/lit/ - Literature

>>4869270
it was his aim to get arrested

>>4869270
>why are the parents upset about a page of sex when the book features graphic violence
Welcome to America

>>4869273
He's a martyr for the cause!

My favorite teacher was pissed about this yesterday. She actually read page 313 aloud to us. It was fucking nothing. There was an implied date rape but there was one in Back to the Future 1 too and that was much more intense than the scene this entitled asshole is complaining about. "Oh she was spread on the ground, he wrapped his hands around her, and she screamed." That was literally all there was - 3 paragraphs of that.

If anything, I'd be a little more concerned that the book is about a school shooting, but no, it's ALWAYS THE SEX that offends these people. It's like Fox News and Mass Effect all over again.

>>4869270
I had to read My Sister's Keeper in tenth grade. I liked it, solely because the defiant little protagonist dies and her body ends up going to her sister, which she protests throughout the entire novel. She didn't want to be an organ farm or something.
It was a decent ironic twist, that unfortunately did not make it into Hollywood's film adaptation.

Shit, just what that whiney hack needs more publicity and sales.

This is the part that has them upset.

>triple XXX porno

>>4869322
Disgusting filth.
I'm with the father. This shit should be purged and censored.

>>4869328
>you've never pumped hot and sticky semen on the floor underneath your date

u mad bra

>>4869322
I read kite runner for school but I was a bit older than 14.

>>4869331
Filthy savage.

>>4869322
if your child is a teenager and you haven't talked to the about sex what the fuck are you doing as a parent.

also i just realized my parents never gave me the sex talk or talked to me about girls or anything yet they still think i'm gay what the hell

>>4869396
Don't worry anon, my single mother didn't bother to give me a sex talk rather she just told me to keep it in my pants after I started banging this hot blonde my senior year of high school.

>tfw you get a girl pregnant
>tfw you had to sit through an abortion
>tfw said girl leaves you for some scuzzhead she met at a club
>tfw you are consumed for some reason by that abortion and all associated memories
>tfw you realize your mother never really gave a shit about you

Thanks mom, happy mother's day.

>>4869432
my mom told my older brother and i we were mistakes when i was 9 or 10, among other shit over the years. she's a psychotic bitch. i've been practicing meditation and trying not to hate for a couple of years now, but she is honestly the person i can't get past hating.

and every year for her birthday or mother's day i have to act like i give a shit because she has an absolute mental breakdown for weeks if someone fails to recognize all the "hard work" she's done.

thanks a bunch for brainwashing my mom Oprah.

>>4869331
>>you've never pumped hot and sticky semen on the floor underneath your date

nope.
and I'm approaching 25. best way to an hero?

>>4869490

>my mom told my older brother and i we were mistakes when i was 9 or 10

Why the fuck do you care?

>>4869504
if i was 16 and she told me that i could have handled it better.

i was 9, i didn't know how to process thought. i was still into dinosaurs and watching dragonball z, the big picture of life doesn't make too much sense at that age.

you learn to get over it, but for a while it does some damage.

>>4869396
It's America. Talking about sex is verboten.

The only reason I learned about sex in school was because both of my health classes (middle school and high school) were taught by teachers who no longer gave a fuck. One was in her last months of pregnancy and the second was retiring at the end of the year.

>>4869512

What the fuck is there to handle? I seriously don't understand how that could make anybody upset, even if you were 9

>>4869528
>I seriously don't understand how that could make anybody upset
autism

>>4869528
imagine being a little kid and told that you were never meant to be born, that you ruined all of my hopes and dreams, that you're a waste of space who will never amount to anything, etc.

and she's screaming it in your face the whole time. plus it wasn't just that. got the shit beat out of me for little things. constant shit like "i don't know why you're joining the football team you'll never be good." idk i'm done posting about it.

>>4869525
>It's America. Talking about sex is verboten.
perhaps, but there's a difference between educating about sex, and promoting literature with unnecessary, explicit sexual content.

>>4869553
sorry man.
but it's best to stop posting. either someone is going to troll you, or claim that you're trolling. there's no winning.

