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

[kwg]

My favorite books as a kid were Flowers in the Attic, Clan of the Cave Bear, and anything by Stephen King and Dean Koontz. Smut and horror. Good stuff! I loved reading then. And it helped shape me as a reader for life (whose taste are now much different).

 

 

OK-- FLowers in the Attic-- didnt the brother rape the sister their first time? I could be remembering this wrong.  Almost like he couldnt take it anymore, had been watching her a while.

 

I am not seeing the connection between not letting someone read that kind of book and slut shaming.

 

We are very liberal with reading material. But VC Andrews is kinda seared into my head  :lol:  :ack2:

[JumpyTheFrog]

I find it interesting that some people say that kids or teens reading many books with xyz content doesn't make them more prone to try xyz, yet whenever people ask about reading old books from say Ambleside online, there is a chorus of "watch out for the racism!." Are these two different groups of people or is there overlap? If there is overlap, my question is why they think that reading enough books with racist tones could lead a child to being more prejudice, but reading books with lots of sexual content wouldn't change anything? And does the same thing apply to TV, movies, and music?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I find it interesting that some people say that kids or teens reading many books with xyz content doesn't make them more prone to try xyz, yet whenever people ask about reading old books from say Ambleside online, there is a chorus of "watch out for the racism!." Are these two different groups of people or is there overlap? If there is overlap, my question is why they think that reading enough books with racist tones could lead a child to being more prejudice, but reading books with lots of sexual content wouldn't change anything? And does the same thing apply to TV, movies, and music?

Depends on what you mean by racial tones I guess.

There is also a difference between content generating an action (running out to have sex) versus changing thinking (underlying tones that reinforce white supremacy).

[Joanne]

I find it interesting that some people say that kids or teens reading many books with xyz content doesn't make them more prone to try xyz, yet whenever people ask about reading old books from say Ambleside online, there is a chorus of "watch out for the racism!." Are these two different groups of people or is there overlap? If there is overlap, my question is why they think that reading enough books with racist tones could lead a child to being more prejudice, but reading books with lots of sexual content wouldn't change anything? And does the same thing apply to TV, movies, and music?

 

If you read my posts on kids and media (of any kind), I *always* advocate discussion, engagement, and input from Mom ( I say mom because that is who is involved in my home).

[Minerva]

I find it interesting that some people say that kids or teens reading many books with xyz content doesn't make them more prone to try xyz, yet whenever people ask about reading old books from say Ambleside online, there is a chorus of "watch out for the racism!." Are these two different groups of people or is there overlap? If there is overlap, my question is why they think that reading enough books with racist tones could lead a child to being more prejudice, but reading books with lots of sexual content wouldn't change anything? And does the same thing apply to TV, movies, and music?

 

This is a good question.

 

In my case,  reading from racist authors will not make my family racist.  Reading from sexist authors will not make us sexist. Reading from authors who are proselytizing will not make us religious. It just wont happen. We can read books by authors with ideas we find disagree with (or even find deplorable) and it might not be enjoyable, but it wont sway our moral compass. 

 

I don't think reading about sex during the teenage years is a bad thing and would not equate this to reading from a racist or sexist author. 

 

I am generally for discussion over censorship. My kids are still fairly young, but I am hopeful that by the time they are reading books with heavy themes or uncomfortable ideas on their own, they will have the reasoning skills to navigate these waters on their own.  

 

At this point, if a song comes on the radio with misogynistic lyrics, I switch the station and explain why I don't like it. My kids still have no interest in watching movies with darker themes. When they are ready, we will talk about it.

[MomatHWTK]

                            * * *    

 

ETA, okay sorry, I see you were saying that other posters have said that, not saying I said that.  You should share a link though.  Because I remember a lot of accusations of people saying that (much like I have been accused here) but not anyone actually saying it.  I would not be in agreement with or support that statement.

 

 

Shouldn't there be a peer reviewed study indicating the number of instances in which the offending phrase has been used?  I mean, this is an education board after all we wouldn't want to rely on what could be someone's paranoid or delusional ideas of what has been said.   

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Shouldn't there be a peer reviewed study indicating the number of instances in which the offending phrase has been used?  I mean, this is an education board after all we wouldn't want to rely on what could be someone's paranoid or delusional ideas of what has been said.   

 

Nah, sadly some of us have been here long enough to give first hand accounts of some of the most awful things said on this board.

[shinyhappypeople]

It's absolutely hilarious the 'woe is the forums'  comments on here. Thicken our skins ladies! I had my hand vigorously slapped at least five times in this thread, plus several snarky comments, and I'm not whinging about degradation.

 

Of course when your demographic is all samey-samey, it's very sweet and lovely. That's what it's like when I talk about gay marriage with my friends. Nice, because we all agree.

