[arcticbull]

Hm, seems pretty similar to me. Especially when the article itself identifies only 1.6% of the books as having a 17+ rating.

[edit] Anyone who believes in freedom of expression and the first amendment should recognize this as a negative step, and a clear thin-edge issue. These are ideological decisions made by partisans with the goal being to shape the corpus of thinking of youth. "Will someone think of the children" is a well worn path. There's plenty of books about this kind of thing, like The Giver, but you know, it's probably on the list.

[constantcrying]

>These are ideological decisions made by partisans with the goal being to shape the corpus of thinking of youth.

You support neo-nazi propaganda not being in school libraries, so certainly you too believe that it is the duty of school libraries to curate the content. It is just incredibly dishonest to pretend that you are upset at this for any reason other than that you want these particular books available to children, which is exactly as partisan as demanding their absence.

[arcticbull]

> It is just incredibly dishonest to pretend that you are upset at this for any reason other than that you want these particular books available to children, which is exactly as partisan as demanding their absence.

That's not possible, as, and this is true, I didn't go through the list. I suggest that you may be assuming a lot about me.

[constantcrying]

You do not support the removal of these books.

My claim is that: - Everybody supports the removal of certain books - Demanding the exclusion or demanding the inclusion are both partisan issues. Neither is a politically neutral stance.

This suggests that this is not a free speech issue at all, but a political issue with two sides wanting/not wanting children to read particular books.

[falcolas]

> two sides wanting/not wanting children to read particular books.

No.

One group of people don’t want any children reading certain books. The rest leaves the choice of reading the books in question up to the children (and/or their parents).

An important distinction.

[constantcrying]

>The rest leaves the choice of reading the books in question up to the children (and/or their parents).

Complete nonsense. Libraries are not staffed by children nor their parents. What goes into a school library is not some ideologically neutral ground where books just happen to appear, because of the inner desires of children. These books are bought because the people in charge off filling a library want children to read them. This is true for all books in a library, but it automatically guarantees that school libraries are curated. And curation is not ideologically neutral.

It is totally disingenious to pretend that this is not about you wanting children to read those particular books.

[didgetmaster]

Hmmm...so it only counted 1.6% of the books as explicit because they had "publisher-provided" maturity ratings of 17+.

I wonder how many books that had explicit material within them were not properly labeled as such by their publishers? This seems like a very subjective standard that would be very easy to manipulate.

[JohnFen]

I wonder what the people who want books removed from school libraries consider "explicit".

[paulddraper]

> Especially when the article itself identifies only 1.6% of the books as having a 17+ rating.

You presume those ratings mean something.

"Getting It: A Guide to Hot, Healthy Hookups and Shame-Free Sex. An empowering guide to casual sex and hooking up from sex educator and Girl Sex 101 author Allison Moon."

I'm sure that's entirely age appropriate for my 13-year-old daughter to be reading from the high-school library.

[teachrdan]

There's a good chance your 13-year-old is hooking up and about 100% chance she's hearing about friends hooking up. A guide like that is useful for identifying healthy and unhealthy behaviors around consent, health, and emotions.

Have you actually read this book? Or are you making assumptions based on the title?

[paulddraper]

I included the title and its own summary.

And FWIW, the age of consent in the U.S. is 16+.

13...my goodness man...

[teachrdan]

"Hookups" encompasses activity other than sexual intercourse. This book would likely help its readers negotiate how to engage in that activity safely and with consent. And 13-year-olds hook up with each other, as do kids 14 and older, which your daughter will in all likelihood become.

Again, if you had bothered to actually read the book, rather than make a snap judgment based on a one-sentence summary on the internet, you'd probably be better informed.

[paulddraper]

> "Hookups" encompasses activity other than sexual intercourse.

Getting It: A Guide to Hot, Healthy Hookups and Shame-Free Sex. An empowering guide to casual sex and hooking up

Dude, stop trying to teach 13-year-olds how to have casual sex.

[shrimp_emoji]

Dude, what an enlightened comeback.

Fwiw, I think psychologists would say it's healthier than stigmatizing sex and pretending it's a concept that pops into existence once people turn 16 or 18. (Ironically, some people are molested way before that age and don't even understand what's happening and why it's bad -- probably because they had no educational resources on the subject thanks to attitudes like yours.)

[pixl97]

The age of consent and the age teens are having sex with other teens are two different things.

[GloomyBoots]

The average age of first sexual intercourse in the US is ~17 for both boys and girls, and rising. The hypersexuality of adolescents is overstated in popular media, though probably varies by region. I grew up in a pretty promiscuous environment, and even there, while there were 13-year-olds having sex, and we were aware of it, that was by far the minority experience.

[pixl97]

And minority experiences are not allowed? How would that be any different from "5% of the population is gay, so we're just not going to allow that to be talked about"?