>>4869543

When I was growing up my mom would routinely sit me and my siblings down and tell us that if we didn't start doing more chores she would kill herself. We would all start crying and begging her not to and we'd promise to do more chores. Eventually she got on meds and stopped doing that. I never thought it was a big deal and I certainly don't practice meditation like a pussy faggot to stop myself from hating my mom you fucking pleb. I love my mom cause she brought me into this world. Grow the fuck up.

>>4869563
heh thanks i guess. i honestly didn't expect to get upset over this, figured i was over it i guess.

have a funny picture.

>>4869577
>tips fedora

>protesters getting arrested
Boy, we're in for a fun century.

>>4869577
Wow, I feel bad for you anon. Your mommy never realized just how "special" you are.

>>4869557
>unnecessary, explicit sexual content
>a single page with sexual content written in a matter of fact manner that involves something I guarantee you 13-14 year olds are familiar with, if not already practicing, especially in America.

Lol no

>>4869604

What are you talking about?

>>4869577

what an awful post

>>4869633
Anon, autism is an awful, awful thing.

>>4869611
>>unnecessary, explicit sexual content
so you're saying that the 50 shades tier drivel was essential to the plot and required description of that nature?

>>I guarantee you 13-14 year olds are familiar with, if not already practicing, especially in America.
just because some people do retarded things, doesn't mean you should encourage or tolerate it.

>>4869577
>I love my mom cause she brought me into this world
>liking life
omg

>>4869639
haha, how can autism be used as an insult? Only an ignorant cunt would use autism as an insult. (And there's nothing I hate more than ignorance)

Autism is a gift in my case, I have an IQ of over 150 which makes me technically a genius thanks to my autism. I've been going through school all my life being bored out of my fucking brains getting at least 95% on all my tests (and all the incorrect answers were silly mistakes) because I'm just too fucking smart for school I can't wait for everyone else to learn something I already knew within the first day or too of being taught it. Every year I scored the best of my year on these stupid multiple choice tests we do and the headmaster came to my class to tell me that, which obviously resulted in being called a 'nerd' which is true but I shouldn't be ridiculed for it.

I recently became home educated so I could learn at my own pace and I'm getting my GCSEs done in 1/4 of the time everyone else has to do it in, I'm also doing more than double the average amount of GCSEs that usually would be done.

I used to get paid $30 an hour working online, which is more than the teaching assistants at my old school earned, it was so fun pointing that out to them.

So, in conclusion, calling someone autistic is not an insult, in my case, it makes me highly gifted.

One more thing, I don't know if this has anything to do with my autism but I am a sociopath so I'm not hindered by irrational emotions like guilt, compassion, empathy etc.

haha, the most satisfying this is to know that you will all see this as a waste of a natural gift that I am undeserving hahaha, that brings me great satisfaction.

I'm practically perfect, let the jealousy flow through you.

>>4869718
If anyone doubted his autism, here's the proof.

autistic spectrum individuals have made great and irreplaceable contribution to society. hope of future as well.

>>4869270
>And why are the parents upset about a page of sex when the book features graphic violence in the form of murdered teens?

Because most kids won't suddenly commit murder if exposed to it. But some will have irresponsible sex if exposed to graphic sexual literature.

And before you whine and cry about "kids have sex anyway", that's a stupid defense. Just because someone does something stupid doesn't mean parents should shrug and condone the behavior.

13-15 year olds are too stupid to have sex. Why contribute to the teen pregnancy rate?

>>4869718
I am not going to read your post. You are the literal manifestation of a potato. That is right, a potato. Enjoy your potato life, mr potato head.

>>4870531
virgin alert

>>4870531

maybe there would be less teen pregnancies if children and teens were actually educated about sex, instead of just running around the bible pole three times to ward off pregnancy demons.

>>4869499
lick a hooker's ass

>>4870541
oh no! how did you know!?!?!?!? my argument is in shambles.

>>4870544
Reading 50 Shades-tier shit isn't sex ed. Nobody, other than Bible Belt retards, ever claimed that kids should be kept ignorant. But don't try to 1)strawman me and 2)pretend that this reading assignment is equivalent to sex ed.

