Previous | Memories | Share | Next
 
R.J. Anderson
rj_anderson
28 March 2009 @ 11:16 am
Sex, Violence and the Challenging of YA Books -- Is There A Double Standard?  
In a recent post [info]carrie_ryan commented on an article suggesting that several newly purchased copies of Stephanie Meyer's Breaking Dawn had been withheld from shelving at a junior high library in Utah because of one parent's complaint about the book's content. The objectionable content: "a honeymoon scene in which sex is implied".

This led to a discussion on the tendency of conservative religious parents to challenge books which contain sexual references and content (even, in this case, when the sex occurs within the bounds of marriage), while rarely or never objecting publicly to books which contain violence and gore. Many of the commenters felt that this was a bizarre and worrying double standard. As [info]anywherebeyond remarked:

I think it's time we quit acting like hysterical ninnies about teen sex and start taking a hard look at teen violence. I don't think a book should be challenged for EITHER reason, but it makes me crazy that people think nothing of the 1500 people who die at the end of Titanic, but hesitate because Leo and Kate might get hazily busy before the ship sinks. It's absurd.

And if that's what's really going on here -- that conservative parents are so blindly focused on keeping any sexual content away from their children that they are giving violence and other serious issues a free pass -- then I agree, that's not right. On reflection, however, I had some different thoughts.

I believe that what's really at stake here is not the kind of behaviour the conservative parents involved approve or disapprove, but the behaviour they are most concerned their children will emulate -- and particularly, the way in which the books being challenged seem (to them) to encourage or feed into that behaviour. As I remarked in comments:

...The reason conservative parents tend to challenge books for sex more than for violence is that by and large, they don't see teen violence as being nearly so widespread a problem and nearly such a threat to their children as teen sex is. Especially where girls -- girls who may become pregnant and be left with a baby to care for, or else choose abortion and thus (in the eyes of many conservative parents) be guilty of murder -- are concerned.

I don't think that many conservative mothers of teen girls are worried about their daughters being mauled from the inside out by their own half-vampire babies [i.e. as in Breaking Dawn], however distasteful they might find the concept in fictional form. Ditto for most other fictional violence, which they don't expect their teens are going to want to emulate, or even be able to (to borrow Saundra's example, how do you reenact the sinking of the Titanic?).

But anything too sensuous, that might get their sons and daughters sexually worked up and tempt them to become sexually active before they're ready for it -- that is a serious concern.

It may seem ridiculous for a parent to object to the off-stage sexual content in Breaking Dawn when that activity is taking place within the bonds of marriage -- after all, aren't conservative parents hoping for that very thing, that their children will wait to get married before having sex? But while I'm not in a position to read the mind of the parent making the complaint, I can imagine where she (I'm pretty sure it's a she) is coming from. The point is not that sex within marriage is morally objectionable, or even that it should never be mentioned or implied in any books whatsoever -- but that to put into the hands of a junior high reader a book where sexual activity is being presented in an enticing way is, to the mind of this parent, potentially dangerous to their child's sexual self-control.

I've used this example before, but I think it's a good one -- if you have a friend who is trying to lose weight, and you believe that she really needs to lose that weight for the good of her health, you're not going to give her a copy of 101 Gloriously Decadent Chocolate Desserts (lavishly illustrated with full-color photos) for her next birthday. It's not that you think chocolate is bad, or even that she won't be able to eat chocolate and enjoy it in moderation one day, but that at this point in her life it would be a bad idea to expose her to something that's going to make her want to make a chocolate cake and eat it immediately. And that kind of concern, I think, is really what's in the minds of many conservative parents when they challenge books that would otherwise be freely available to their children.

Nevertheless, having said that, I don't believe that banning books is the answer. Obviously if you're going to have a school library aimed at a certain age group, you're going to have to pick and choose what books you feel are appropriate for that library, and community standards are going to be part of making that decision. But for a parent to rise up and insist that all copies of a certain book be removed from the shelves, because it contains something that you personally see as problematic (even though few if any people agree with you) -- then you're stepping beyond your authority as a parent and as a member of the community.

The sane and measured response to a book you are concerned about your teen or pre-teen reading is to be aware of what's really out there, and prepared to discuss it with your child in the context of your own family and in accordance with your own convictions. In some cases that may amount to "Yes, you may read Book X, but I'd like to talk to you about some of the content afterward," and in others it may go as far as "I feel that Book X is not appropriate for you at this point, so I'm asking you to respect my wishes that you not read it." But I do not believe it should ever amount to, "I'm going to insist that nobody in my community be allowed to read Book X, regardless of whether they share my religious beliefs and moral convictions or not."

I believe in right and wrong -- in the absolute sense. I do believe that certain descriptive content in books, certain philosophies which those books may express, are objectively morally wrong and may damage the minds of those who read them. Nevertheless, I don't believe there's any merit in forcing people to do what you believe is right by taking away their ability to choose otherwise. If God Himself respects free will, so should we.

