because of the daily negative social crap in the schools. the rape on campus at the party didn't help convince me otherwise either. unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be an isolated incident. good book: Best Friends, Worst Enemies: understanding the social lives of children.

I asked for a clarification of what she knew or didn't know. That's not rude-- that's basic Discussion 101. i apologized TWICE if I was still wrong.

hey-- I *am* chilled. ;) and no, sorry, I *don't* think SWB was "perfectly clear."

I never said the intent was "evil." I said it was *deliberate*... which doesn't always equate to EVIL. ;) and I'm sure many "don't" understand why some would find content offensive. I'd say this thread is a good time to learn to look at life from another's perspective. Learn something new. :)

so you're telling me that you had NO CLUE that including those references would cause some families to squirm?? Even in a Classical Education setting? really? I find that incredibly hard to believe. I do find it more believable that "well, since the other texts include this too, I'll just follow suit and they'll have to deal with the disclaimers." Sometimes we do simply make choices that we know will be offensive to some....and decide that we're still in the right to do so for whatever reason. Now if you literally had NO CLUE WHATSOEVER that including those quotes would cause offence, then i do indeed apologize. However, that would give me great pause as to what you do and do not realize about your audience and general American Christian culture/ societal morals. Just because we're adults doesn't mean we appreciate that sort of content via "direct quotations" in a general history text that uses narrative elsewhere -- for ourselves, OR our kids. That we choose to study a few texts that do include sexual content doesn't mean we're asking to wallow in it [as another poster mentioned]. And it's actually been by watching discussions *here* over the years that I know for a fact that many parents 1. Aren't familiar w/ what's contained in the "Great Books" since they are JUST starting out in highschool; and 2. Aren't always fast enough readers to keep up w/ pre-reading We can't change what's in the Bible and other texts... we *can* use tact in what we include for a 14yo. and yes, we CAN "possibly know intentions" when we have a LOT of facts lined up from years of observation. but I'll repeat: if you literally had NO CLUE WHATSOEVER that including those quotes would cause offence, then i do indeed apologize.

:iagree: but I rarely have buyer's remorse. :D

loss of freedom= when we are forced to give up our money for policies we don't support. The loss of freedom isn't from the seniors, but from those funding it. Some of us prefer to seek our own healthcare rather than force everyone else to pay for it. Not everything that "works efficiently" is necessarily right and moral. and ok, since i got suckered into a resurrected thread, i'll go back and see what I said before, lol.....

well, sure... and the rest of us sit here scratching our heads wondering "then if it's so darn great, structure a voluntary UHC for those who want their money going to it." I'm not quite seeing how it's humane/compassionate to forcibly take money from people, but then again, I understand that a Really Big gilded cage w/ great furnishings can be quite desirable for some. I just have a problem forcing everyone to participate. If we're such a rich nation, then what's stopping the wealthier supporters of this from setting up a voluntary system??:confused:

:iagree: and Xander, if a parent is just starting to get into Classical Education, reads TWTM, loves it, but still hasn't started reading all those other books [that they are likely UNfamiliar with] and instead decides to start w/ a general overview [like the text in question] then they will have very little context to operate on when it comes to this. in the HP analogy: A: If I RECOMMEND a copy of Harry Potter to someone I know is a fundamentalist baptist. B: SWB RECOMMENDS a copy of HOAW to someone she knows is offended by any mention of sexual relations. I removed the "surprise" bit because as my analogy was meant to inform..... I would KNOW BETTER than to do that: there would be absolutely no surprise, and to my knowledge, SWB hasn't expressed any surprise. i don't expect her to. personally, it sounds like you're going to a lot of work to uh, pitch a fit, about the semantics of an analogy, but I hope the clarification above helps in your understanding. ;) "I can't see a reason why SWB should've expected anyone to ignore her advice about parental discretion and then come here to slate her for that." REGARDLESS the vague disclaimers given, SWB-- as a *known Christian* [regardless the secular publisher] and HIGHLY REPUTED homeschool author is deliberately including explicit sexual content that SHE KNOWS many-- manyMany MANY -- deem inappropriate. i do expect good leaders to be more in tune w/ their constituents. per your apologia scenario: "and without bothering to find out what sort of content is likely to be contained in it," We aren't talking about differences in definitions. NOBODY is denying that SWB is including explicit statements about sexual acts. And yes, you probably are pretty new at this, cuz there have been LOTS of public, heated debates about Apologia, even on Apologia forums. ;) And Apologia hasn't changed much, lol. History shows the best place to air a grievance that likely won't be addressed to your satisfaction is a public discussion board... that way at least others who are likeminded can find out more about it. You said: There's a big problem with the insinuation that SWB deliberately produced something that she knew would cause offence and that she didn't give people ample opportunity to make an informed decision about using it with their kids until they were right in the middle of reading it aloud. It's the bolded part that i take issue with. You're right -- it *is* a big problem. I'm not insinuating it-- I'm saying it right out. She deliberately produced something that she knew would cause offence. Whether the discovery came while reading it aloud or during pre-reading is irrelevant-- this is designed and recommended for 14yo kids. I've given examples how sexual instances in history could be handled w/o direct quotes. Shoot-- that's not a new novel idea that I came up with-- people way smarter than i have been able to explain sexual issues w/o resorting to direct quotes for some time now w/o sacrificing intellectual integrity or academic excellence. She opted not to do that. As you showed in your examples above: We think the texts and programs we've settled on are the best available, SWB/JW are up front about what their criteria are for selecting resources. Academic excellence is first on that list. Avoidance of mature content doesn't feature. This one is the Best!! Recommended by a great lady at the top of her field! Who wouldn't want to take her advice? NOWHERE does she even hint at offering direct quotes about explicit sexual acts that even students ready for "mature content" might /might not be ready for. NOWHERE in her disclaimers is that even addressed. Nothing about "mature content" for a 14yo and their family who might be just starting the foray into Classical Education. Here we have "thoroughness" at the top of the list and, again, no mention of avoiding [or specifically including] sexual references or other mature content. With thoroughness as a deciding factor, one should be aware that this means there are likely to be fewer omissions in the suggested resources than in some other texts. fewer omissions... of what?? We're teaching minor children, most of whom aren't even of legal age to consent to the acts being explicitly described. Myself and others have already laid out what "fewer omissions" tends to look like: more in depth study of political science, economics, strategy, etc. There's a LOT of just BASIC history that is left out of most texts. THAT's the kind of stuff I tend to expect "more" of. i absolutely encourage someone to sit down and give chapter and verse where the sexual instances are as a better heads-up for parents who simply DON't have the time to pre-read everything, but still want quality texts for their kids. It's not the first time something like that has been done. As i mentioned before-- Focus on the Family has done an admirable job sifting through *known issues* and posting them in a matter-of-fact manner for parents to make a better judgement w/o wasting hours and hours of precious time. But then again, Hollywood is KNOWN for producing material that [even if "accurate"] flies in the face of most families' morals. SWB is NOT. yet she did. :glare: and while we might get caught up in the semantics of how someone said what, i do hope that we can be a little bit more discerning and understand the meaning behind the asterisks, instead of focusing on the asterisks themselves. ;)

