What in the hell are we teaching our kids!?

[Doppel]

Nice, take an innocent statement that I plan to educate my daughter about sex (or at least supplement my wife with the process) and make it sound as if I'm going to train her to love anal. Sounds about right.

I actually expected you would act bashful with my statement but it seems you've already forgotten what you wrote.

 

[sandorski]

Every 15 year old has heard plenty about Sex. It is constantly going through their mind, they think about having it with a variety of Partners, some are even having it.

Any Parent tarding about their Teen reading about Sex in Literature is 6ish years late. If your Kids peers haven't "informed" your Kids about sex, they have been finding their own sources, without you even knowing.

...and that's a Fact.

Have you already forgotten what You did as a teen? Unless you were sheltered to the point of abuse, you had a working, although likely inaccurate, model of what Sex was by the time you were in your early teens.

 

[justoh]

Every 15 year old has heard plenty about Sex. It is constantly going through their mind, they think about having it with a variety of Partners, some are even having it.

Any Parent tarding about their Teen reading about Sex in Literature is 6ish years late. If your Kids peers haven't "informed" your Kids about sex, they have been finding their own sources, without you even knowing.

...and that's a Fact.

Have you already forgotten what You did as a teen? Unless you were sheltered to the point of abuse, you had a working, although likely inaccurate, model of what Sex was by the time you were in your early teens.

Nice. Subtle.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

Ok, let's play round 2.

Not every word of every book assigned is intended to be part of the lesson. It is entirely possible that this passage is never mentioned, discussed or tested on, and that the book still provides educational merit.

Minus the perceived intent... Was this book part of the assignment? [Y/n] y

Does the work in question contain the passage being discussed in this thread? [Y/n] y

Then one can reasonably assume that even on some degree, the passage in question was included - in some part, no matter how small; intent notwithstanding - in the lesson. Check or Hold?

It's funny watching you complain of taking things out of context when you're comparing this to handing 4th graders 50 shades of grey.

Ok, you you're getting pretty good here at finding something you think you want to pick on and then pulling it completely out of context to do so.

Consider it was in response to the following statement:


Originally Posted by dank69 View Post
LOL free patriot.

So how old should a girl be before we are allowed to discuss sexuality with her? Married?

It was meant to be a ridiculous statement to illustrate the equally ridiculous statement made above.

And that does not indicate THIS passage was read out loud, just that parts of the books were. No novels are read out loud entirely in the 10th grade. That the book was read out loud in class is not proof that this passage was read out loud in class.

And by an equal measure it does not indicate THIS passage WAS NOT read out loud. However there is a distinct possibility that is was.. especially considering that at least some parts up to and possibly including the entire novel were read aloud. We don't know for certain.

 

[OverVolt]

'In the paleolithic era women held the dominant role in human society." Was in my girlfriends little nieces textbook. I thought that was interesting. My textbooks certainly had none of that crap in them. I'm not even sure if its true or not, just thought that was an interesting way they framed that.

I joked "wasn't the last pharaoh of egypt a woman and then it collapsed?" :awe:

I'm kidding ofc but you could slant it either way in a textbook. Why even slant anything.

 

[justoh]

'In the paleolithic era women held the dominant role in human society." Was in my girlfriends little nieces textbook. I thought that was interesting. My textbooks certainly had none of that crap in them. I'm not even sure if its true or not, just thought that was an interesting way they framed that.

I joked "wasn't the last pharaoh of egypt a woman and then it collapsed?" :awe:

I'm kidding ofc but you could slant it either way in a textbook. Why even slant anything.

Well a reasonable person would know that there isn't a slant. An unreasonable person would be motivated by psychosis to want to believe that there's a slant no matter what. At that point it's hard to convince someone that the only slant there was you introducing the fall of the egyptian empire.

 

[OverVolt]

Well a reasonable person would know that there isn't a slant. An unreasonable person would be motivated by psychosis to want to believe that there's a slant no matter what. At that point it's hard to convince someone that the only slant there was you introducing the fall of the egyptian empire.

Hmm not sure who the crazy one is...

I think the textbook is slanted and so you think I have psychosis...:hmm:

I think textbooks are funny. I have an old sociology textbook from 2007, it is filled with gems like "Projection of job growth circa 2007! for the next decade!" With the east and west coast posting +10% job growth and the mid west and Texas posting -10% or thereabouts. It turned out to be the exact opposite. Actually just about every sidebar and tidbit of interesting wisdom was wrong. No wonder they made a new version. Check out some old textbooks, especially ones in fluffy areas of academia, sociology, psych, etc.

 

[justoh]

Hmm not sure who the crazy one is...

I think the textbook is slanted and so you think I have psychosis...:hmm:

I think textbooks are funny. I have an old sociology textbook from 2007, it is filled with gems like "Projection of job growth circa 2007! for the next decade!" With the east and west coast posting +10% job growth and the mid west and Texas posting -10% or thereabouts. It turned out to be the exact opposite. Actually just about every sidebar and tidbit of interesting wisdom was wrong. No wonder they made a new version. Check out some old textbooks, especially ones in fluffy areas of academia, sociology, psych, etc.