>>4869528
He is a dramatic bitch. I have always known I was "a mistake" as I was raised by my grandparents. It's not a big deal. I have a much more normal life than half of you fuckers. A huge percentage of people are "mistakes". It's just a reason to sadfrog.png like a faggot

>>4869270
I love the attitude towards sex we have here in America. Just love it. When I was 12 I would kill a living thing, skin it, gut it, and have it cooked, then retire to my bedroom to play Grand Theft Auto, but god forbid a Viagra ad came on the television, or Reese and Sara Connor went to get busy in Terminator. Good thing my parents couldn't into ESRB ratings or the internet, 'cause I was having hot coffee all day long.

>>4870561
Everyone has such a simplistic black/white view of sex. Either you're a fundamentalist, sheltered, Bible-thumping Puritan...or you're a lax, degenerate, freelove slut.

Promiscuity is bad, but so is repression. Adolescents should be intellectually familiar with sex, but not in practice. Then when they become adults-ish, then safe, responsible, mostly-monogamous sex should be okay.

>>4870582
I'm of the opinion, who gives a fuck if they practice it? What are you gonna do? Wagging your finger and saying, "no sex!" is oh, so effective, and what else are you going to do if not put chastity belts on everybody aged 12-17? Give them the run down, tell them about risks and safe sex, and then it's their own fault if they fuck up. If I'm trusted enough to operate a motor vehicle at 14, I ought to have judgement enough to not get diseases of the crotch or knock up every slut I meet.

>>4870531
>Because most kids won't suddenly commit murder if exposed to it.
>But some will have irresponsible sex if exposed to graphic sexual literature.

You've essentially just said: "Some kids will commit murder if exposed to it in literature," and "most kids won't have irresponsible sex if exposed to it."

>>4870616
No I did not. I differentiated sex and violence, explaining why, if they're both in literature, the former is problematic while the latter isn't.

>>4870598
>I'm of the opinion, who gives a fuck if they practice it?

You're going to dispute, rationalize, and deny the following, but it must be said.

>Bastards and children born to teen parents don't have as stable a life as children born to wed parents

>Indiscriminate, promiscuous sex leads to increased STDs, abortions, and divorce rates

>These things affect social stability and affect taxes.

So yeah, I do care.

>>4870598
>Wagging your finger and saying, "no sex!" is oh, so effective, and what else are you going to do if not put chastity belts on everybody aged 12-17?

That's obnoxiously stupid and you know it.

>If I'm trusted enough to operate a motor vehicle at 14, I ought to have judgement enough to not get diseases of the crotch or knock up every slut I meet.

Operating a vehicle is not comparable to sex.
That's a retarded comparison.

>>4870582
>a lax, degenerate, freelove slut
>Promiscuity is bad, but so is repression. Adolescents should be intellectually familiar with sex, but not in practice. Then when they become adults-ish, then safe, responsible, mostly-monogamous sex should be okay.


You're pretty funny

>>4870662
Lol divorce.

>>4870656
>the former is problematic while the latter isn't.

Evidence? Proof?

It stands to reason that if "some" kids will engage in sex because they read about it, they will also engage in violence.

>>4870656
>>4870662
Please read what I post before you comment.
Educate them. Mandatory, thorough education. Teach them about STDs, safe sex, pregnancy, etc. Teach them all the shit you just said. Then if they fuck up, it's their own damn fault and their own damn problem.

I don't give a shit about the divorce rate or abortions. People shouldn't get married if they have irreconcilable issues, ergo, the divorce is their own fault. Maybe they should have a mandatory course on dating and marriage, too. As for abortions, that's a right of the parents. If that's how they want to take care of their fuck up, be my guest.

>>4870582
Actually I have some of my best sexual experiences as a 16 year old. They were joyful, pure and unmarred by the stress of adulthood. We could spend whole summer days fucking at my home or we could just lay on the beach thinking nothing, saying nothing just with each other.

I feel it's criminal to forbid that to anyone.

>>4870672
Excellent rebuttal.

>>4870677
What? You want a fucking dissertation?
It's common sense that reading a book won't substantially increase the odds of committing violence. But reading about sex, if they otherwise wouldn't have, will.

>>4870679
>Please read what I post before you comment.
Fuck you, I did. Hence the use of direct quotes. Even if I didn't, I can argue how I want.