And that's why, even as a conservative evangelical Christian, I don't believe in this kind of censorship.
Tags: , ,
 
 
Current Mood: thoughtfulthoughtful
 
62 comments | Leave a comment
 
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 62 comments — Leave a comment )
Cleolinda Jones[info]cleolinda on March 28th, 2009 03:32 pm (UTC)
Of all the content in that book... the honeymoon is the scene they have a problem with? Not the incredibly gory, traumatic childbirth or the imprinting? Or even the other "implied sex" scenes in the book?
R.J. Anderson: Moomins - Moomintroll Crabby[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 03:40 pm (UTC)
Well, I would think the gory, traumatic childbirth would be seen as a plus -- dissuading their daughters from wanting to get pregnant! Especially by a vampire. :D

And I suspect that said parent didn't actually read the book but flipped through it until they found the objectionable content they were looking for, as is so often the case in these situations. So many of these challenges wouldn't even be raised if the parents involved had bothered to read the challenged scene in context.
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda on March 28th, 2009 04:02 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Dances With Vampires: hmm said the pug[info]yahtzee63 on March 28th, 2009 03:48 pm (UTC)
Although I suspect you are right about the mindset, I still think it's probably a fallacy -- I doubt reading about sex makes somebody likely to go out and have sex in the way that looking at pictures of chocolate makes you more likely to eat chocolate. Eating chocolate = having a dollar on hand the next time you see a Mr. Goodbar. Having sex = a whole lot more complicated than that, as even the most blithe teenager would probably agree. And if I am remembering my adolescence correctly, wild fizzing soda-pop explosion of hormones and fantasy that it was, sexual curiosity and desire certainly did not wait to be sparked by books. Or by anything. I didn't read very explicit books as a very young teen, but as I got older, I read more because I wanted to know more -- and I think any parent would hope that, if their teenage just HAD to know more about sex, they'd choose to read about it instead of experiment irresponsibly.

As for the specific example of BREAKING DAWN, I always remember my mother saying to use, as teenagers, "You should learn about sex. Sex is a natural part of life. Violence is not."
R.J. Anderson: House - Lost in Thought[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 04:37 pm (UTC)
I agree that it's not that easy for a teen (or even necessarily an adult) to just rush out and have sex after they've read something sexy, even if they want to -- but I doubt the parents involved are thinking of anything so direct. It's more that they fear reading sexy books will strengthen their teens' existing desires and lower their resistance should the opportunity to have sex present itself.

One mild, implicit sex scene in a book may be no big deal, but if it's part of an overall reading pattern that is constantly filling that teen's thoughts with sexiness, then it can have an influence on their judgment and behavior -- or so the reasoning goes. And I think there is some truth to that, but I don't agree that censoring books is the way to combat it.
Kate Messner[info]kmessner on March 28th, 2009 03:50 pm (UTC)
Thanks for this thoughtful post, RJ. So often, posts about censorship are all-or-nothing sorts of conversations, and I appreciate this one.

In my teacher-life, I had a really great and detailed email exchange recently with a parent who was concerned that her daughter had chosen MT Anderson's OCTAVIAN NOTHING book from our library. I hadn't blinked when I saw her reading it because I had already seen her with a copy of BREAKING DAWN that she brought from home. Our email conversation about books and what's appropriate for an advanced middle school reader spanned several pages and ended with both of us feeling good about the other and thinking more in depth, perhaps, about how to handle book challenge issues in the future.

Anyway...I'm blabbering, but just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this post. Thanks.
R.J. Anderson: Autumn - Dream[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 04:38 pm (UTC)
That's interesting, I hadn't heard anything about OCTAVIAN NOTHING that would make me think it would cause a parent to be concerned. Anyway, it sounds like you had an interesting e-mail conversation and that you handled the situation well--I would have loved to be a fly on that wall! Thanks for commenting.
(Anonymous) on March 28th, 2009 03:50 pm (UTC)
Book banners vs. secular democracy
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. Ultimately, no matter what one's values, the world is going to offer challenges to them. It's our job as parents to try to inculcate our values into our kids and hope they live by them. It's not our job to remove any challenges to our values from the world at large. Dedicating your life to such an impossible task will drive you nuts, which may account for the wild-eyed look so many would-be book banners sport.

I just fear that the problem book banners have is not with books--it's with the very idea of a secular democracy. It's not just that they don't want their kids reading this stuff at the library--they don't want my kids reading it either. And that's where my problem lies.

