# Required Reading **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2009, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432 "2009-09-17T10:08:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/61 "2009-09-18T20:12:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If it’s inappropriate for children that makes it inappropriate for children. There is no middle ground on this. See my previous post. But that aside, inappropriate for children is a far cry from porn, and you said it was porn. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/62 "2009-09-18T20:20:23Z")
It is a very weird view that some Americans have. You can read about a woman being hacked to pieces, but not being caressed. That just wouldn’t be appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/63 "2009-09-18T20:21:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’ll grant this much: reasonable people can object to that passage, and there’s more where that came from for sure. I didn’t remember the phone sex thing because it isn’t the point of the novel, but it does recur that same way a couple of times. I disagree with the objection, and I think there’s no harm in reading it, while there _is_ harm in avoiding serious art just because it contains sex, even if the sex is explicit. I don’t understand this argument at all. How is someone harmed by not viewing sexually explicit art? That’s like saying someone is harmed by not viewing pictures of Elvis on velvet. > [@Marley23](#): > > I’m curious to know what she ends up reading. And it does leave me wondering if it’s okay to have high school students read about sexual abuse but not about sex. I would thing requiring children to read sexually explicit material against their will would be considered sexual abuse. The teacher is literally saying that her scholastic achievement will be harmed if she doesn’t submit. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/64 "2009-09-18T20:21:34Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I don’t understand this argument at all. It makes no sense. You’re comparing sexually explicit reading material assigned in school to what exactly? She is not compelled by the school to drive nor is the act of driving objectionable. The act of driving is not objectionable despite a very real chance that it could hurt or kill you. The act of reading about sex is objectionable because it could . . . ??? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/65 "2009-09-18T20:34:41Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > See my previous post. But that aside, inappropriate for children is a far cry from porn, and you said it was porn. Someone describing sexually pleasuring themselves isn’t going to fly far in a debate about material appropriate for children. Whether you feel this is pornographic or not is tangent to argument. The passage that was posted could just as easily have been sent as a letter to Penthouse and the girl found this objectionable. It was clearly sexually explicit and she clearly objected to it. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/66 "2009-09-18T20:37:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Someone describing sexually pleasuring themselves isn’t going to fly far in a debate about material appropriate for children. Of course not, especially in an advanced, IB course. Because, well, because… I’m pretty sure that there’s something damaging about vaginas. And we really should think of the children. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/67 "2009-09-18T20:39:11Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > The act of driving is not objectionable despite a very real chance that it could hurt or kill you. The act of driving is not a requirement. > > The act of reading about sex is objectionable because it could . . . ??? It’s not that it “could”, it DID make the girl uncomfortable. She was compelled by a teacher to read sexually explicit material. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/68 "2009-09-18T20:41:10Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > And we really should think of the children. When it comes to forcing children to read sexually explicity material I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/69 "2009-09-18T20:41:35Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Someone describing sexually pleasuring themselves isn’t going to fly far in a debate about material appropriate for children. Whether you feel this is pornographic or not is tangent to argument. The passage that was posted could just as easily have been sent as a letter to Penthouse and the girl found this objectionable. It was clearly sexually explicit and she clearly objected to it. Oh please. This idea that pleasure is dirty, filthy, and sinful is just ridiculous. You’re trying to project your archaic and puritan values onto society. It would make sense if she actually was a child like you keep claiming but at 16 most girls are post-pubescent, and being an IB student she’s supposed to be far more developed than average. I’m waiting anxiously for you to tell us how a description of phone sex can hurt someone. Offend? Sure. But suck it up, reality is offensive. Harm? Tell us how. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/70 "2009-09-18T21:00:22Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Oh please. This idea that pleasure is dirty, filthy, and sinful is just ridiculous. You’re trying to project your archaic and puritan values onto society. It would make sense if she actually was a child like you keep claiming but at 16 most girls are post-pubescent, and being an IB student she’s supposed to be far more developed than average. “Most” is an interesting word. Children mature at different rates and we set age limits to account for this. If this book was a movie it would carry an “R” rating for sexual content. > [@Cisco](#): > > Offend? Sure. But suck it up, reality is offensive. I find your lack of concern for her innocence disturbing. Given that cavalier attitude I can think of something you can suck up right now. It’s your pride for refusing to admit you’re wrong. > [@Cisco](#): > > Harm? Tell us how. She is harmed because she was forced to read something that was sexually explicit and beyond her childhood senses. She found it disturbing. She is entitled to her innocence. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/71 "2009-09-18T21:12:01Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > “Most” is an interesting word. Children mature at different rates and we set age limits to account for this. If this book was a movie it would carry an “R” rating for sexual content. And what non-Mormon living on planet Earth hasn’t seen an R-rated movie by age 16? The age 17 thing is just an MPAA guideline, it’s not a law. And we’re talking about a few months, at most. > [@Magiver](#): > > I find your lack of concern for her innocence disturbing. Given that cavalier attitude I can think of something you can suck up right now. It’s your pride for refusing to admit you’re wrong. It’s interesting that you think there’s a “right” and “wrong” here. I see only one person here refusing to admit reality. > [@Magiver](#): > > She is harmed because she was forced to read something that was sexually explicit and beyond her childhood senses. She found it disturbing. She is entitled to her innocence. Fine. Don’t read it and get the fuck out of academia. She’s a close-minded prude who doesn’t want to learn. That’s win-win. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/72 "2009-09-18T21:16:32Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > As someone else mentioned, there seem to be two issues here: > > 1. Should a student be able to opt out of reading a book that makes her uncomfortable? > 2. Is this particular book appropriate? > > To address what you wrote – certainly there are some books that we would all agree are inappropriate for high schoolers – “Compare and contrast the literary value of Penthouse Letters to works by Faulkner” for example. Intellectual curiosity aside, some things are not appropriate for high schoolers. > > My answer to my own questions above: > > 1. No, not really. Of course, this is predicated on the assumption that schools will pick books appropriate for high schoolers (so, no pornography, no Protocols, etc.) > 2. No, not really. That book doesn’t strike me as a must read, and it is really much more adult than what I would expect from a high school course… Well again the issue really is only point one. No one in the class, including this student or her parents, objected to the book as the book for the class. No one who has read the entire book has said that the book is inappropriate for a class aimed to be college level. I refuse to judge any book by a section taken out of context. This is a Senior taking a college level class. How characters interface regarding their sexuality is fair game for real literature aimed at college level readers. I would also accept Updike as a fair choice and he also was fairly up front with sexuality in his books. A student taking _that_ class is trying to demonstrate to competitive colleges that they are more mature and capable than the average student with good grades and test scores. They are trying to demonstrate how ready they are to excel in a competitive college environment in which critical thinking and analysis of all sorts of ideas will be required. This isn’t basic Freshman English Lit. Did she demonstrate that readiness or did she demonstrate something else? My assessment remains: If I was the admissions dean I’d rather have the kid who got a B or two and whose ACT wasn’t quite the perfect score but who demonstrates intellectual curiosity and who fears not exposure to “dangerous” (or offensive) ideas lest they be corrupted or offended, than a straight A, perfect ACT score, student who is afraid of exposing themselves to that which they are “totally against”. I still ask any of the rest of you if you’d choose otherwise and why? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/73 "2009-09-18T21:25:52Z")
Unless the required reading contains factual errors like any Intelligent Design book, the student be forced to read it or take a hit in their grade if they dont. Kids are not in a position or generally of the intelligence to dictate their own curriculum. There may be a problem with stupid Kansan school boards occasionally, but for the most part I trust the school board and educators to determine what a student should or not should read. Allowing students and the parents the opportunity to choose would open up the floodgates to idiot parents who demand the bible or some other shit into school classrooms Besides, how does she know it has such offensive imagery? She must have read it already. Unless she thinks that opinions from other people about a particular book is adequate to judge the whole thing, she should shut up and read it ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/74 "2009-09-18T21:36:01Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Fine. Don’t read it and get the fuck out of academia. She’s a close-minded prude who doesn’t want to learn. That’s win-win. She’s a child. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/75 "2009-09-18T21:37:39Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > She’s a child. :rolleyes: That’s all you’ve got left, and it’s weaker than a 112 year old nun on chemo. Argument resolved. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/76 "2009-09-18T21:47:13Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > When it comes to forcing children to read sexually explicity material I agree. Health class should also be classified as sexual assault. Let’s get those health teachers on the sex offender list asap. And quit this silliness about her ‘innocence’. Among other things, the point of education is to help children grow into adults, you don’t do that with fetishistic reverence for their ‘innocence’. I’d wager that nobody has had any problem about her learning about, say, the use of poison gas in WW I. Or lynchings during the civil rights period. This absurd infantalization and overprotective “Won’t someone think of the children!” nonsense is only harmful to the intellectual development of young adults, especially those with a pretense of engaging in college level literary analysis. “ZOMG, they’re talking about vaginas!” is, hopefully, a bit of puritanical immaturity that isn’t still in force by the time a student reaches the age of majority, let alone by the time they engage in collegiate level courses. If it is, there are convents that I’m sure would welcome a new member. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/77 "2009-09-18T21:50:44Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > My assessment remains: If I was the admissions dean I’d rather have the kid who got a B or two and whose ACT wasn’t quite the perfect score but who demonstrates intellectual curiosity and who fears not exposure to “dangerous” (or offensive) ideas lest they be corrupted or offended, than a straight A, perfect ACT score, student who is afraid of exposing themselves to that which they are “totally against”. > > I still ask any of the rest of you if you’d choose otherwise and why? If I were a Dean I would want a student who was mature enough to reject sexually explicit material that she (as a child) did not wish to read. College level courses in high school are not an excuse to ignore the age of the children involved. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/78 "2009-09-18T21:53:46Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > :rolleyes: > > That’s all you’ve got left, and it’s weaker than a 112 year old nun on chemo. Argument resolved. Well thats mature ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/79 "2009-09-18T22:15:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I don’t understand this argument at all. How is someone harmed by not viewing sexually explicit art? I just think it’s depriving yourself. > [@](#): > > I would thing requiring children to read sexually explicit material against their will would be considered sexual abuse. _It’s a book_. Full of people who don’t really exist saying and doing things that don’t really happen. In no way is it sexual abuse. This is simply ridiculous. > [@Magiver](#): > > Whether you feel this is pornographic or not is tangent to argument. Then why did you call it pornography? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432/80 "2009-09-18T22:28:15Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I just think it’s depriving yourself. I have no interest in viewing velvet Elvis’s. Not depriving myself of anything. > [@Marley23](#): > > _It’s a book_. Full of people who don’t really exist saying and doing things that don’t really happen. In no way is it sexual abuse. This is simply ridiculous. There is nothing rediculous about a child feeling uncomfortable with sexually explicit material. There is however, something disturbing about adults who insist on imposing this material on a child. > [@Marley23](#): > > Then why did you call it pornography? Because it was sexually explicit and the child was uncomfortable with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/required-reading/510432.md?page=5)