>I don't give a shit about the divorce rate or abortions.
Well, some people do. Thus, they have a legitimate motive for not wanting to expose kids to filth. Again, no non-fundies oppose the sex ed you described. But the literature is not sex ed.

>>4870697
>It's common sense that reading a book won't substantially increase the odds of committing violence. But reading about sex, if they otherwise wouldn't have, will.

Do you imagine this claim should simply be accepted as intuitively true? It's totally unsubstantiated.

>>4870697
Of course it is an excellent rebuttal, you are so bourgeois it is painful. You can't even understand that what you are arguing is purely based on subjective values that you assume everyone must share.

>>4870697
I mean if you don't care about marriage as an institution an argument on divorce does not matter.

>>4870697
>Thus, they have a legitimate motive for not wanting to expose kids to filth.

Although you keep trying to distance yourself from "fundies" you employ their moralistic rhetoric in every post. You claim to base your opinions in pragmatism (STD transmission, unwanted pregnancy, divorce) but simultaneously imbue your descriptions with words like slut, degenerate, filth, etc.

>>4870701
So you're saying that reading a violent book DOES increase the likelihood that someone will commit murder.

And reading a sexual book DOESN'T increase the odds of someone having sex?

That's laughable.

I don't have a 1:1 fucking study on this, but to deny what I'm saying is fucking retarded. Best I can do off-hand (which you're going to obnoxiously deny) is the studies on video games. (Porn I'm not so sure about either way)

I'll link if I can find it the data, but violent video games don't increase the likelihood of kids committing violence.

>>4870724
>So you're saying that reading a violent book DOES increase the likelihood that someone will commit murder.
No, I believe just the opposite.

>And reading a sexual book DOESN'T increase the odds of someone having sex?
Yes, I do believe that.

> violent video games don't increase the likelihood of kids committing violence.

I'm aware of this and don't dispute it. I'm specifically looking for you to provide evidence of exposure to literature containing sexual content increasing a likelihood of seeking sexual encounters.

>>4870705
>I can't argue because I'm retarded
>But I'll say it's because you're bourgeois

>>4870717
This >>4870582
was echoing the sentiments of the extremists. As far as other posts go, the worse you can condemn me of is hyperbole. But go on strawmanning, I'm sure it will increase the strength of your argument.

>>4870697
>Fuck you, I did. Hence the use of direct quotes. Even if I didn't, I can argue how I want.
You sure can, but your arguments can also be based on entirely subjective things. Which yours are.

>Well, some people do. Thus, they have a legitimate motive for not wanting to expose kids to filth. Again, no non-fundies oppose the sex ed you described. But the literature is not sex ed.
>filth
Sounding pretty fundie yourself, there.
Sex is a part of life. People have it, regularly, so you can hardly complain about its inclusion in a novel, especially when it's not in-depth and erotic, but a 3 paragraph description that could have been summed up as, "and then they fucked."
Hell, I'd go so far as to argue that exposure to and education on a subject, rather than making it out to be some forbidden fruit, would decrease all of the problems you talk about rather than exacerbate them. People are going to fuck. Period. Would you rather them be two scared and confused teenagers, who have no idea what they're doing and are half convinced that it's wrong, or two educated people?

>>4870733
>>So you're saying that reading a violent book DOES increase the likelihood that someone will commit murder.
>No, I believe just the opposite.

Then we agree here.

>>And reading a sexual book DOESN'T increase the odds of someone having sex?
>Yes, I do believe that.
well, that's just a matter of differences. But many parents believe the opposite. And if there's a small chance that they're right, it's the prerogative to dispute the school board and have another book on the curriculum.

>>4870734

Do you know what strawmanning is? Nowhere did I present an argument against a position you don't actually hold. I didn't actually make an argument against you at all. All I did was point out your rhetorical style is dissonant with your position.

>>4870737
>But many parents believe the opposite.

Parents are free to believe whatever they want and to voice those beliefs at school board meetings. It doesn't mean that school curriculum has to bend to their views if those views are totally unsubstantiated.

>>4870735
>You sure can, but your arguments can also be based on entirely subjective things. Which yours are.
So, what's your point? Are you just in damage control mode? I don't even get what you're trying to say.