--Brendan Halpin
www.brendanhalpin.com
R.J. Anderson: Author Portrait[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 03:52 pm (UTC)
Re: Book banners vs. secular democracy
Excellently put. Thanks for commenting.
kristin[info]kristin_briana on March 28th, 2009 03:51 pm (UTC)
I like the example of the chocolate - completely agree. And banning books, in some ways, is like setting a plateful of decadent chocolate in front of your friend and saying, "Don't eat this, whatever you do." It just makes them want it more. I think children (and people in general) are like that - they are going to want what you tell them I can't have.

When I was eight I remember my mom asking me if I could please wait to ready Harry Potter because she didn't think it would be good for me at the time. I didn't listen to her, and she respected that - but I had nightmares about Voldemort and basilisks for weeks afterward. I kind of hold my mother as a standard for how to deal with book you don't want your kids to read: You are the parent. You can tell them that you would rather them not read it. But ultimately, the kids are going to do what they want. It's unfortunate, but it's the truth. And they will likely respect their parents more in years to come for putting the boundaries there, but still allowing their kids to CHOOSE.

R.J. Anderson: Aztec Camera - Knife[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 03:56 pm (UTC)
Yes! Or as Paul wrote in the book of Romans, "I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died."

Sometimes the very act of saying "thou shalt not" awakens in us the willful desire to do the very thing that's forbidden -- and I think a parent has to be careful not to actually draw their children's attention to things that might otherwise have gone right over their heads or been of no interest to them at all.

That's the danger of being too paranoid about what your children (and other people's children) see/hear/read. Everything becomes tantalizing to them because it's all forbidden, and they've never been given the opportunity to stretch their moral and intellectual muscles by making up their own minds.
robinellen[info]robinellen on March 28th, 2009 03:53 pm (UTC)
It's astonished me for years (since I first became aware of this type of thing) that parents attempt to force their own beliefs on others by banning books. And to me, it shows, perhaps, their own fears concerning their relationship with their kids. If they were confident in that relationship, I think they'd do just as you suggest -- they'd either talk to the kids after reading, or they'd ask the kids to wait until they're older. Anyone who responds with a banning-style reaction to a book is probably someone who is afraid that their kids don't respect them enough to listen.
R.J. Anderson: Doctor Who - Ten - Bookish[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 04:03 pm (UTC)
Absolutely. My father is a full-time preacher and a church elder with very conservative views of the Bible, and he's also chosen for himself to read very little fiction and watch very little TV. But he never told any of his children what we could and couldn't read. He taught us Biblical moral principles, and then trusted us to apply those convictions to whatever we saw or read.

And you know what? It totally worked. Even as a young child, I knew what was appropriate or inappropriate for me to be reading. Of course, that didn't stop me from reading some things I knew weren't appropriate! But neither did reading those things cause me to reject the standards I'd been raised with and come to believe in for myself.

So yes, I think this whole book-banning thing is very much rooted in parental insecurity and their inability to trust their own children to internalize the values they've been taught.
(no subject) - [info]newport2newport on March 28th, 2009 04:48 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 05:29 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]robinellen on March 28th, 2009 06:44 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Rose Green[info]olmue on March 28th, 2009 04:01 pm (UTC)
Speaking as an American and as someone who has lived extensively in Europe; as a Christian, specifically LDS (as is Stephenie Meyer and, I assume, the parent in question, given the state); and as a parent and a reader and a writer:

1. I totally agree there is a bizarre double standard when it comes to violence in books being totally ignored while sex banned. Many conservative Americans think a book is “clean” if it has no sex—even if it is full of violence. I read a book a couple years ago that was for an MG audience that was written for a “safe, conservative audience” and involved weapons—explosive weapons—in a contemporary fantasy setting. Used by MG aged characters. It really, REALLY bothered me. It wasn’t a book I was comfortable with at all. But I’ve seen people give that book great ratings on say, Goodreads, people who I know are concerned that their kids read “clean” books. I think it is a blind side of American culture, especially noticeable when coming from a European mindset, where violence is taboo.

2. I like your chocolate diet/book comparison.

3. I think that if you want your kids to grow up with healthy attitudes towards marital intimacy, you need to give them a sense of “sex in that context is good” as opposed to “all sex is bad.” And that involves a lot of child-parent conversation, which is not the same thing as pulling strings so that someone else lays down the law, thus getting you off the hook from teaching your children about sex. So I’d guess that while there are general choices a school library might make as far as which books will be most appropriate to buy for their age group, given funds and age/interest level, that is not the same thing as making blanket choices for what is okay for all children.

