"Quietly devastating", "Brutally engrossing" Why are these appealing book reviews?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, that is just it. I didn't think the OP was such an "extreme position," especially for a hs forum where parents are likely to be more in tune than avarage to what content their children read.

 

But I also learned a long time ago that the word "disgusting" strikes some people with a lot more force than it strikes me. So maybe that has something to do with it.

 

Proclaiming there is something disgusting about all literature, music, and movies aimed at "young girls" is a bit extreme.

[goldberry]

Proclaiming there is something disgusting about all literature, music, and movies aimed at "young girls" is a bit extreme.

 

Yeah, good thing that's not what she said.

[Guest]

Proclaiming there is something disgusting about all literature, music, and movies aimed at "young girls" is a bit extreme.

I simply didn't hear it that way. I didn't hear it as decrying every single bit of literature targeted to the young. I heard it as a frustrated mom who possibly spend an hour looking for media for her girls, but finding a lot of stuff she didn't think was suitable. Personally, I have felt the same frustration trying to load up our Netflix que with movies that we can watch as a whole family. Inevitably, I trade off a lot on language or other themes I am not thrilled with for youngest Ds.

[Scarlett]

Orthodox, your description of placing the burden of responsible sexuality for young people growing up in your church, while not at all how I would want to raise my kids specifically, is decidedly not slut-shaming IMHO, because you spoke clearly about the burden being on both girls and boys. The OP talked about sensuality being a concern specifically for girls, as if it's not one for boys, thus bringing that term into the conversation. It's uneven application of expectations that makes it slut shaming, not the idea that sex is okay.

I am pretty sure the OP was talking about girls bcause she is raising girls.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yeah, good thing that's not what she said.

 

"Call me a fuddy duddy, old fashioned or prudish but the sensuality, occult and downright violent nature of books, music and movies has me worried about our young girls.  What in the world are we teaching them as a society?"

 

Seems pretty clear based on this and one of her other posts.

[Carol in Cal.]

I have issues with normalization of increasingly early exposure to various types of adult themes no matter what the context is.  And by 'adult' I don't mean specifically sexual stuff, but also just the idea that *any* close relationship more or less has to be romantic.

 

I didn't like it when my DD was asked fairly provocatively BY AN ADULT whether she had a boyfriend at age 5.  I didn't like it when her innocent friendship with a boy at age 6 received a lot of teasing FROM ADULTS because she and the boy held hands for about a minute, visibly.  I didn't like it when her best friend in 4th grade (a boy) and she were criticized for enjoying talking to each other, because they weren't both girls or boys.

 

In general I think our society is pretty incompetent when it comes to encouraging friendships.  We seem to mostly envision them as either familial or romantic.  That's a limited, sometimes sick view of things, and it fragments us, to our detriment.  It's a shame.  Then in order to make things interesting, we have to sensationalize them further, with weird themes like occult or sadistic stuff.  

 

A good parent will ask the question, "What good does it do for my kid to fill their head up with this?" to a lot of pop culture ATM.

 

 

[Orthodox6]

Making up a definition doesn't make it the secondary definition of a word.

Precisely my thought about a recent legal decision.

[Joanne]

I have issues with normalization of increasingly early exposure to various types of adult themes no matter what the context is. And by 'adult' I don't mean specifically sexual stuff, but also just the idea that *any* close relationship more or less has to be romantic.

 

I didn't like it when my DD was asked fairly provocatively BY AN ADULT whether she had a boyfriend at age 5. I didn't like it when her innocent friendship with a boy at age 6 received a lot of teasing FROM ADULTS because she and the boy held hands for about a minute, visibly. I didn't like it when her best friend in 4th grade (a boy) and she were criticized for enjoying talking to each other, because they weren't both girls or boys.

 

In general I think our society is pretty incompetent when it comes to encouraging friendships. We seem to mostly envision them as either familial or romantic. That's a limited, sometimes sick view of things, and it fragments us, to our detriment. It's a shame. Then in order to make things interesting, we have to sensationalize them further, with weird themes like occult or sadistic stuff.

 

A good parent will ask the question, "What good does it do for my kid to fill their head up with this?" to a lot of pop culture ATM.

I like this post.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am pretty sure the OP was talking about girls bcause she is raising girls.

 

I think you are correct.

[Orthodox6]

I like this post.

I do, too.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Precisely my thought about a recent legal decision.