>>4870735
>Sounding pretty fundie yourself, there.
Yes, totally. I'm a closet fundamental Christian with illogical hatred of sex. And that alone invalidates everything I said and absolves you from having to argue further. Auto-win to you!

Your argument boils down to: "It is what it is". There's no intelligent discussion that can come from that. Because no matter what anyone says, you'll still fall to the banal dismissal "it is what it is, so what?"

>>4870737
And yet you've still to provide any evidence.

>>4869718
>>4870341
that is only because they are autistic. they think themselves superior but in fact are nothing but exploitable beings that no one has, or ever will, care about; simply flesh and blood and bone machinery. good thing these weird fucks are too socially inept to reproduce

>>4870750
>It doesn't mean that school curriculum has to bend to their views if those views are totally unsubstantiated.

Parents pay taxes that support the school system. Their concerns aren't something that the school board/curriculum can dismiss. Regardless if their views are "unsubstantiated".

No one is saying that the book should be banned or that kids shouldn't be allowed to read it on their free time. It just shouldn't be on the school's reading list.

>>4870770
this

>point blank, this

>>4870770
>Their concerns aren't something that the school board/curriculum can dismiss. Regardless if their views are "unsubstantiated".

Now we're getting somewhere interesting. Do you feel the same way about them wanting to remove evolution from the curriculum? Regardless of whether their views are "unsubstantiated"?

>>4870762
One, I'm not a fucking scientist with articles on hand. My failure to produce a link doesn't prevent you from exercising common sense or researching on your own.

Two, even if I did find one of the studies, we'll go through the rigmarole of you doubting it's authenticity, accuracy, etc.

It's not worth it.

>>4870756
>So, what's your point? Are you just in damage control mode? I don't even get what you're trying to say.
I'm saying that you can argue whatever you like. The argument can be wrong, opinionated, subjective, objective, good, bad, or ugly.

>Yes, totally. I'm a closet fundamental Christian with illogical hatred of sex. And that alone invalidates everything I said and absolves you from having to argue further. Auto-win to you!
You just latched onto the most minor line in that post, instead of the body of my argument. In response to this, see >>4870717

>Your argument boils down to: "It is what it is". There's no intelligent discussion that can come from that. Because no matter what anyone says, you'll still fall to the banal dismissal "it is what it is, so what?"
My argument is, this (teenagers having sex) is going to happen. No law, fundie upbringing or abstinence only sex-ed is going to stop it, so instead of trying to, you should thoroughly educate them so that they can make the right decisions when the time comes.Furthermore, I highly doubt that reading about a sex act is going to inspire these youths to go out and imitate it, and you have no evidence to the contrary. Unless you can come up with a scientific journal containing a peer reviewed study that validates your argument, I am finished with this argument.

>>4870778
Evolution is science.
This is a literature class; it's not a perfect analogue and I don't feel "inconsistent" for treating them differently.

A high schooler can complete a standard English 1-4 course, and be college-prepared/educated without ever reading Nineteen Minutes.

If a high schooler, however, completes a standard science education without ever learning Evolution, they are not college-ready and not scientifically-literate. No one is asking them to believe evolution over religious faith. But they must be familiar of it as a scientific theory.

>>4870778
removing evolution is not the argument but rather the teaching of creationism, alongside evolution.

if certain schools want to teach creationism, too, i say let them. it would then be easier to know who the gullible idiots are. and, besides, if kids are taught both, i think hope that they'll see how silly one is,over the other.

>>4870785
>>4870735

Arguing without resources is part of life. People do so, regularly, so you can hardly complain about its use on 4chan, especially when it's not in-depth, but a multi-paragraph discussion that could be summed up as "and then kid were encouraged to fuck because they read it in a book."

People are going to argue without on-hand evidence. Period. Would you rather them be scared to debate, who have no idea what they're doing and half-convinced that it's wrong, or two ignorant people?

>>4870797

Giving mythical nonsense an equal footing with science is a very stupid thing to do

>>4870805
i never said it'd have to be taught in a science class. but, if a school was to have a creationist class, or something, why not?