4. “If God Himself respects free will, so should we.” Considering this is a crucial element in my own theology, I guess I have to agree. (And yes, human nature means that even though people may theoretically/theologically believe this, there is a HUGE tendency for people to nevertheless try to rigidly control the choices of those they care for/about.)
Rose Green[info]olmue on March 28th, 2009 04:49 pm (UTC)
And to put a finer point on #3 after reading some of the above discussion, what I'm getting at is that sometimes parents use censorship as a way to abdicate their own parental responsibilities. You may say you believe in "teaching them correct principles and letting them govern themselves," but that's just what you AREN'T doing if you run out and attempt to establish some kind of police state. There will always be choices. Parents need to teach their kids how to intelligently deal with them, not try to remove all the choice from the world. That's annoying for everyone else, and it's detrimental to your child in the long run.
(no subject) - [info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 05:32 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Karen[info]quiller77 on March 28th, 2009 04:06 pm (UTC)
Wonderfully put, R.J. I wrote a similar essay for our local paper for Canada's Freedom to Read week, but I think you said it better. :-)
R.J. Anderson: James Marsh - Black Sheep[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 05:33 pm (UTC)
*blushes* Thank you! That's very kind. I'd be interested to read your essay -- is it online anywhere?
(no subject) - [info]quiller77 on March 28th, 2009 09:33 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Sollers[info]sollersuk on March 28th, 2009 04:11 pm (UTC)
When I was studying psychology one of the things we looked at was the "inoculation" theory: that exposure to ideas made people more, not less, likely to resist them. The context was the Korean War, when Americans who had been carefully shielded from Communism turned out to be far easier to "brainwash" than Australians etc who had come across the ideas. We had already noticed that it was students from non-drinking homes who got most disgustingly drunk.

Whether or not a moral is drawn, or even intended, anything that shows the consequences of actions is very useful. Both my daughters watched "Dirty Dancing" when officially too young, and came away with the view that sex outside a stable relationship* is a bad, bad idea.

It is of course possible, if one lives in a big enough like-minded community, to keep one's offspring protected all their lives, but it doesn't go terribly well with the picture of Christ hanging out with all sorts of lowlives.

*I've put this and not "marriage" because both No. 2 Daughter and I know far too much about the history of Christianity; in the UK, the modern idea of what constitutes marriage has only been around for a couple of hundred years. The Bridal Chorus from "Lohengrin" (commonly known as "Here Comes the Bride") is a great favourite for church weddings, and it always makes me snigger: Lohengrin embodies the Christian ideal, but Wagner very authentically has the king performing the marriage, not the bishop. But then if people have a very narrow view of what constitutes a Christian this is probably not relevant, though it seems a bit peculiar to write off 90% of the time that Christians of one sort or another have been around.
R.J. Anderson: Doctor Who - Five - Books[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 05:34 pm (UTC)
A very interesting comment -- thanks for sharing your perspective! And you're right, I've noticed that too (the inoculation phenomenon, that is).
Heidi R. Kling, Author of SEA, June 10, 2010[info]seaheidi on March 28th, 2009 04:14 pm (UTC)
Very thoughtful essay, RJ.

I do have to add, that the sex scenes in Breaking Dawn did not at all make me want to have sex. More like the opposite. And I've heard from teens the same--I think the flirting/sexual tension stuff that comes w/out sex in novels is what teens enjoy reading--another example of that is Judy Blume's FOREVER, which is always getting banned. I find those sex scenes v. unsexy as well (possibly intentionally written as such--I don't know)

But I agree with Saundra, that until violence gets the same censorship as sex, people should stand up and complain. Many many teens experience violence in there lives on a day to day basis. Some more so than sex even--violence could be an out of control parent, a bully at school, anything, it doesn't have to be vampires or werewolves to be v. real.

I'm reading a wonderfully fun book now, DULL BOY, by Sarah Cross that I would LOVE for my son to read when he is older--it's full of action, but the main character is so likable and funny and is trying to do what's right. Those are the books I hope my kids will gravitate toward the most, but we'll see!
R.J. Anderson: Moomins - Little My Skating[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 05:37 pm (UTC)
As a certified comics geek, I absolutely loved DULL BOY. I agree. :)

And I think it's true that kids will gravitate toward books that resonate with them and reflect their convictions and experiences. I've been amazed by how unsparing a lot of teens are when it comes to their moral values and what they do and don't like to see in books.
Shoebox: butterfly free and flying[info]shoebox2 on March 28th, 2009 05:12 pm (UTC)
I don't believe there's any merit in forcing people to do what you believe is right by taking away their ability to choose otherwise. If God Himself respects free will, so should we.

Absolutely. Either we come to a realisation of his standards ourselves, and adopt them willingly, or the whole thing's pointless, isn't it?

This is what disturbs me the most about censorship; the idea that it's better to just not know, out of vague fears of 'contamination', than to understand the bad and thus gain a greater appreciation of the good, and the ways you can possibly influence others for same.

This goes for whatever value system you happen to be working with, really. As long as chocolate exists in the world, your hypothetical dieter is going to run across temptation at some point - as even Jesus acknowledged. He asked that his followers be given strength to deal with the world, not that they be removed from it. :)

Ultimately, for me, the 'fear of emulation' argument comes down at least in part to an insult to intelligence, or perhaps more lack of trust in it. I've been thinking about this recently in terms of children's media; ironic that the people who're liable to be proudest of how 'advanced' their kids are tend to be the same ones who're hyper-zealous about ensuring they never have to think about anything, ever.