 

A union of two consenting adults.  Seems the same to me.  Nice thread derail though.

 

BTW, go back and read 6pack's "secondary definition" (as you described it) of slut shaming.  You do realize she is complaining because some don't believe girls should be called sluts.  Do you believe that is a word that is ever appropriate to describe any other female?

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I have issues with normalization of increasingly early exposure to various types of adult themes no matter what the context is.  And by 'adult' I don't mean specifically sexual stuff, but also just the idea that *any* close relationship more or less has to be romantic.

 

I didn't like it when my DD was asked fairly provocatively BY AN ADULT whether she had a boyfriend at age 5.  I didn't like it when her innocent friendship with a boy at age 6 received a lot of teasing FROM ADULTS because she and the boy held hands for about a minute, visibly.  I didn't like it when her best friend in 4th grade (a boy) and she were criticized for enjoying talking to each other, because they weren't both girls or boys.

 

In general I think our society is pretty incompetent when it comes to encouraging friendships.  We seem to mostly envision them as either familial or romantic.  That's a limited, sometimes sick view of things, and it fragments us, to our detriment.  It's a shame.  Then in order to make things interesting, we have to sensationalize them further, with weird themes like occult or sadistic stuff.  

 

A good parent will ask the question, "What good does it do for my kid to fill their head up with this?" to a lot of pop culture ATM.

 

I think that is a fair criticism of even adult movies and books.  Some seem to think every male/female relationship has to evolve into a romantic one, which I personally think has ruined many movies/books/television shows.

 

[Scarlett]

"Call me a fuddy duddy, old fashioned or prudish but the sensuality, occult and downright violent nature of books, music and movies has me worried about our young girls. What in the world are we teaching them as a society?"

 

Seems pretty clear based on this and one of her other posts.

Because she has girls. I think about how this junk affects young boys. Bcause I have boys. Doesn't mean I blane one or the other or either of the sexes.

[goldberry]

  You do realize she is complaining because some don't believe girls should be called sluts.  Do you believe that is a word that is ever appropriate to describe any other female?

 

 

No, she was not.

 

She was referring to people who hold moral values for themselves and for their daughters being called slut-shamers when they are doing nothing of the kind.

 

You are seriously inserting some baggage onto other people's comments.

[goldberry]

Proclaiming there is something disgusting about all literature, music, and movies aimed at "young girls" is a bit extreme.

 

 

"Call me a fuddy duddy, old fashioned or prudish but the sensuality, occult and downright violent nature of books, music and movies has me worried about our young girls.  What in the world are we teaching them as a society?"

 

Seems pretty clear based on this and one of her other posts.

 

 

Would you like to locate the word "all" in that quote?  Because I must be missing it.  

[Guest]

It means that if you don't want your daughter to be a slut--have tons of casual sex with multiple, uncommitted partners--and SAY so, then you're a meanie.

Pretty much.

 

There is a ton of great YA and much of it I think is better suited toward the 18 and up crowd. I enjoy a lot of YA now as an adult, actually. It's one of my favorite genres. And much of it isn't something I'd let a twelve or fifteen year old child of mine read.

 

This is where asking their interests and then reading the reviews carefully and directing them to some solid authors is good. A little sex and violence? Fine. I'm not that much of a prude with teens. But a fair bit of it is pornographic and gratuitous and that's where I draw the line, myself.

 

And this goes for boys and girls.

 

I worry more about girls and literature and boys and visual media. But I guard both sexes of children similarly in trying to lead them to quality material while teaching discernment and self control as is age appropriate for their understanding AND inevitable peer exposure.

 

/prude

[Guest]

Because she has girls. I think about how this junk affects young boys. Bcause I have boys. Doesn't mean I blane one or the other or either of the sexes.

Goodness, yes. The OP is the mother of girls and speaking for that perspective. But way to read into it a whole lot of drama for no reason, hive. Sheesh.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Would you like to locate the word "all" in that quote?  Because I must be missing it.  

 

It isn't there, but the sentence is structured to imply it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Because she has girls. I think about how this junk affects young boys. Bcause I have boys. Doesn't mean I blane one or the other or either of the sexes.

 

I have no idea why you directed this to me.  I agree that the OP centered the discussion on girls because she has girls, and I don't see anything wrong with that part of what she said.

[Wabi Sabi]

Backtracking to the original post, I'm still sitting here scratching my head and trying to figure out why the description of a story as "quietly devastating" means it's  disgusting and lacking in propriety.