>why must everything conform to your standards?

>>4870814

Many schools already offer classes on world religions. Creationism however is religion masquerading as science, so you couldn't have a "creationist class" (an entire class dedicated to creationism--that's not even putting it on an equal footing with evolution, that's putting it above it) without teaching it as science. Unless all you're saying is that schools should have a world religions class, in which case see the first sentence.

>>4870790
Okay. I can accept that.

I want to return to your intuition about exposure to sexual material in literature resulting in adolescents seeking sexual activity. I do not have the same intuition at all.

Let me preface by saying that there is certainly a correlation between having seen sexual content in film, literature, and other media and pursuing real-life sexual encounters. But it seems very, very likely to me that the causal chain goes the opposite direction than what you seem to assume. That is to say, adolescents who are already pursuing sex also gravitate towards media that contain sexual content.

The question which I think you need to provide an answer for is, why would an adolescent who is not pursuing sexual encounters become inclined to after reading about sex? Surely you don't imagine they aren't aware of what sex or sexuality is, and surely you don't imagine they don't already feel their own sexual desires. And I contend that their socialization with peers wields much greater influence on their disposition towards sexuality than anything else (although this might not be the case if their family explicitly taught them values about sexuality.) Given these prior factors, what in the world would this book do to them?

>>4870821
>a single class (a semester's worth)
i am not saying that all schools should have anything. i am saying that is certain schools want to teach a class on creationism (not theology, or your aptly named 'world religions' course) who gives a fuck؟ it hurts no one but themselves.

again, i ask
>why must everyone conform to your standards?

>>4870862

It hurts the kids who learn nonsense and it hurts the taxpayers who pay for kids to be miseducated. Why not offer a class on why the Earth is flat, or Reptilians control us all? Because public education doesn't exist to gratify the holders of absurd beliefs by propagating them alongside legitimate skills and knowledge.

>>4870909
firstly,
>implying the reptilians are not controling the world
>2,680-666; not knowing the reptoids are actually the khazarian ashkenazi (jews)

how is a belief in creationism hurt anyone? does is somehow make one less productive in the workplace? how would it hurt me, as a taxpayer exactly? it doesn't and wouldn't.

slightly off topicbut, the state should have no hand in education thus no hand in mandating what can, or cannot, be taught.

inb4 go back to /pol/

>>4870937

Science literacy is important for, you know, eventually getting a job and having a functioning economy with a decent amount of innovation. It's also important because living in a democracy our elected officials have a great deal of control over the regulatory regimes which direct and often stifle innovation.

> how would it hurt me, as a taxpayer exactly?

I thought I was pretty clear about that

>it hurts the taxpayers who pay for kids to be miseducated

>>4870961
i am assuming -correctly- that if one attends the sort of backward town where they would teach creationism then they probably aren't thinking of leaving the immediate vicinity.

also, you do not need to be adept in science to get a menial job, or any job outside a universities labs. hence, the economy would still function as great as it is now.

>>4869270
some guy at my ob was complaining about this, like the guy was a true hero. what an asshole

>>4870991

Social mobility is very important to modern economies so making it even more difficult for the children of the poor to improve their situation is a very stupid thing to do

> you do not need to be adept in science to get [...] any job outside a universities labs.

I just read in another thread that you're a plumber who's not doing well in university so I understand why your limited experience might make you say something so dumb but please stop

Not being a creationist does not count as being "adept in science", it's the scientific literacy equivalent of knowing your ABC's.

>>4869322
Bit graphic for anyone under 16 in my mind. Not the end of the world however.

>>4871023
>not doing well =/= doing terribly
believe me, i would have been kicked out of this private uni were i doing exceptionally bad.

besides, you forget that not everyone is going to accept this creationism. also, not everyone would be teaching it.
also, you'd have to explain what you mean by 'social mobility' because what you've implied is the reason the small town is dying and urbanized metropolitan cities are exponentially growing.

>>4870779
In other words

>I have no evidence

>>4869270
So sick of these faggots that bitch about sex in books.

>muh children!
>their innocence!

I guarantee that dude's daughter has seen pr0n more dirty than that paragraph. Enough with parent censorship. How about reading the goddamn book before your precious little snow flake does and sit down and have a conversation instead of making an ass out of yourself at a school board meeting.