Entire charts and pages are full of what turned out to be misinformation.

Now you've just retreated to minimally reasonable claims. Sure, that kind of crap can be "slanted," plausibly, but if there's evidence that would make a reasonable person conclude that women were dominant then there's nothing "slanted" about including it as a fact in a textbook. You're welcome to question whether it's a reasonable conclusion but it's unreasonable to assume intentional bias, or even negligent bias (have you evaluated the reasons behind the claim for women having dominated?, or whatever). maybe it's just true. and if further evidence comes to light then it would still have been true, even if it's false. 🙂

 

[dank69]

I actually expected you would act bashful with my statement but it seems you've already forgotten what you wrote.

Continue implying I posted something that I didn't. Go ahead and quote my posts and explain how you came to your conclusions.

 

[dank69]

Ok, let's play round 2.



Minus the perceived intent... Was this book part of the assignment? [Y/n] y

Does the work in question contain the passage being discussed in this thread? [Y/n] y

Then one can reasonably assume that even on some degree, the passage in question was included - in some part, no matter how small; intent notwithstanding - in the lesson. Check or Hold?



Ok, you you're getting pretty good here at finding something you think you want to pick on and then pulling it completely out of context to do so.

Consider it was in response to the following statement:


Originally Posted by dank69 View Post
LOL free patriot.

So how old should a girl be before we are allowed to discuss sexuality with her? Married?

It was meant to be a ridiculous statement to illustrate the equally ridiculous statement made above.



And by an equal measure it does not indicate THIS passage WAS NOT read out loud. However there is a distinct possibility that is was.. especially considering that at least some parts up to and possibly including the entire novel were read aloud. We don't know for certain.

Learn how to quote properly. There is nothing ridiculous about my original statement. A 15/16yo knows what "entering her from behind" means long before they read this book. You want to try to shelter your kids from reality, be my guest, they are your kids. Raise them to be as ignorant as you want.

 

[dank69]

Hmm not sure who the crazy one is...

I think the textbook is slanted and so you think I have psychosis...:hmm:

I think textbooks are funny. I have an old sociology textbook from 2007, it is filled with gems like "Projection of job growth circa 2007! for the next decade!" With the east and west coast posting +10% job growth and the mid west and Texas posting -10% or thereabouts. It turned out to be the exact opposite. Actually just about every sidebar and tidbit of interesting wisdom was wrong. No wonder they made a new version. Check out some old textbooks, especially ones in fluffy areas of academia, sociology, psych, etc.

Let's equate missed projections to documented history.

 

[raildogg]

Every year it gets worse and worse. The so-called standards are dropped and society gets more and more immoral. The religious people go to church for an hour or two on sundays yet they behave just like the non-Church-goers rest of the time. The priests and bishops and other religious leaders just want to spread their church's power. The scientists are too busy having intellectual arguments with each other with little to show for it. Just babbling

So religion is messed up and science is only one dimensional. So where does one turn to? Can it be that he has no one to turn to but himself? Maybe it's time.

As for schools, they are just a product of society. If society lacks total respect for the human and his/her body then schools will be that way also. Just like politics: they are a reflection of society. A corrupt society like ours will always produce corruption in politics.

 

[CountZero]

^^ So much FAIL in this statement I don't know where to begin...

So what you're really saying here is "Because some 10th graders may or may not "allegedly" know what anal is.. it is hereby perfectly appropriate... nay... incumbent upon the education system to make sure it's taught in 10th grade english..

And not just that, but that the content presented in a sufficiently raunchy enough manor that anything that could possibly be "educational" about "from behind" sex and bondage is lost somewhere between "biting her thighs" and "soaping up her ass".

Finally... If I walk up and down the hallways talking about these topics they way they are portrayed in that passage I'm likely gonna offend some of my female co-workers and possibly have a sexual harassment complaint filed and reprimanded because it's just unprofessional. Yet these CHILDREN are expected to read this content OUT LOUD in class! But then again, since when has professionalism and decency ever been a requirement of education?

I see your point, you win, there's no problem here.

3-4 paragraphs in a 274 page book. Since the idea of the article you posted originally is to be as sensational as possible you can probably rest assured that's as bad as it gets. If we generously call that a page that is 0.36% of the book. Let's assume that there's even more though, say 2-3 pages and we'll call it 1%.

In the same way reading Dickens wasn't an attempt to teach students about being pickpockets I'd have to assume the purpose of reading this book is discussing Cuba not the 1% of the book that talks about sex. Just a hunch.

Lastly these are 10th graders not 5 year olds. By that age they've almost certainly had sex-ed already.