Edited at 2009-03-28 05:16 pm (UTC)
R.J. Anderson: Doctor Who - Adipose[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 05:40 pm (UTC)
Oh, yes, I definitely agree with your points. And that was an excellent post you made about the dumbing down of children's television (corrected link is here for any readers who'd like to check it out). I'd meant to comment on that one, but for some reason didn't -- but I did read it and nod like a bobble-head doll.
(no subject) - [info]shoebox2 on March 28th, 2009 07:05 pm (UTC) (Expand)
i can make it on my own!: RANDOM: deep thought[info]lydaclunas on March 28th, 2009 05:47 pm (UTC)
If God Himself respects free will, so should we.

To be quite honest, I think the sector of "conservative Christians" who support things like banning books absolutely have no respect for the free will of others -- and moreover, think it is a Christian act to try to force their set of beliefs and what they feel is right or appropriate on the world at large. I believe some people confuse "spreading the Good News" with this kind of stuff, and it's kind of sad/scary that they don't see the difference.

Ultimately, open and honest discourse, understanding, compassion and respect is a lot more useful and constructive -- and Christ-like -- than an attempt to simply stamp out any and all "offending" or challenging material. As you point out, it would make far more sense for a parent to read the books themselves, and use the "questionable" content as a springboard for discussion about life and values.
R.J. Anderson: Doctor Who - Ten - It Is Defended[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 05:53 pm (UTC)
I think it stems from the idea that Christians can somehow save other human beings (including their own children) or lead them closer to God by forcing them to live by Biblical standards. Which totally leaves out the most important part of the equation, the part we're told that God really looks upon -- the heart. What good is it for a person to behave like an angel outwardly if their innermost thoughts and beliefs don't match up with those deeds? I seem to recall Christ having a few things to say about whitewashed tombs...
(no subject) - [info]lydaclunas on March 28th, 2009 05:56 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 06:22 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Maggie Stiefvater[info]m_stiefvater on March 28th, 2009 06:09 pm (UTC)
Such a thoughtful essay. And I tried, for a long time, to assemble my thoughts in a coherent matter on this. And was pretty unsuccessful. What it came down to, for me, was this:

Parents/ Home life still trump any books/ movies/ video games with kids. No matter what teens read in books, it will be through the filter that their parents gave them. And the more present and available those parents/ family base is, the stronger that filter will be, for better or for worse (depending on the home life). It's why alcoholic parents make alcoholic kids and domestic abuse breeds domestic abuse. It works the other way too. I read plenty of racy books as a teen (from the adult section) but I read them with the values I'd unconsciously picked up from my parents.

And I don't think it's a question of sitting down with your kids and talking to them. I think it's about being there, while they're doing things, being together with your spouse and talking about the things that you are watching on TV, etc., and not in a preachy way. Just being there and reflecting your opinions on things passes them on to your kids. My parents never had the sex talk with me. They didn't need to; I'd gotten all of their thoughts on the matter by the time I was 13 or so.

So I think banning books is silly. Banning absentee parents would be more useful.
R.J. Anderson: Chastity - Machine Guns[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 06:21 pm (UTC)
That is SO true about the home life trumping all -- there not being a need to sit down and have a specific Talk with your kids if they're seeing your convictions and attitudes modeled in the home on a daily basis. That's exactly how I absorbed things from my parents, too. And I knew that if I had any questions about anything -- sex included -- I could go to them and get honest answers. But I seldom needed to.

Meanwhile, silly me for not using the perfect icon for this discussion before! Shall remedy it now.
(no subject) - [info]m_stiefvater on March 28th, 2009 06:23 pm (UTC) (Expand)
[info]speak_candidly on March 28th, 2009 06:12 pm (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like a zealot, I did get a book pulled from my middle school library on the basis of sexual content once. Within the first couple chapters it included several graphic descriptions of a teenage boy being sexually excited by a family member.

I would never have requested that a public library, which belongs to the community as a whole, remove it. I hope that parents make going-to-the-library a family event, or talk with their kids regularly about their library books, when they are concerned about the material. But a middle school library is a place where kids are forced to choose books to read for projects, where parents have much less possibility of oversight, and I felt that between the graphic descriptions and incest it was past the line for that age group.

I was also 12. I may not have made the same request if I saw it now.