[Scarlett]

I have no idea why you directed this to me. I agree that the OP centered the discussion on girls because she has girls, and I don't see anything wrong with that part of what she said.

Probably because you were the last post up....not singling you out.

 

The OP is getting picked on for slut shaming and I see nothing of the kind in her post.

 

 

I hate that stupid term any way.

[Scarlett]

Oh my gosh, an erotica addiction from YA fiction ? I read Anais Nin** as a teenager, and ended up with...well, not with an addiction. Sorry. I think the general tone of 'YA will ruin our girls' is ridiculous.

 

There are many valid criticisms of YA fiction - getting addicted to erotica and turning into 'a slut who sleeps with multiple casual partners' isn't one of them.

 

Find me ONE peer reviewed study implicating the reading of YA fiction with promiscuity or porn addiction.

 

**much more effective as erotica than any YA book I can think of.

Peer review? Really? Do you make every parenting decision based upon peer review? I homeschool because public school was not good for me. I don't have a peer review for that and time will tell if it was the best choice for ds.

 

The printed world is very powerful. Especially for young girls.

[Word Nerd]

Why would someone need to post a peer-reviewed study to support her own personal experience?

[Carol in Cal.]

There are many valid criticisms of YA fiction - getting addicted to erotica and turning into 'a slut who sleeps with multiple casual partners' isn't one of them.

Sadie, I'm surprised to see you questioning the previous poster's direct experience.  It might not be yours, but it's hers.  This doesn't sound like you.

[unsinkable]

Oh my gosh, an erotica addiction from YA fiction ? I read Anais Nin** as a teenager, and ended up with...well, not with an addiction. Sorry. I think the general tone of 'YA will ruin our girls' is ridiculous. 

 

There are many valid criticisms of YA fiction - getting addicted to erotica and turning into 'a slut who sleeps with multiple casual partners' isn't one of them.

 

Find me ONE peer reviewed study implicating the reading of YA fiction with promiscuity or porn addiction.

 

**much more effective as erotica than any YA book I can think of.

 

That poster said she had unrestricted access to reading material, not that it was YA fiction that caused her addiction.

 

I would guess it was the po r n that caused her p o rn habit.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Oh my gosh, an erotica addiction from YA fiction ?

She didn't say whether it was YA or adult books that led to the problem, just a generic mention of "unrestricted" reading material. As far as I can tell, the YA genre has exploded since most of us were teens. (Correct me if if I am wrong.) So I think it's better to assume she meant adult novels, not YA.

[goldberry]

There is no association between YA reading and addiction to erotica.If anyone wants me to take seriously an assertion that such a link exists in any YA reader, they'd better show me the study. Otherwise, and to steal CR's best phrase, I call shenanigans.

 

There is a lot to criticize about YA in my opinion. Scaring mothers into thinking it will turn their daughters into porn addicted sluts isn't in the ballpark of genuine critique.

 

She was relating her personal experience, just as you have done many times and are free to do.  To take a personal experience and turn it into  "Scaring mothers into thinking it will turn their daughters into porn addicted sluts "  is what is extreme.

 

And whether or not the literature was "young adult", she was discussing how reading certain content *as a young adult* affected *her* (no, not everyone, which is why she doesn't need a STUDY) , which is relevant.

 

Good grief .... nuances, anyone?  Lots of straw men flying around.  

[unsinkable]

If she isn't talking about YA the 'association' is irrelevant to this thread, and the poster ought not to be confusing pornography with YA fiction.

 

But hey, if we're going to go with irrelevant personal 'associations', my daughters and I had access to unrestricted reading material ( unless that's a code word for porn, in which case I did and my girls don't ) and we didn't end up with an erotica addiction. I mean, gosh, I read Flowers in the Attic along with every other 13 year old girl in my class, and we didn't end up turning to our siblings for a good time either.

 

 

To be honest, all I remember about that book is powdered doughnuts. I guess I know what to blame for my baked goods addiction...

 

You remembered more than powdered doughnuts since you referenced another major plot point...

[Minerva]

I get what I think the OP was trying to say. It can sometimes be hard to find good literature for the younglings.

 

However, I read a lot of trash when I was a kid. Tons of it. I had free reign over my parent's bookshelves which included some wonderful books and some serious crap. I read it all voraciously. As I got older I became more discerning and now read mostly good (and great) books. For the record,  I don't do drugs. I don't sleep around. I don't kill people, suck blood, or do any of the things that quietly devastated people do. I am actually boring and could probably liven up my life a little if I just had access to my parent's 1980's bookshelf again. 

