Forever - Banned

Pasadena Citizen ^

[Texasbock]

Pasadena Independent School District superintendent Dr. Rick Schneider has banned the book "Forever" by popular children's author Judy Blume from the shelves of libraries within the district.

The book had previously been found in the collections of one intermediate and three high schools. Advertisement

"It is never an easy decision to pull a book from the shelves. The superintendent has the responsibility to put materials in the system that are educationally suitable and appropriate. In this particular case, after reading the book, he felt that, though the theme is not unsuitable certain passages are and decided to remove the book," said district spokesperson Kirk Lewis.

The complaint was initially lodged by a parent at Thompson Intermediate School.

According to district policy process, a campus review committee was formed to study the book.

The issue was next studied by a central office committee comprised of administrators, instructors and parents and then by Schneider.

Though an initial committee recommendation was that the work be removed from only intermediate and not high school libraries, it was ultimately decided to withdraw "Forever" from the district library system completely due to what was deemed "sexually explicit content.

"Certain passages were not appropriate for any students of the school district," continued Lewis.

The novel, first published in 1975, is self-described as "a moving story of the end of innocence."

According to the American Library Association, it is the eighth "most frequently challenged" book.

A challenge is defined as a formal, written complaint, filed with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness. The ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom received a total of 547 challenges last year. According to Judith F. Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom, the number of challenges reflects only incidents reported, and for each reported, four or five remain unreported.

[Chunga]

"In the past people married younger much because lifespans were shorter."

This explanation is too succinct. First of all, what do you mean by "in the past?" Are you referring to decades, centuries, millenia?

Secondly, does a collective increased lifespan for current living humans involve maturation processes and emotional developments occuring later in life than those experienced by prior generations? Or, put another way, why would an increased lifespan make it beneficial to wait longer than previous generations to marry? Does a longer lifespan in and of itself result in a delayed adolescence and subsequent emotional maturity? Highly doubtful. Therefore, why isn't it a good idea to get married at the same early age as one's ancestors in order to enjoy the full benefits of marriage for a longer period of time?

"In the past there was also more spousal abuse, alcoholism and people who were desperately unhappy."

Lauralee: I hate to resort to age-ism, but you are at an age inhabited by a good many people who believe a good many things based upon severely limited perceptions.

You will need to back this assertion up. I do not believe it...in fact, I believe the exact opposite to be the case within every scenario you've presented.

We are not discussing whether it's a good idea to get married at 16 or 17; we are discussing the notion of love, commencing at age 16, having the capacity to last "forever." My experience and observations tell me that it can, that it does and that it has. You don't have the perspective to allow you to believe it (as you stated, "it won't be forever" if she's only 16).

Lastly, I don't need to ask a 20 something anything about age perspective: I'm almost 50. I know exactly what it feels like to be 20-something. You say "Forever doesn't really mean forever when you're 17;" and of course that's an irresponsible cop-out. For millions, forever doesn't really mean forever when you're 30, or 40, or 50, or 60.

If teenagers can get the idea from this book that all sex prior to age 18 can be nullified with a "do-over" call, it's sending the wrong message. At age 16 or 17, permanent emotional scarrage occurs when one person in a sexually active relationship leaves the relationship and begins screwing someone else against the other's wishes. Some people can deal with this or hide it better than others, but if your last "Scientific" explanation holds any truth at all, people under the age of 21 have no business engaging in sex of any type, married or not. Sex is an extremely primal human element, and it's for grownups.

[annyokie]

Ah, you are going to bore them to death. Don't let them read the Canturbury Tales. There is *sex* in there.

[Gava]

Now this is just getting silly. I have not and I'm pretty sure never will chisel a preliminary shape on a statue with my mouth.

[Gava]

"Sure....when you are an "empty" vessel before Christ it means that He is able to FULLY use you for His purposes.

This differs from an individual resisting the leading of Christ and wanting to continue doing things through their own strength and power, which ultimately fails."

let's see how this fits together assuming that you are right:

-When you are empty you are not using your own strength and power
-If you are not using your own strength and power than Christ is able to have full power over you
-If Christ has full power over you than you don't ultimately fail
-you don't ultimately fail
Therefore, you are empty?

This doesn't make much sense from the way I see it....

Don't we have to use our own strength and power in order to empty youself in the first place? Do we really have to be weak in order to receive Christ? How does a living thing not use its own strength and power? Wouldn't a person have to be dead in order to not be using any strength and power? Isn't that justification for suicide and murder?

