungeons and dragons, and decided to get the club shut down due to "satanic activity"
I've been in a similar situation. In fact, I've seen this recently arise with one my children. The interesting thing is that the parent I'm thinking of who objects strongly to D&D has no problem with his son playing any number of violent or fantastic video games -- just something about D&D sets them off. But then from other conversations I know he can be very rational on other issues (and possible even rational on the topic of D&D as well, since we haven't discussed it in detail.) In any case, the Vocal Yokels aren't always as prudish, crazy, or even as facile as they may first appear.
So I don't think you're a prude or religious nutjob for taking an interest in your daughters' education. I think that makes you a good parent. Doesn't mean that the real prudes and nutjobs don't exist.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I find that how people are judged often depends on the order of presented evidence. Were I to have led off my response by talking about (e.g.) the type of language, media, activities I allow in my house ... well, I wonder if you'd say the same.
But yes, I know a few people who, in my own judgment, are exceptionally prudish -- non-thinkers who march to the strident beat of their preferred demagogue, and some unstable enough to also qualify as nutjobs. These people are not that common, in my opinion. More common by far are the close-minded sorts on both sides who casually toss labels, and refuse to take a deep breath and engage with some measure of patience.
Oh well. I guess my point, assuming I have one, is that once you apply a pejorative label to a person, they become varelse and it becomes impossible to grok them.
(Weak attempt to drag this back in a SciFi direction, but it's the best I have at the moment.)