No sympathy for these people. Hope he likes being bubba's bitch for a night.

>>4871244
Nope, not at all.
Therefore, YOU WIN le internet debate. congrats!

>>4871353
Do you not know how the justice system actually works, anon?

>>4871353
>I guarantee that dude's daughter has seen pr0n more dirty than that paragraph.
You can't.

> How about reading the goddamn book
They did

>Hope he likes being bubba's bitch for a night.
You are.

>>4869270
Why is a cruddy misery-lit author being assigned in schools? What happened to assigning real books?

>>4871365
Cultural Marxism

>>4871358
>You can't.
Yes I can. What 14 year old hasn't seen porn? Unless this prude parent doesn't have internet in his house.

>They did
Apparently not before his daughter did as the school forgot to send out permission slips.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/william-baer-nineteen-minutes_n_5275685.html

If this clown was so concerned over what his daughter read, then why didn't he start doing research on the book?

Also, the paragraphs in question are PG-13 at best. OMG it mentions jizz! Oh the humanity! You can listen to worse detailed shit described on an episode of Law and Order. Give me a fuckin break. This dad is a prudish attention whore.

>>4871385
>Yes I can. What 14 year old hasn't seen porn? Unless this prude parent doesn't have internet in his house.
No, you can't.

>Apparently not before his daughter did as the school forgot to send out permission slips.
So you expect clairvoyance, so parents know things before they happen, and then read schoolwork before their kids complete it?

>Also, the paragraphs in question are PG-13 at best
The MPAA would say otherwise.

Are you done trolling now? Or do you want me to pretend to be mad so you can smugly sit back and revel at your epic mischief?

>>4869718
I feel you, bro! I have an IQ of 172 myself. It's like playing with cheat codes.

>>4871396
This parent is making such a huge fuss over three paragraphs. If he were consistent, then yes he could have done research on the book because it is safe to assume that his daughter would be reading it at home. No clairvoyance needed when the book is on her desk or on the coffee table.

You haven't watched much Law and Order SVU I take it. They have episodes about kiddy porn and teenagers the girl's age participating in it for god sake.

If they can show that shit on network television, then there is no doubt in my mind that the particular paragraph would get a PG-13 rating hence why it is suggested reading for this girl's age group.

The only troll here is the stupid dad.

>>4871410
Totally. The dad's a faggot. This book is awesome.
Yay, we all agree with you!!

Are you finished?

>>4871415
I never said the book was awesome. I have never read it. It could be shit for all I know. What I am irritated with is these parents that do these stunts to get books pulled because they found something offensive in them.

I am done with explaining my frustration with this guy yes.

I don't think any book should be pulled from the shelf because that just starts an avalanche of books getting pulled for content.

>>4871422
>I don't think any book should be pulled from the shelf

You're totally right. The book did get banned. The parents didn't even want the kids reading it during their free time. Even the library is worried about their copies. Scumbags, why are they so intrusive in their kids' curriculum.

Pay the bills, sign permission slips, and just let the teachers teach.

I really wish people would stop saying "banned" when what they mean is "removed from a library, usually an elementary or high school library"

>>4871434
If you don't like it, don't say it.
Whether or not you like it is irrelevant.

A few years back my knee-jerk reaction would have been to dismiss the dad as a prude loon, but I see no reason why borderline-erotic chick-lit should be taught to impressionable people

>>4871441
>>4871441
It's not whether or not I like it, motherfucker, it's an incorrect use of the word. Like, if I called you "smart", when obviously I actually meant "retarded", it would be impossible for me to argue from my preferences that such a usage is valid. The fact is that you are retarded and calling you smart is factually wrong. Similarly, it is factually incorrect to say that any of these books are banned. It is simply wrong. And the only reason anyone does it is (a) to promote an agenda (an agenda I happen to agree with but it still annoys me) or (b) so that librarians and high school students can feel edgy.

>>4871445
It's not incorrect if everyone agrees on the meaning, and understands the meaning conveyed by the word.

>>4871450
i don't think they do or they would chill the fuck out about it

>>4871385
You're a very dangerous person.