 

OP I hope you find what works for your family. 

[Love]

.

 

 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[Guest]

Oh my gosh, an erotica addiction from YA fiction ? I read Anais Nin** as a teenager, and ended up with...well, not with an addiction. Sorry. I think the general tone of 'YA will ruin our girls' is ridiculous.

 

There are many valid criticisms of YA fiction - getting addicted to erotica and turning into 'a slut who sleeps with multiple casual partners' isn't one of them.

 

Find me ONE peer reviewed study implicating the reading of YA fiction with promiscuity or porn addiction.

 

**much more effective as erotica than any YA book I can think of.

That may have been poor sentence structure on my part - I had unrestricted reading access, I ended up with a huge, difficult, life affecting issue. I didn't read much YA as a young adult, but I read a lot of it these days for enjoyment. It's a way to enjoy excellent fiction without as much adult content. There are a few authors I cannot believe were able to be billed for that age range, but that's another argument. The mainstream YA stuff still seems more suited to late high school or college aged readers than middle school, by and large.

[Guest]

:)

[Guest]

Depends on the YA, I suppose. Even books ranked as fairly mild (Evermore and similar) have more sexual content and dark themes than I'd let my kids get ahold of before about 16. Not to mention really unhealthy relationships. That's a staple in YA and it absolutely affects how these men and women approach real world relationships. Life isn't a romance novel or a porno, but you're kidding yourself if you think those things don't influence the subconscious perceptions of the people consuming them.

 

I might have a very sensitive conscience to content these days, but I would absolutely rather encourage my children to moderation until they're adult enough to discern and handle this well, themselves. It's for their protection until maturity, not a punishment.

[Stacia]

Not sure if this is completely on topic or not, but I'm curious what books these quotes were describing. I can think of two (great) books I've read that would fit the quoted descriptions...

 

"Quietly devastating" makes me think of when I read The Book Thief (marketed to the adult market in the author's home country of Australia, marketed in the US for the YA market). It's a quiet tale, imo, as it is about a childhood, a friendship, an 'assembled' family; devastating in that it takes place during the brutal years of WWII & from the viewpoint/side of the characters being German & being a part of the Hitler Youth; they also help a Jewish man who is hiding. It's a powerful book, made me bawl in parts, & devastated me a bit by the time I was done. I don't always want books that will rip a piece of my heart out, but sometimes there is a shared history & humanity we must know, must remember. It's a beautiful tale, even though it's one that is hard to read.

 

"Brutally engrossing" makes me think of No Country for Old Men. The story, to be sure, is brutal from beginning to end. Really brutal. I wasn't sure I would be able to take reading it. But, the writing & the storytelling are masterful. It explores some really dark areas, including the dark side of man (one of the most common topics regularly examined in literature throughout the ages). Despite the brutality, I was riveted. It's a powerful book & I loved it.

 

I guess I don't see why those descriptors, in & of themselves, would necessarily be a reason to avoid a story. Anyway... just my two cents on why I might read (& love) books with those descriptors.

[Guest]

Excellent books, both of them! And neither has the kind of content I'd censor from my kids, though I agree that NCFOM, in particular, is pushing the line on intense and violent for what I'd want my crew reading. By high school both would be fine, though I think adults can better appreciate the complexities and nuance.

[Guest]

I loved the writing style. Every word was intentional. The first thirty pages were masterful.

 

LOVE!

[Shellydon]

Was looking for some young adult audiobooks on scribd during my free trial and came across these descriptors.

 

Okay, I'm going to admit it.  I am disgusted by the lack of propriety displayed publicly of late.

 

Call me a fuddy duddy, old fashioned or prudish but the sensuality, occult and downright violent nature of books, music and movies has me worried about our young girls.  What in the world are we teaching them as a society?

 

I am sorry people are being so snotty and rude to you. 

 

I agree with you.  I don't let my daughters read that stuff either.  When my son is old enough, it will be on the banned list too. 

[Tanaqui]

She was referring to people who hold moral values for themselves and for their daughters being called slut-shamers when they are doing nothing of the kind.

 

Did you just say that people who don't agree with you don't have moral values for themselves and their children?