Living in Utah, where this happened, I can picture this happening quite easily, but I don't agree with it. There's a good chance the complaining mother was also a member of the same church as me, which would make me raise my eyebrow even more. Yes, she may be trying to keep her daughter/son from reading anything sensual, since most people don't separate marital sex from non-marital in their emotional reaction, but I think this could have provided a great opportunity to discuss the difference with her child in the context of our religion and reinforce our appreciation of marital sex as a sacred, beautiful thing, but not to be voyeured.
R.J. Anderson: Books - Writing[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 06:19 pm (UTC)
You know what? I totally applaud you for having the integrity, as a 12-year-old, for speaking up about this. From what you say it sounds as though it was indeed inappropriate for that age group, and as a member of the group in question, I think you had a very legitimate case.

Your story reminds me a little of one of my own experiences -- when I was 15 I asked to be exempted from studying a particular book in my English class because of content. My teacher was very willing to accommodate me and I ended up doing a project on another book instead.

But I think teen-driven complaints based on actual knowledge of the book in question are different than parent-based complaints based on a flip-and-dip acquaintance with the text (and often in preconceived bias as well).

As for the rest of your comment, very well put.
writerjenn[info]writerjenn on March 28th, 2009 06:20 pm (UTC)
Great points both in your post and in the comment thread. I understand the fear that you discussed, but that logic wouldn't apply in situations where the mentions of sex or even certain body parts aren't titillating--where they're mentioned rather clinically, for example. (Susan Patron's book springs instantly to mind.)

My theory is that human beings find vulnerability scary. And we are vulnerable in sex, lust, love, and intimacy. Whereas people in the grip of violent feelings (even vicarious violence) often feel powerful. Which is sad.
R.J. Anderson: Books - Writing[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 06:27 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I completely do not get the kerfuffle over the use of the word "scrotum" in Patron's book. It's a medical term! It's a totally non-sexual context! Seriously, people, is this a battle worth fighting?
zibeth[info]zibeth on March 28th, 2009 06:40 pm (UTC)
Thank you for this! It was a very thoughtful post, and I agree with you.
R.J. Anderson: Bible - 2 Cor. Sufficient Grace[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 07:13 pm (UTC)
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Sabrina.: Librarian; Bookshelves[info]sabrinanymph on March 28th, 2009 07:48 pm (UTC)
Censorship is one of those things that almost always gets my ire up.

I haven't read Breaking Dawn specifically, although I've read the other three books in that series, and frankly my complaint with Twilight has nothing to do with sex implied or otherwise, but is set within a whole female/male relation context that I believe is unhealthy at best. If I had a teenage daughter I wouldn't particularly love her reading the books, but not because of violence, sex, or any of the other typical reasons - more because I wouldn't want her setting Bella up as a role model or thinking that the type of relationship Bella & Edward have is the 'perfect' relationship.

Of course that said, telling her she can't read it would only be setting her up to read them behind my back, so I'd far rather let her and then have discussions about it. It's possible she might even come to the same conclusions on her own, but if they're coming from her rather than from me, they're much more powerful.
po_thang[info]po_thang on March 28th, 2009 08:40 pm (UTC)
I've read all of the comments and I have to agree that an a parent that abdicates banning books is truly not communicating with their child. Of course, it's probably a lot easier to claim that banning a book is good for your child than actually *listening* to your child and paying attention to what they do.

Sex is seen as the downfall of teenagers today. The attitude that we much protect them from sex at all costs is allowing other prevalent attitudes to be overlooked by parents and adults as a whole.

I cannot tell you how appalled I was when I saw how teenagers reacted to the physical (alleged) assault on Rhianna by Chris Brown. A lot of teenage boys seem to think that it was alright because she shouldn't have made him lose his temper. And what's really scary is about as many teenage girls think the same thing. In a lot of teenagers' eyes, it was her fault. He just "overreacted" is what a lot of them think.

To me, that's a lot more scary than an alluded to sex scene in a book.

And before anyone thinks this...I'm not trying to start any kind of argument. I can tell from the posts on here that probably all I'm going to get is a "amen, sister" from everyone. I just had to point it out because I cannot believe that people would ban a book for this, but not be completely outraged at the attitudes that teenagers today have about domestic violence.

It seems like the progress that has been made to combat domestic violence stands in real danger of being lost because several generations of our young people don't see it as that big of a deal. And that alone makes me want to cry.
lizbee: DW: Ten (shadowed)[info]lizbee on March 28th, 2009 09:20 pm (UTC)
I cannot tell you how appalled I was when I saw how teenagers reacted to the physical (alleged) assault on Rhianna by Chris Brown. A lot of teenage boys seem to think that it was alright because she shouldn't have made him lose his temper. And what's really scary is about as many teenage girls think the same thing. In a lot of teenagers' eyes, it was her fault. He just "overreacted" is what a lot of them think.