Go back to reddit

>>4871451
>chill the fuck out about it

>>4871445
>motherfucker, it's an incorrect use
>The fact is that you are retarded
>but it still annoys me) or (b) so that librarians and high school students can feel edgy.

I think some people need to realize that their daughters aren't innocent angel virgins. If those girls aren't already giving out blowjobs and taking the dick they will be soon. You know that place called college where all good middle class children eventually go? Huge meatmarket where whatever shreds of innocence left over from highschool will soon be gone. Think of what you did, hypothetical father, in college. Every one of those sluts you and frat brothers piledrivered was someone's precious angel virgin once.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, it's just the way it is. People want to get laid, it's a natural urge. Christian morality is irrelevant. It's already been irrelevant from your life for some time now. You weren't thinking of jesus when your company laid off thousands of low income workers while you were grousing about the costs of heating an outdoor swimming pool, bitching about the scratch jimmy put on the lexus, and overcooking a steak that cost four hours' of one of your employees wages. So don't pretend to be some moral paragon.

I mean I might be projecting a little bit but the world's not going to end if some teenage girl get's plowed. Who cares?

>>4871473

>>4871475

Yes the jews made me post that. They're coming for you next.

I was only able to post this warning because Mr. Finkelthiefstien has very bad eyesight, he thinks I'm buying him a coffemaker on ebay, so take heed!

>>4871479
It's okay, I know you're just trolling.
You don't honestly believe what you wrote.

lel this is typical american behaivior. I'm from the Netherlands a place where people don't censor sex related subjects. I hear almost daily a durex commercial some people might say this is bad but statistics prove otherwise America a country where censorship is everywhere the teenage pregnancy rates are through the roof while the Netherlands has a pretty low average

>>4871550
apparently in the Netherlands they don't teach you the difference between correlation and causation.

Instead of giving me "the talk" my Dad watched watched Monty Python he Meaning of Life with me

>>4869396
>>4875319
Forgot to link

>>4875319
smart man

>>4869322
LOLZORS TO THE MAXIMUM! HAHAHAHAHHAAH

The reason why I laughed is because the author clearly wrote it to be on highschool reading lists, and the part where chad thundercock puts his hands over her mouth, was clearly shoe-horned in there to incite rabid debate about rape in highschool english classes.

Other things, mary sue turns her head when she says "I love you too". The cum stain on the carpet is symbolic for the stain of her innocence and rape, and her humiliation at having to clean it up is symbolic for oppressive patriarchy (get raped and have to clean it up).

Of course, the author threw in some descriptions to provide an opposing argument for those who want to defend Chad thundercock, that he cried and told her that he loved her, and the reason why he put his hand over her mouth, was that he didn't want her to spoil the moment.

So much deliberate debate material stuffing, so fucken shameless, so fucken hilarious.

>>4869270
The fact of the matter is that you have to be 18 to see a movie with even a moment of exposed tits in America, but violent death is PG-13 or even PG if you kill them with lasers instead of bullets.

Killing people is a fact of life, sex is disgusting and immoral. Accept it.

>>4878311
This is bait.

>>4878417

Nothing about this is bait, it's seriously the common-sense morality of American society. Why do you think the nation is so fucked up?

>>4878429
>Why do you think the nation is so fucked up?
For many other reasons than the one you mentioned.

>>4878311
violence and struggle are the great marks of a healthy peoples always striving for dominance and from that success and innovation and advancement

sex though well that just opens the door that leads to degeneracy

>>4880344
It must be a nice treat for the shee/pol/ when they get to graze on a different board.

>>4881107
redpilled, motherfucker!

>>4871040
Top kek, 16 year olds have been watching porn and masturbating for at least five years. A lot of them, if not most, have sexual experience. They also fight and steal and use drugs. They can handle the words 'pumping' and 'semen'.

>>4880344
>>4881891

Why does nobody on /pol/ understand the difference between /pol/ and the rest of the world? On /pol/, using buzzwords like 'degeneracy' and 'red-pill' makes you seem like you know what's up. Everywhere else, it makes you seem like a complete dumbass, even to those who have never even heard of /pol/.

Not hating, just trying to help.