 

Anyway, wrenching this comment back onto the original topic, there is no earthly way that what's coming out today is any worse than what we happily passed around when I was a kid. I knew at least one girl who was obsessed with Flowers in the Attic, for one, and you don't get more violent than that. Carrie? Fear Street?

 

Since the invention of mass produced paperbacks, people have been convinced that young people aren't reading enough, and that what they're reading is of poor quality and deleterious to their moral health. Many books we now call classics for young people - like Jack London's books - were derided as "trash" in their day.

 

And while the adults have made generally overwrought pleas about the children, those same children have done what they pleased and gone about the business of growing up, more or less unharmed.

[J-rap]

My biggest issue regarding all of this is that I would rather fill my children's brains with something positive or inspiring, not dark and confusing.  Of course there are exceptions, and Charles Dickens' novels can certainly be dark, but I love them.  I guess the question then is are you learning something positive from it... Are you being inspired somehow to rise above a situation and do the right thing?  I lean toward books that build character, and that provide positive and strong role models for boys and girls.

[albeto.]

"You don't know the term slut shaming?"

 

No, I don't.

just ignore the thread, my goodness. 

 

Don't worry. It's a new term for someone every day. :) 

 

The first time I used it here, people dog piled me for using a term "no one" had ever heard of. Not only had no one ever heard of it, I was assured, but it was a meaningless term that wouldn't mean anything to anyone, even people who worked with teen girls for 40 years. Or something.

 

Anyway, it's worth knowing. I don't mean the term necessarily, but the concept. It's a really important concept that has been identified as a huge problem in a lot of ways, to a lot of different people. From extremes like blaming rape on wearing provocative clothing, to scoffing at providing affordable artificial birth control as a viable medical and social solution to prevent unwanted pregnancy, to bullying in schools, to self-hate that leads to behaviors like anorexia or cutting or drinking or running away from home. It's really important, I think, to understand that while you may not approve of certain behaviors, your daughters and their friends may not ultimately share your opinions. If you provide an environment that is free from hostility, you're more likely to raise self-confident, well adjusted young women, even if you don't fully agree on such moral choices. Having appropriate social skills and effective problem solving techniques will do more for your daughters than relying on fear to avoid certain undesirable events.

 

It means that if you don't want your daughter to be a slut--have tons of casual sex with multiple, uncommitted partners--and SAY so, then you're a meanie.

 

To the OP, this quote above is a great example of a subtle form of "slut-shaming," or if you don't prefer that word, hostility towards women who do not share "the right" opinions. The idea that women who have and enjoy sexual experiences outside conventional parameters (heterosexual, within the confines of religious marriage, intent on having and raising children, formerly of the same race if not same religion) are "sluts" is a tactic used to apply social pressure to condition women to not have sex outside conventional parameters. The problems with applying social pressure in this manner is many.

 

For one, there's no evidence that suggests sex inside conventional parameters is an identifiable variable in the well being of an individual or society in general. There are simply too many other variables at play, such as the learned value of sex, level of guilt, expectations of relationship, unwanted pregnancy, society's approach to sexuality, etc, etc, etc. We can see studies that contrast Americans in highly religious cultures against Americans in secular cultures and find surprising results (like those in highly religious settings are more likely to watch porn, produce unwed teen mothers, and share STD's). We can see this around the world, too (juxtaposing northern Europe with middle eastern cultures, for example).

 

Another problem is the kind of self identity developed when one engages in a behavior that is correlated with a lot of guilt. Because sex is a biological drive, it's hard to simply strengthen one's will power. We know this isn't effective (reference the porn, unwanted pregnancies, and STDs). To do that to a young woman who is learning how to identify herself as a budding sexual person in addition to the kind of person she already sees herself as / desires to be, is adding a measure of unjustified stress. It can be traumatic emotionally, and that's simply abusive. Surely no one *wants* to abuse their children, but one must know what to avoid if she wants to provide a healthy environment for her children. 

 

Anyway, it's not as cut and dried as many people would like to make it appear. There's information for those who are interested. 

[albeto.]

Did you just say that people who don't agree with you don't have moral values for themselves and their children?

 

 

Thank you for asking this question. I am curious as well.

 

Anyway, wrenching this comment back onto the original topic, there is no earthly way that what's coming out today is any worse than what we happily passed around when I was a kid. I knew at least one girl who was obsessed with Flowers in the Attic, for one, and you don't get more violent than that. Carrie? Fear Street?