according to Mrs. Mungo.... I will simply suggest More Rum. ;)

:svengo: Bill... you REALLY need to rephrase that... please!??:lol:

well that's all fine and dandy, but the OP obviously felt this was the best way to handle it. i tend to agree with her after watching for 10 years the way SWB handles other concerns. ;) maybe, but since *I* was very clearly addressing the "Nanny State" comment, then my assertion needs to be read in that context. I was still addressing the Nanny State comment. back to the difference between wanting the gvt to handle it vs handling it in the private sector. you missed the analogy. The whole point is that this specific book is a referral and ADVISED as part of a curriculum. Big diff from just buying a book. Now if the Baptist had bought HP on a recommendation from a Baptist Seminary and felt offended, then yes, i think you'd have a good analogy. since there are a lot.... A LOT... of high school level ancient history texts out there that don't stoop to quoting primary sources of explicit sexual language, then i'd say that YES, there IS an implied trust, and a pretty secure expectation that this book fails to meet. and again-- if you think SWB has "no reason" to even consider thinking these quotes would be a problem, you haven't read many of her responses the last 10 years. Again: she's a pretty bright gal. She knows the score, and she knows the community. Very Well. You did say: But one might expect them to be able to make such decisions without condemning the book on a forum hosted by the author and publisher. Why would one "expect" that someone can't condemn a book if they feel it crossed basic boundaries? The opposite is quite true: you seek out the author's forum [if it exists] and post there. That's how you get responses closest to the author's intentions. part of discussion may very well be condemnation. again: SWB *knows* this. She's dealt with this kind of stuff for over ten years and continues to host this forum anyway.

Not that I'm a prominent Libertarian, but.... I agree w/ a pathway to citizenship. We have it. It's called Legal Immigration. ;) If you want to discuss AMNESTY for ILLEGAL aliens you might want to rephrase "pathway to citizenship."

while I am not a liberal homeschooler, I will chime in and say it IS worth it and it IS important to show the diversity in homeschooling. I moderate a secular yahoogroup that is 100% inclusive. the key words I put on the page are designed to scare off anyone that thinks this is a Christian-only or conservative-only group. While I am Christian, and generally conservative [w/ a heavy leaning to libertarian], we homeschool for secular reasons, and many of my own ideas wrt politics/ religion tend to leave me out of many circles: 100% pro-life [anti-death penalty regardless the age of the human] pro-equal rights [dump any secular "marriage" definition] fiscally conservative not debating the YE/OE thing or baptism/communion issue I've received heated emails from local homeschoolers baffled as to why a Christian could even consider starting such an 'ungodly' group, and we've had churches refuse to let us meet. So we're just a very active networking group that has classes at the library, parks, and via 4-H. I gotta say, 4-H has opened a LOT of doors for us... anyway, YES, I think it is worth it to speak up and be counted. :) and to answer the other question that came up, "labels" are just shorthand for learning about people. They are a starting place, not a definition of the whole person. I appreciate it when people introduce themselves with some descriptives... it lets me know what is important to THEM.

