See my previous post. But that aside, inappropriate for children is a far cry from porn, and you said it was porn.
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.
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.
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.
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 . . . ???
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.
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.
It’s not that it “could”, it DID make the girl uncomfortable. She was compelled by a teacher to read sexually explicit material.
When it comes to forcing children to read sexually explicity material I agree.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s interesting that you think there’s a “right” and “wrong” here. I see only one person here refusing to admit reality.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Well thats mature
I just think it’s depriving yourself.
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.
Then why did you call it pornography?
I have no interest in viewing velvet Elvis’s. Not depriving myself of anything.
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.
Because it was sexually explicit and the child was uncomfortable with it.