 

Since the invention of mass produced paperbacks, people have been convinced that young people aren't reading enough, and that what they're reading is of poor quality and deleterious to their moral health. Many books we now call classics for young people - like Jack London's books - were derided as "trash" in their day.

 

And while the adults have made generally overwrought pleas about the children, those same children have done what they pleased and gone about the business of growing up, more or less unharmed.

 

Apparently my childhood years were the last "decent" generation because "kids these days" don't have the same respect for morals, work ethics, authority, anything really, like they did when we were kids. That would come as a shock for my parents, and other adults of that era, as heavy metal albums, and then Mtv had corrupted the youth of America, ushering in Satanism and a complete disregard for tradition and common decency. For my parents' generation, it was the Beatles and their ilk. In my grandparents' day it was women who refused to stay home after a taste of autonomy as the work force moving off to battles in Europe and the war in the Pacific allowed for women to work in new fields all over the nation. In their parents' day it was those evil penny dreadfuls. 

 

In other words, same song, next verse. A little bit louder and a little bit worse.  ;-) 

[Laurie]

 

 

 

To the OP, this quote above is a great example of a subtle form of "slut-shaming," or if you don't prefer that word, hostility towards women who do not share "the right" opinions.

 

 . To do that to a young woman who is learning how to identify herself as a budding sexual person in addition to the kind of person she already sees herself as / desires to be, is adding a measure of unjustified stress. It can be traumatic emotionally, and that's simply abusive. Surely no one *wants* to abuse their children, but one must know what to avoid if she wants to provide a healthy environment for her children.  

 

Aren't you showing hostility towards women who do not share your views when you accuse them of being abusive and talk to them like you are Miss Manners with the whole "one must know what to avoid if she wants to provide a healthy environment for her children"  ?  

 

What kind of shaming is this...saint shaming? 

 

[momee]

I had no idea at all what I was entering into upon posting this thread.

 

I am raising daughters only.  As far as "slut shaming" the only reason I didn't mention boys was because my now grown son is off and on his own and I no longer am responsible for helping choose his literature.  I find it hard to believe the heated argument came from such an innocent statement of mine, so someone obviously is very sensitive to the subject and for that I respectfully apologize for the impression I gave.

 

I found the other statement I responded about unnecessarily snarky - and if I misread that and should have taken it as respectful disagreement, I again apologize

 

There seriously should be a general rule that we give each other the benefit of the doubt before attacking.  Things have sure changed around here in the past 8- 10 years in that regard.  We haven't always gotten along or agreed but in my experience, there has (almost) always been a desire to share knowledge for the sake of helping each other grow.

 

Yes, it may offend some that I don't want my girls who are going to one day be women reading about cutting, sex, abuse, violence, bullying etc in a way that glamorizes it and no I'm not banning everything that is negative but some stuff is just too much and I don't see the need to glamorize evil.  I could have worded the OP better, point taken.  But I do have a right to that opinion - just as - say albeto - has a right to hers/his.  I don't agree and am not going to take a point by point rebuttal but I am surely not going to respond with an attitude of...I don't know.  

 

I again apologize and have learned a great deal about stating my opinion.

 

 

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

OP, I skipped a lot of YA and introduced my kids to some really good but clean adult books.  For example, my kids really like "The Cat Who. . . " mystery series, which granted, do include murder because they are mysteries but are clean, not graphic and are very enjoyable in my opinion.  

[momee]

Thanks, Jean.  I really, honestly, want to say - stick up for me. You know me from the old school days and I am really a polite poster and surely must not have meant to offend so many but...lol...I'm out of high school and won't.

 

Your point is great, maybe my beef really is with YA lit?  I was looking for books at the time I posted and having great difficulty finding something that didn't include drugs, sex or violence.  But I've noticed the same theme in movies, tv, etc.  

 

I appreciate the suggestion.

[Tanaqui]

 I find it hard to believe the heated argument came from such an innocent statement of mine, so someone obviously is very sensitive to the subject and for that I respectfully apologize for the impression I gave.

 

You know, I don't want to jump on you, I'm sure this has all been very frustrating, but when you make an apology like this it sounds like you're saying "I'm not really sorry because I didn't do anything wrong, they CHOSE to get upset for no good reason, the big meanies!"