 

When your demographic shifts, you are going to get more disagreement. People will pick up on language that members of your in-group won't, The evidence required to support assertions will change.,

 

It's all good. It really truly is good to be exposed to out group members. Responsibility for what we say belongs to ALL of us, not just those who have 'brought down the tone.'

 

I think the previous poster's point is that it is entirely possible to vehemently disagree with someone without resorting to name calling, sarcasm, labeling, jumping to conclusions, returning snark for snark, or shaming.  It adds nothing to the conversation.  It just shuts down the exchange of ideas and serves no useful purpose.  

 

I'm not innocent in this.  I've been a total jerk at times and was (justifiably) put in time-out for a weekend a couple of years ago.  Part of the reason for putting the thing about kindness in my sig is to remind MYSELF to restrain my inner Snark Goddess.  

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't think this thread was established for the exchange of ideas. It needed a JAWM. Problem solved.

No, I don't think our choices should be just JAWM or a demeaning snarkfest.  There is a middle path, and it is respectful disagreement.  It's a lot more likely to bring about decent relationships and honest exchanges of views than either of the alternatives.

[Farrar]

If we're on to discussing why the thread went wrong, I think it's a great example of how assuming everyone is being snarky is going to derail a thread. Several people have accused me of being snarky when the OP asked what in the world that hashtag meant and I asked her to clarify the question. But I really didn't know what she didn't understand. But on three separate pages of the thread, I've gotten called out for asking which element she didn't understand.

 

Honestly, there are too many things to wade through on this thread to get to any real discussion at this point.

[8circles]

It's absolutely hilarious the 'woe is the forums'  comments on here. Thicken our skins ladies! I had my hand vigorously slapped at least five times in this thread, plus several snarky comments, and I'm not whinging about degradation.

 

Of course when your demographic is all samey-samey, it's very sweet and lovely. That's what it's like when I talk about gay marriage with my friends. Nice, because we all agree.

 

When your demographic shifts, you are going to get more disagreement. People will pick up on language that members of your in-group won't, The evidence required to support assertions will change.,

 

It's all good. It really truly is good to be exposed to out group members. Responsibility for what we say belongs to ALL of us, not just those who have 'brought down the tone.'

 

There are many people who have been on this board longer than me - and that's a huge understatement.

 

But I've been slammed and flamed on this board many times over the years and it's probably gotten better, not worse, recently.  I'm not sure how people are seeing it get worse.  There has been a demographic change - speaking of personal experience, a lot of posters who had issues with me personally seem to have left.  I think there can no longer be expectation that one's opinion will be shared by the majority.  

[albeto.]

This is interesting, but another example of a straw man, as you are attributing to me things that I did not say.  I did not argue for conservative or religious overtones or expectations on the board.

 

What I argue for was respectful disagreement instead of setting up straw men and being contemptuous and extreme in expressing disagreement.  The degradation in tone is in the switch from that first mode of expression to the other.  And I do, very strongly, regard it as a degradation.

 

I feel like you used my post as a jumping off point for a lecture you wanted to make that did not really pertain to it, not to answer it.  I do that sometimes but I try to make it clear when I do.  I don't always succeed.

 

I'm not arguing a straw man, I simply disagree. I don't think there is a degradation on this forum, and I don't think there is generally a lack of respectful disagreement. While there are no doubt some posters who take cheap shots, I don't think this thread is indicative of that. I think instead it's a matter of realizing one's beliefs aren't respected. I didn't mean to sound like I was giving a lecture, just explaining my point. 

 

[albeto.]

 Just because someone's beliefs align with the purity culture, doesn't automatically mean that they are ignoring the thoughts, feelings, or environments of the teen. I believe strongly in the idea of purity before marriage and have raised my kids with the same ideals but we  discuss all aspects that affect them whether it be connected to purity or not. We are very open about sex, cutting, depression, LGBT rights, etc. If anything the fact that I believe in purity before marriage gives me more of a reason to have open discussions with my child so we can address how to accomplish this when so many things in society and within myself are in opposition to these views. Through our discussions, they can learn everything from why I believe as I do, how to accomplish purity for a long time period, and even what happens when we fail and want to return to that choice. For this reason I don't believe the fact that we are part of the purity group  equates ignoring any aspect of our teens' lives. 

 

The OP implied adhering to a purity culture as the solution to a "worrying" future. I can't possibly know what that means to every poster who adheres to this ideology (being subjective, it will no doubt mean something different to each person), but I do think there is evidence to support the idea that purity ideologies are detrimental in general. So while I do recognize it doesn't mean (or even imply) a parent is ignoring the thoughts, feelings, or environments of the teen, I do think it means the interpretation and response to these things are more apt to produce unwanted consequences.

 

I also disagree with your final statements. Most in the purity movement would probably claim that the downfall of society is exactly why the purity movement is so important while being even more difficult to attain in the present than it was in years past.

 

That makes sense. I suspect most people follow the ideology they believe to be the best choice. The problem is, the evidence doesn't support with the claim.