Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most 14 year olds would generally know what the book is talking about anyway, and those who don't are way too sheltered. I was 14 five years ago, and trust me - we knew A LOT already. BFD
It sounds like an inaccurate assumption is being made here. Because the internet has more graphic things than this book, we assume then this is suggesting that the book is okay?
Just because something is available online does not mean that someone is going to seek and choose to view it.
It sounds like an inaccurate assumption is being made here. Because the internet has more graphic things than this book, we assume then this is suggesting that the book is okay?
Just because something is available online does not mean that someone is going to seek and choose to view it.
Hello? The BIBLE has more graphic content than that book. Yet you would probably advocate all 14 year olds to read it (even though it's obvious you haven't read it yourself)
They said their daughter's questions about the book left them speechless
Sounds more like they didn't want to talk about it. If it upset the girl she was apparently the only one. There is a permission slip procedure in place at the school though they said they didn't get one, but I don't know what else could happen to spare the girl the trama of reading something sexual...
That said, I'm guessing she is embarassed about his whole thing now. Unless there is something illegal or dangerous going on there isn't much parents should be getting outraged over in high school books. I mean, 4 years and many of these kids are living on their own, married, kids, etc!!!!
Anybody who believes that a modern day 14 year old has not seen every sexual position imaginable on the internet is living in a dream world.
Where do these people come from? It's NOT 1950 anymore.
Just recalling the dozens of books that dealt with significantly more serious issues than sex and the body that I read before I was 14. Why do we readily accept violence in our culture, but shun anything to do with the human body? We are a backwards people.
Just recalling the dozens of books that dealt with significantly more serious issues than sex and the body that I read before I was 14. Why do we readily accept violence in our culture, but shun anything to do with the human body? We are a backwards people.
We that object to the book are not backwards. We are wise to object. There remains no excuse for it being so explicit. Modesty comes naturally to our youth until they are exposed to so much rawness that they are desensitized and no longer likely to be modest.
No excuses for something that will embarass some and excite others BEYOND mere education about the body and it's physiology. Graphic--no, not necessary or wise.
Hello? The BIBLE has more graphic content than that book. Yet you would probably advocate all 14 year olds to read it (even though it's obvious you haven't read it yourself)
What is not true is obvious, to you? OMGoodness, and you, too, vote? Well, that explains the subversives in DC quite well.
Just recalling the dozens of books that dealt with significantly more serious issues than sex and the body that I read before I was 14. Why do we readily accept violence in our culture, but shun anything to do with the human body? We are a backwards people.
Excellent point. It's okay to watch a movie with violence showing people graphically killing/injuring each other but a movie showing people engaged in sex is off limits .
Questioning is always good. The schools have degenerated. One school made news a couple of years ago for instructing their students to "mutually masturbate" as if they could keep the pregnancy rate down with that instead of Birth Control!
Thank goodness parents raised heck about it, as they should have.
We that object to the book are not backwards. We are wise to object. There remains no excuse for it being so explicit. Modesty comes naturally to our youth until they are exposed to so much rawness that they are desensitized and no longer likely to be modest.
No excuses for something that will embarass some and excite others BEYOND mere education about the body and it's physiology. Graphic--no, not necessary or wise.
This modesty you speak of is cultural, not natural. Humans were naked long before the invention of clothing. American Society shuns sexual...anything, but openly displays extremely graphic depictions of violence and negative behavior on broadcast television. Lethal Weapon was on TBS the other day. Riggs and Murtaugh freely kill a number of people. Sure, you may never see the bad guy's guts all over the pavement, but no less than a dozen people die in the movie. TBS!
Christians have taken this **** beyond belief. I'd rather see a nipple during a superbowl game than a fist-fight during Hockey. Nipples are natural.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but a movie showing people engaged in sex is off limits 
.