 

A lot of the people here have experienced just this kind of faux apology about far more serious subjects, from people who knew exactly what they were doing, and thus are bound to have a hair-trigger reaction to it. I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, of course. When I'm frustrated, I try to remember to edit my comments before I post, because if I'm not careful I'm bound to put my foot deeper in my mouth. (I usually end up editing them after I post, as I'm sure everybody's noticed if they're trying to reply to me!)

 

Your point is great, maybe my beef really is with YA lit?  I was looking for books at the time I posted and having great difficulty finding something that didn't include drugs, sex or violence.  But I've noticed the same theme in movies, tv, etc.

 

A lot of people like reading about these things, even if they don't enjoy doing drugs or experiencing violence (I'm sure most of us like sex now and again!) simply because it's cathartic. For young people, reading about sex is similarly exciting - it's like climbing really high in a tree when they were even younger, it lets them experience the feeling of danger without actually doing anything risky.

 

As such, media with one or more of that trifecta will always sell. It's always been that way.

 

I really can't think of many quality books that don't include at least one of them. A previous poster mentioned cozy mysteries, I, too, grew up on those - Aunt Dimity, Scumble River, Meg Langslow - and I can't think of any that didn't at least allude very clearly to sex and include violence at the climactic reveal.

[albeto.]

Aren't you showing hostility towards women who do not share your views when you accuse them of being abusive and talk to them like you are Miss Manners with the whole "one must know what to avoid if she wants to provide a healthy environment for her children"  ?  

 

I didn't accuse anyone of anything, most certainly not abuse. 

 

It's not playing Miss Manners to point out emotional abuse exists under certain, identified conditions, and if one wants to avoid that, one would first have to recognize it. 

 

What kind of shaming is this...saint shaming? 

 

What saint am I supposedly shaming? What makes a saint? What characteristics or habits am I suggesting are shameful? 

[momee]

I said someone is very sensitive = that to you means I'm saying they're a "big meanie" ?  I  don't at all mean to insinuate I didn't do anything wrong.  I have apologized profusely.

You know, this is extremely frustrating. 

If you don't want to hear the apology in what I'm saying, you won't.

 

I can't do anything to make you hear my genuine apology. 

 

And with that, I have done all I can.

[Joanne]

I had no idea at all what I was entering into upon posting this thread.

 

I am raising daughters only.  As far as "slut shaming" the only reason I didn't mention boys was because my now grown son is off and on his own and I no longer am responsible for helping choose his literature.  I find it hard to believe the heated argument came from such an innocent statement of mine, so someone obviously is very sensitive to the subject and for that I respectfully apologize for the impression I gave.

 

I found the other statement I responded about unnecessarily snarky - and if I misread that and should have taken it as respectful disagreement, I again apologize

 

There seriously should be a general rule that we give each other the benefit of the doubt before attacking.  Things have sure changed around here in the past 8- 10 years in that regard.  We haven't always gotten along or agreed but in my experience, there has (almost) always been a desire to share knowledge for the sake of helping each other grow.

 

Yes, it may offend some that I don't want my girls who are going to one day be women reading about cutting, sex, abuse, violence, bullying etc in a way that glamorizes it and no I'm not banning everything that is negative but some stuff is just too much and I don't see the need to glamorize evil.  I could have worded the OP better, point taken.  But I do have a right to that opinion - just as - say albeto - has a right to hers/his.  I don't agree and am not going to take a point by point rebuttal but I am surely not going to respond with an attitude of...I don't know.  

 

I again apologize and have learned a great deal about stating my opinion.

 

If you've been here that long, you know that *discussion* and *opinion* and even *disagreement* are part of the culture. But it's not just TWTM, it is nearly all forums. Forums about knitting, long hair, fan fic, gardening......

 

The tone of TWTM board hasn't changed, but the demographics has. It, like homeschooling in general, has changed to reflect a broader range of views, including an increased percentage of people who are not conservative/religious.

 

No one attacked you. No one was rude. No one stopped you from your (strongly stated) opinion.

 

I disagreed, and found your premise false and flawed.Since you posted - asking for opinions - on a forum, I responded. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

 

[Tanaqui]

When my mother was a young girl, her mother tripped over her foot. And then said "I'm sorry your foot was in my way, Anne-Marie". (My grandmother, ladies and gentlemen. Her own mother was worse, if you can believe it.)

 

That is what your apology sounds like, like you're trying to put the blame on other people rather than yourself.

 

I don't know what you feel in your heart. I'm telling you what other people may hear in your words.