DO WE UNTIMATELY FAIL TO USE OUR OWN STRENGTH AND POWER? Does this mean that those who succeed in doing evil things did so under the control of another and that we can't blame them for their actions?

I'm feeling dizzy......

[Gava]

Unless of course it's in my universe ;)

[musical_airman]

Interesting..........

"No, you can't read "Forever"! It's Naughty!"

"Remember, you can get rubbers at the nurse's office if you need them"

Our Publik Skoolz strike again.

On a side note, (having never read this book) since it deals with a girl thinking she's ready to lose her virginity and then ends up being not so sure she should do so, could it not be used as a vehicle for teaching kids they should wait? I could be completely wrong here, but like I said, I never read the book to begin with.

[musical_airman]

I suppose they aren't going to make "Atlas Shrugged" required reading either- too much sex, right?

[Willie Green]

Judy Bloom

When I attended graduate school at Penn State ('74~'76), I knew a girl named "Judy Blume" who looked nearly identical to this picture of the author.
However, Blume's biography doesn't match, so I guess that the "Judy Blume" I knew must've been a different person.
But they sure do look the same. (odd coincidence!!!)

[Bigg Red]

...too many are at the stage of "well, they're going to do it anyway, so what's the big deal"?

**
I know. Where did that come from anyway? When I was a teen in the 1960s, we classified girls as "nice" or not. Nice girls had respect for themselves and let boys know that sexual intimacy was to be reserved for marriage. And the vast majority of girls were "nice". When a girl was foolish enough to fall for some guys line, she would be ashamed to let anyone know about it. I am astonished at how much we have lost in one generation.

[Antoninus]

Ah, you are going to bore them to death. Don't let them read the Canturbury Tales. There is *sex* in there.

If you find Judy Blume "exciting" and Beowulf boring, there's no help for you. Judy Blume is throw-away trash writing.

As to sex, that's not the issue. What's at issue is how sex is approached in the book and how the writer addresses it. The Classics are classics simply because they approach matters such as sex in a way that resonates as much in our day as it did back then. And it is usually very obliquely and artfully described. Judy Blume, on the other hand was just so "gay" about the whole thing (and I mean that in 3rd-grader-jargon). Her stuff is already pathetically dated.

That said, I still won't let my kids read Bocaccio until they're at least college age.

[Grzegorz 246]

"Just a few years ago Neuroscientists learned that the brain does not finish developing until the age of 21ish."

Interesting. I'm +21, but sometimes have a feeling that my brain wouldn't mind to be still developed.

[LauraleeBraswell]

I'm 18. I love this stage in my life. I'm grasping new ideas and really embracing learning.

[annyokie]

I've previously stated that Judy Blume can't write.

Beowulf bored me to tears. At least "The Canterbury Tales" was a fun read.

[P.O.E.]

I did enjoy John Gardner's "Grendel", from the beast's perspective. He also did a slew of takes on such as Gilgamesh, Morte D'Arthur, etc.

[annyokie]

I liked Moliere. I love a smart smart-ass.

[P.O.E.]

Moliere pioneered curmudgeonliness.

[NCLaw441]

Let me get this straight. You can't read "Forever" but they hand out condoms in schools? Am I the only one who sees a "disconnect"?

[NCLaw441]

You said: I see...

You choose to put YOUR wisdom over GOD'S wisdom. According to scripture, that makes you a fool.

Forgive me, but this sort of response does not encourage others to embrace our faith-- it tends to alienate those who may most need (and maybe even secretly desire) to meet Christ. And, by the way, while the Bible is the supreme guide in my life, I do read other books and learn from them. I even learn things from books that don't even refer to Christianity. Don't you?

[NCLaw441]

Moliere and Voltaire, both fun to read, at least in French. It has been 25 plus years.....

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Yes. As Aldous Huxley pointed out: replacing God with sexual profligacy can serve the interests of the totalitarian government quite well.

A passage from Brave New World;

The Savage: Then you think there is no God?

Mustapha Mond: No, I think there probably is one.

The Savage: Then why...?

Mustapha Mond checked him. 'But he manifests himself in different ways to different men. In pre-modern times he manifested himself as the being that's described in these books. Now...'

'How does he manifest himself now?' asked the Savage.

Mustapha Mond: Well, he manifests himself as an absence; as though he weren't there at all.

****

There is, of course, more to that passage, which leads up to promiscuity, but I think the last line typed here sums it up.