AGREED. Combining that with the relevant statistic that one in seven boys believes it's okay to force a girl to have sex with him -- just what are we teaching our teens? Do they learn it from their parents, or the media? Both? It seems like a mini-generational shift -- when I was in high school, the boys I knew (not exactly paragons of ... anything) seemed less dangerous.
(no subject) - [info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 09:22 pm (UTC) (Expand)
lizbee: DW: No sex please.[info]lizbee on March 28th, 2009 09:11 pm (UTC)
I think, on the whole, kids ... don't read stuff in a vacuum. As you say, they pick up values from their parents.

Pondering sex vs violence -- I've been reading the Slacktivist reviews/close analysis of the Left Behind series for a while now, and the blogger and his commenters have a lot to say about the, uh, glee with which the authors of that series describe the violence that non-believers will suffer. So maybe you can make a case for some Christians having a double standard re: sex and violence, but I don't think it's universal. Certainly my parents, conservative if not evangelical, always let us know when they thought we were exposing ourselves to too much violence.

It occurs to me, also, that violence in books is less visceral than violence on the screen. Even in comics -- there's very little in the Watchmen movie that wasn't in the books, yet people are saying how much more violent it is. Written (or drawn) violence doesn't seem to trigger the same vicarious adrenaline rush as in a film, whereas movie!sex is universally un-erotic (unlike in books).

(Having said that, I've read a lot of YA novels with sex scenes, and I've never found one that made the sex act seem remotely appealing. In my recollection, when girl wanted, erm, stimulating material, they read romance novels.)
R.J. Anderson: Chastity - Machine Guns[info]rj_anderson on March 28th, 2009 09:30 pm (UTC)
LOL on the icon.

I cannot talk about Left Behind without wanting to hurl a heavy object for a very great distance, since as you know it is very much one of those "get off of my side" things for me. So excuse me while I gnash a bit.

*gnash*gnash*gnash*

Right, I'm okay now.

Very good points about the difference between written vs. visual violence. For me some of my most harrowing memories of violence come from the books I've read, but that's only because I generally avoid movies that I know have graphic violence and gore. I was so harrowed by Schindler's List that I couldn't sleep all night -- but at the same time I'm glad I saw the film, because I believe it was important and necessary. So there's violence and violence, so to speak... just as there is sex and sex. The important question, to me, is not whether it's there, but what it's saying to the reader/viewer in the end.

And yes, I too had the experience of my parents being just as strongly against me watching too much violence as they were about me watching sexual content. My father took us all to see Star Wars when I was seven, and he was quite distressed by the wholesale mowing-down of Stormtroopers and blowing-up of bases containing huge numbers of people. But then, he had served in WWII. The scary thing is all the people who write and make films glorifying violence who have never had violence touch them personally.
(no subject) - [info]lizbee on March 28th, 2009 09:37 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]rj_anderson on March 29th, 2009 12:05 am (UTC) (Expand)
Karen Denise[info]rosepddle on March 29th, 2009 12:19 am (UTC)
While I don’t have children, I have always been of the mindset that I would much rather have a discussion with a child/teen about sex rather than violence. As sex will eventually be a part of their lives one day, I pray violence never will. I can explain sex because I understand it, violence, not so much. As you said, each individual parent has the right to say what is or isn’t appropriate for their child/teen to read, but when they try to say what isn’t appropriate for an entire community to read, then that when it goes too far.
Sreya: TV[info]sreya on March 29th, 2009 02:53 am (UTC)
I have two mostly-separate reactions to this issue presented.

(1) On the issue of asking for a book to be removed from a middle school library, I can't exactly stand up and say that parents should never object to something in the school library because that's censorship. As you admit in your post, there IS a line where some things are acceptable and some are not. However, that line is going to have to be negotiated within the community. There are going to be a group of parents who don't care what's in the library and think anything should go, and there are going to be parents who are more conservative (not necessarily politically) in what they think is appropriate. Sure, there will be some parents that probably are too far in the other direction and their views don't necessarily end up being the prevailing ones - but they should feel free to voice their objection and make the case for it. Otherwise, how the heck is anything ever going to be monitored?

I guess this is really more a reaction to some of the comments that more or less vilified anyone who would dare suggest a book is inappropriate. And I feel rather strongly on this, because my grandmother was a school librarian and she was embroiled in some ridiculous fights when someone tried to point out that certain books didn't belong in a library for children.

(2) Violence versus sex in media. On the whole, I agree - although I have to say that the outcry about sex in literature and on television doesn't seem to be curbing anything anyway.

There is something that I didn't see raised, though, and that's the difference between behavior exhibited by a positive influence character versus a negative influence character. Let's face it. Any story told is going to have something bad happen, and most of the time that something bad is caused by a bad character, and the good characters have to stop it. (Sure, there are a small set of genres that don't actually have bad characters, but I doubt anyone here is ONLY drawn to that sort of story.) Violence is a very traditional part of storytelling, because it's an easy way to draw lines of conflict and quickly sets up a conflict. There is a reason to have it in the plot. And in most children's and YA stories, at least, it's the bad guys who are violent, not the heroes, and it's the heroes that most children would relate with. (Not gonna go into the exceptions to that who identify with the villains, that's a whole different issue.)