I will concede parents should be made aware that the book that is being read has some R rated or at least barely PG-13 scenes. That was those parents can make informed decisions about how delusional they are about what their kids think/know and pretend they are shielding them from something horrific.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Every year it gets worse and worse. The so-called standards are dropped and society gets more and more immoral. The religious people go to church for an hour or two on sundays yet they behave just like the non-Church-goers rest of the time. The priests and bishops and other religious leaders just want to spread their church's power. The scientists are too busy having intellectual arguments with each other with little to show for it. Just babbling

So religion is messed up and science is only one dimensional. So where does one turn to? Can it be that he has no one to turn to but himself? Maybe it's time.

As for schools, they are just a product of society. If society lacks total respect for the human and his/her body then schools will be that way also. Just like politics: they are a reflection of society. A corrupt society like ours will always produce corruption in politics.

What in God's holy name are you blathering about?

 

[raildogg]

What in God's holy name are you blathering about?

If you don't get it the first time then repetition will likely not help.

 

[justoh]

What in God's holy name are you blathering about?

He has a strong superficial conviction about something he doesn't understand. This is like the violent video game stuff recently in the news. They're performing "scientifically" worthless studies on the effects of a particular form of vicarious enjoyment, as if the results could possibly be more than unreliable conjecture.

Need I remind anyone that the latest saints row, saints row IV, was delayed for release in Australia, and features the removal of the ability to have gay sex with any of your bros (or girls), as well as your ability to bludgeon people to death with sex toys or probe anyone anally, with the incidental effect of making their versions of the game incompatible with the rest of the world. This could happen in America (though it probably won't).

By the way, saints row IV is best played with the keyboard+mouse.

 

[slayernine]

Who said anything about anal? She is fully accessible from behind.

Have these overly conservative folks never heard of doggy style?

 

[Darwin333]

Guess what.. My two kids in high school (one of them a sophomore - my daughter). Well adjusted, both are honor role, play sports, have not/are not having sex.. let alone discussing *ahem* "from behind" and bondage. Don't turn up hardcore when they google because I monitor their content and computers are used in the common areas of our house.

It's jerkoffs like you that have completely given up on morality and your duty as a parent to protect your kids that propagate this problem to the point it is now accepted as the norm!.. Disgusting! And the fact that we've become so socially numb to it all is saddening.. you my friend are a shining example..

Have fun being a 35YO Grandpa raising a baby again after your teenage daughter gets knocked up because they read this book and thought it would be a good idea to try. Wish HER luck for me making it through high-school and let alone college and on to a productive adult live. Not that it can't be done - but it's gonna be about 100x tougher.

But ha.. fuck it, no reason to get be concerned about my kid's education.. Too easy just to look the other way. I'm a relic.. blah blah..

It has been my experience that the "sheltered" girls were the ones that would wild out the moment they got out of the nest. Hell when I was younger my friends and I would always try to find the good Catholic girls that went to an all girl school their entire lives because they were most definitely the easiest. Hell my buddies and I would trade them around the click. Obviously not all were like that but it was far far more likely that you would find one from a sheltered life versus one that went to regular public school and didn't have a sheltered childhood.

You clip their wings their entire lives don't be surprised when they overuse them once they leave the nest in a few short years.

 

[zinfamous]

The sex is completely inoffensive, but the writing is.

I would also protest.

 

[zinfamous]

Have these overly conservative folks never heard of doggy style?

wait wait wait....VAGINA is WHERE?

:hmm:

 

[zinfamous]

^^ this makes no sense ^^

Here's what I know.
The school is teaching this smut to grade schoolers. I suppose you approve?

huh? since when is 10th grade Grade School?

these are 16 year-old kids.

 

[cyclohexane]

it's called literature, op.
Lots of great literature is controversial (Catcher in the rye, Beloved, etc), but that's exactly why students should read them.

 

[zinfamous]

it's called literature, op.
Lots of great literature is controversial (Catcher in the rye, Beloved, etc), but that's exactly why students should read them.

I assumed this until I actually read the "controversial" passage.

It's actually quite terrible. I can't imagine why this writing would ever be assigned to anyone.

 

[raildogg]

He has a strong superficial conviction about something he doesn't understand. This is like the violent video game stuff recently in the news. They're performing "scientifically" worthless studies on the effects of a particular form of vicarious enjoyment, as if the results could possibly be more than unreliable conjecture.

Need I remind anyone that the latest saints row, saints row IV, was delayed for release in Australia, and features the removal of the ability to have gay sex with any of your bros (or girls), as well as your ability to bludgeon people to death with sex toys or probe anyone anally, with the incidental effect of making their versions of the game incompatible with the rest of the world. This could happen in America (though it probably won't).

By the way, saints row IV is best played with the keyboard+mouse.

Please explain, if you can or care to, what superficial conviction I have. This is not to say I don't, because I probably have plenty of them.

 

[justoh]

Please explain, if you can or care to, what superficial conviction I have. This is not to say I don't, because I probably have plenty of them.

You're probably a joypader, aren't you?