we refer to this site a LOT. :)

eta: clarification.... I wasn't talking about a public forum vs a private forum, I was talking about mandatory gvt regulations vs the private sector [accountability/voluntary policies]. This forum is still a private sector entity. ;) Why send a private message to PHP, especially when "other posters" agree there's no action PHP should take? That's obviously not going to help the situation, and indeed posting her disapproval on a PUBLIC *discussion* forum has also helped OTHER posters who agree w/ the OP. Either way, it's still a private individual making a personal request vs the gvt requiring something. Why is it not "fair" to say that SWB was "bound to know" it would cause conflict? Are you telling me that someone as studied in history and homeschooling would be so ignorant as to think that including those direct-quote sexual snippets would NOT cause conflict? really? That makes about as much sense as me handing Harry Potter to a fundamentalist baptist and then saying "gee-- how was I to know they would get offended." Come on..... SWB is way smarter than that. She's been around the block a few times with this homeschool controversy/styles/ and stuff. She knew. This forum is not here to be a lovefest of minions either. ;) I believe that SWB has already made her statement about allowing people to disagree with her books, since not everything she writes isn't conducive for everyone. So the OP posting *about the book* on a forum designed to discuss *the author's books* makes a whole lotta sense.

off topic...... but it does go to show that the circumcision practiced wasn't some tiny little nick. ;) It was also voluntary.

I won't be buying the book, but not for the last bolded part. ;) If the book is not ENTIRELY direct quotes from primary source material, then why would there be some sort of unprofessionalism or lack of academic integrity in offering a narration of sexual instances instead of quoting directly? Saying that we need those direct quotes when so much other material is paraphrased is illogical and disingenuous. The direct quote does little to truly enhance the study of *history.* Leave it for a deeper topic in a human sexuality class. and YES-- I can find lists online that show where the tougher sexual passages are in the Bible. I don't choose those as read alouds for my children, although we do discuss them in ADULT classes. When my kids come across those passages, I either explain them in a matter-of-fact manner or ask them to set those passages aside until they are a bit older -- Lord knows there's plenty of other material to study in the Bible than sex. ;) on one hand the Bible is completely twisted to say "hm, I fancy her, think I'll send her hubby into the front lines so that I can get into her pants." and then a basic premise is offered like: "references to the fact that some ancient Greek men paired up with other men" It is my understanding that even Fundamentalists understand the need for historical perspective like that offered directly above. But to offer direct quotes about sexual acts is simply not necessary for a high school text. Sure- if YOU wanna go there, fine. Now as to the Nanny State comment, there seems to be big misunderstanding: NANNY STATE involves THE GOVERNMENT stepping in and policing stuff. Here, we have a private individual requesting another private individual to willingly offer more heads-up about sexual commentary that the author is bound to know would cause conflict. I'm not against offering something that will understandably cause conflict, [ ;) ] but when I am advising other homeschoolers I try to be as objective in my reviews as possible. The independent review sites like Focus on the Family come to mind: I might not personally care that someone is smoking or a particular reference was made, but it's nice to know they are doing a thorough job. I would suggest the OP and others set up an independent site complete w/ paragraph context and page numbers on things that other parents might want to know about. I disagree that a high school student "should" be ready for this type of discussion -- while 14 may be a young man, it *is* still a CHILD. A minor whose brain isn't even fully developed according to scientific standards. There's a LOT of political science, political theory, global economics throughout the ages, and a LOT of other historical perspective that can be discussed and learned w/o resorting to snippeting sexual innuendo at the high school level. waaaay more than lists of rulers and dates and events. :) The good news is that SWB isn't the only resource for a true classical education. While I appreciate what she has done, there's more than one way to skin a cat.... or teach a kid.

I believe it is absolutely accurate, regardless whether one defends YE/OE. What I doubt is man's interpretation of God's Word. I liked the God/ shabby chic analogy, lol. God is not a Deceiver-- Proverbs 25:2. He is an artist and a scientist, and He mixes both with an amazing, accurate, and creative ingenuity. :D

we don't know that at all. huh. i find the reverse to be unnatural and icky. -------------------- I voted "when they are ready to get married" for many of the reasons already stated. my oldest is 16 and doesn't date, per house rules [above]. He has plenty of group activities w/ members of the opposite sex, but doesn't feel the pressure of the dating scene yet. I really appreciate the ability to mitigate the negative BoyGirl social crap as homeschoolers.

I remember watching a movie about "Thomasina" at school about 3d grade and really liking it...

maybe a subscription to a cat magazine? there's usually lots of neat stories and humor in those, as well as lots of factual stuff.... and cool pics, I'm sure. :)

:iagree: we call that the Do-Be-Do-Be-Do passage. ;) Aubrey, i think i get it too, and it's spot on. :)

:lol: :iagree:

I thought your comment [that I saw] was fine, and would agree with it. ;) as I said: stereotypical doesn't equal guaranteed. :)