[sangrila]

This is my initial post that stated my position.

Maybe they want something that will interest the students. People have wanted to ban "The Catcher in the Rye" and "Huck Finn" from schools also. I doubt "Girl Interrupted" is on the same level as these books, but I still don't think people should complain every time there is language or sexual content in a book. What book doesn't have sexual content?

This is the post you replied to.

Shakespeare's plays and poems....may not be as explicit in language as modern literature, but the themes are very explicit. I think incest, rape, and adultery qualify as sexual content by any standards

You replied.

So, because some of Shakespeare's plays deal with sexual content, any and all books with sexual content should be required reading for 14 year-olds.

I honestly don't follow the logic, but I think we stop this debate. I should not have called you names, but you are being rather difficult here. I am not angry or anything though. I just get worked up.

[Skooz]

I stated in a previous post that I didn't think that was your position. I stated it specifically.

My point was that it is the logical conclusion of such reasoning. That's all.

I don't for a minute mean to imply that your position is that "anything goes" in school curricula because Shakespeare sometimes employed bawdy scenes.

I'm a wannabe writer with reasonable skills. My college writing professor emphasized if a reader misunderstands what you write, it is never the fault of the reader, and always the fault of the writer. So, my bad.