Sex, on the other hand, rarely serves this purpose. I'll admit that it's possible for it to drive a story in a similar way, but it's really very difficult to do so. It's also usually an act by the characters of the story that we're supposed to identify with - not the antagonists. This makes a different impression on a viewer or watcher, it's more likely to be internalized.

Sure, these aren't hard and fast, and I'll agree that there is way too much gratuitous, meaningless violence in media, and I DESPISE stories like Payback where the point is for the protagonist to be as violent as possible for no particular reason. I guess where I'm going with this is that you can't really change anything by saying that the arguments for reducing sex and violence in media are the same - because they're not. They hold separate roles in storytelling, so changing the way and frequency of their use is going to require different changes in storytelling.
Sreya: Uncertainty Principle[info]sreya on March 29th, 2009 02:54 am (UTC)
Whoa, I didn't realize that comment had gotten so long - sorry about that!
(no subject) - [info]rj_anderson on March 29th, 2009 11:52 am (UTC) (Expand)
kbaccellia[info]kbaccellia on March 29th, 2009 03:57 am (UTC)
I hate all this banning stuff because some parents feel that certain 'scenes' shouldn't be in YA books. I've heard this myself on my own books. One parent even told me I had a 'responsiblity' to write uplifting material and not anything that was from the world. I'm like, that's not my job.

Grrrr.

This whole thing reeks of double standards.
R.J. Anderson: Autumn - Dream[info]rj_anderson on March 29th, 2009 06:40 pm (UTC)
Well, and the Bible isn't always full of "uplifting" material. I've just been teaching the book of Judges in Sunday School, and a more sad, sordid tale of human wretchedness and degradation you can hardly imagine at times, especially in the later chapters. The question is not what is presented so much as how and why, I feel.
maggie l. wood[info]faerie_writer on March 29th, 2009 03:07 pm (UTC)
Wow, Rebecca, that was one of the best, most thoughtful comments I've heard on that touchy subject. Thanks for posting it.
R.J. Anderson: Knife - Green[info]rj_anderson on March 29th, 2009 06:40 pm (UTC)
Thank you so much! Very kind of you to say so.
joypreble[info]joypreble on March 29th, 2009 04:20 pm (UTC)
Excellent, thought-provoking post and equally excellent comment converation. (sometimes I find myself skimming if there are tons of comments, but this conversation is so thoughtful and articulate that I've read every word. I think to me, it comes down largely to your last point - free will. Or basically freedom of choice. I'm a parent and a writer and a teacher and far too often I see a total lack of trust that teens will make the right choices. Oh certainly they make many wrong choices. But the kids I teach really do when something they're reading is making them uncomfortable and they know why. And they really can differentiate between what goes on fictionally and real life. (okay, mostly, that is; I teach 10th graders this year and sometimes there is truly a fuzzy line between fiction and reality)I have students who, for example, absolutely do not use swear words. And when called upon to read, say, Julius Caesar's Marc Antony, will substitute darn for damn in a line like "Look with a spot I damn him." And they will listen when I say, hey, it's damning him to death, not using it as a swear word. And then they make up their own minds as to how to proceed. And honestly, have a harder time with all the suicide in that play than they do with Bella having "implied sex" with Edward.
R.J. Anderson: Doctor Who - Five - Expletives[info]rj_anderson on March 29th, 2009 06:45 pm (UTC)
I wonder if this ties in somewhat to our extremely protective culture when it comes to children. The kind of freedoms you and I enjoyed as children are unthinkable to many parents and other caretakers now -- my kids can't even go ice skating without helmets on! Admittely kids do behave irresponsibly at times and they do get hurt as a result -- but should the failings or accidents of a few really have such a profound influence on the standards for all kids? If it goes much farther we might as well wrap up our kids in cotton wool at birth and never let them out...

Which is not to advocate that parents should be indifferent or irresponsible when it comes to the welfare of their children, but I do think children need to learn to exercise their own judgment, which sometimes includes (gasp!) the freedom to make mistakes.

I like your example from Julius Caesar. I pretty much slept through that play in high school, but if I'd been called upon to read it I would have been one of the kids waffling anxiously between "damn" and "darn", too. :)
I'll see your "wait..." and raise you a "bzuh?": SPO[info]scionofgrace on March 29th, 2009 10:14 pm (UTC)
::standing ovation::

I think that's the best explanation of the problem that I've ever seen. The bit with the chocolate recipe book - exactly! It's the context that makes content like that right or wrong, nine times out of ten.

And you're right: banning the books from the library will not work and does infringe on people's rights. Banning them from your own house, that is your right. Two totally different things.
( 62 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>