School to pull Ann Frank for 'explicit material'

[Darth Holbytlan]

Ditto. Although I probably shouldn't have called the definitive edition "unedited"—everything published is edited, and Anne Frank did some editing of her diary herself. It's unexpurgated, restoring the material her father censored when it was first published.

[hongi]

I think this is the part that is most controversial:

I'd like to ask Peter whether he knows what girls look like down there. I don't think boys are as complicated as girls. You can easily see what boys look like in photographs or pictures of male nudes, but with women it's different. In women, the genitals, or whatever they're called, are hidden between their legs. Peter has probably never seen a girl up close. To tell you the truth, neither have I. Boys are a lot easier. How on earth would I go about describing a girl's parts? I can tell from what he said that he doesn't know exactly how it all fits together. He was talking about the "Muttermund," [* cervix], but that's on the inside, where you can't see it. Everything's pretty well arranged in us women. Until I was eleven or twelve, I didn't realize there was a second set of labia on the inside, since you couldn't see them. What's even funnier is that I thought urine came out of the clitoris. I asked Mother one time what that little bump was, and she said she didn't know. She can really play dumb when she wants to!

But to get back to the subject. How on earth can you explain what it all looks like without any models? Shall I try anyway? Okay, here goes! When you're standing up, all you see from the front is hair. Between your legs there are two soft, cushiony things, also covered with hair, which press together when you're standing, so you can't see what's inside. They separate when you sit down, and they're very red and quite fleshy on the inside. In the upper part, between the outer labia, there's a fold of skin that, on second thought, looks like a kind of blister. That's the clitoris. Then come the inner labia, which are also pressed together in a kind of crease. When they open up, you can see a fleshy little mound, no bigger than the top of my thumb. The upper part has a couple of small holes in it, which is where the urine comes out. The lower part looks as if it were just skin, and yet that's where the vagina is. You can barely find it, because the folds of skin hide the opening. The hole's so small I can hardly imagine how a man could get in there, much less how a baby could come out. It's hard enough trying to get your index finger inside. That's all there is, and yet it plays such an important role!

Yours, Anne M. Frank
SATURDAY, MARCH 25, 1944

Do students have Sex Ed in America? Surely they'd have learned all this before. Honestly, I have no problem whatsoever with the above entry. It is a description. No wonder I didn't even remember it. It's not like she's doing anything with it, she's not talking about how to have sex. She's just talking about her body. Isn't that the most natural thing in the world?

[General Zod]

Do students have Sex Ed in America? Surely they'd have learned all this before. Honestly, I have no problem whatsoever with the above entry. It is a description. No wonder I didn't even remember it. It's not like she's doing anything with it, she's not talking about how to have sex. She's just talking about her body. Isn't that the most natural thing in the world?

Keep in mind you're talking about a country that places an obscene amount of value on the "necessity" of chopping off bits of a child's penis because it offends god.

[Simon_Jester]

Short form: we're bad here in the US, but not as bad as our stereotype seems to be...

Do students have Sex Ed in America? Surely they'd have learned all this before. Honestly, I have no problem whatsoever with the above entry. It is a description. No wonder I didn't even remember it. It's not like she's doing anything with it, she's not talking about how to have sex. She's just talking about her body. Isn't that the most natural thing in the world?

American schools mostly have Sex Ed, but it may happen a year or two after the point at which the students read the diary. And there's generally an opt-out option for children whose parents are psychotically prudish.

It's definitely not accurate to say "Students don't have sex ed in America," but it's also inaccurate to say "all students have it," let alone "all students have it as early as they should." And, of course, even some of the sex ed programs that exist are badly fucked up or missing parts because of said psychotic parents complaining. It takes surprisingly few complaints to intimidate the schools into warping the health curriculum.

Keep in mind you're talking about a country that places an obscene amount of value on the "necessity" of chopping off bits of a child's penis because it offends god.

Keep in mind that there's a fair amount of argument over this. Most of the people who do it here don't do it for religious reasons; the practice of male circumcision in the US has mutated back into a secular custom, the way it seems to have originated in primitive times.

[General Zod]

Keep in mind that there's a fair amount of argument over this. Most of the people who do it here don't do it for religious reasons; the practice of male circumcision in the US has mutated back into a secular custom, the way it seems to have originated in primitive times.

Circumcision is entirely religious, and specifically Jewish in origin, so I don't know what kind of secular customs that aren't bullshit rationalizations to justify its religious use you're talking about.

[lazerus]

Circumcision is entirely religious, and specifically Jewish in origin, so I don't know what kind of secular customs that aren't bullshit rationalizations to justify its religious use you're talking about.

Yes, and Christmas is entirely religious in origin -- first the solstice festivals and later the Christianization that brought it to the United States. It's still very much a secular holiday here. My entire family is atheists and we celebrate it. The fact that circumcisions origins are religious doesn't change the fact that it's the custom here -- it's done because it's normal to do it, and so people who aren't really religious go along with it.

[Serafina]

Circumcision is entirely religious, and specifically Jewish in origin, so I don't know what kind of secular customs that aren't bullshit rationalizations to justify its religious use you're talking about.

Yes, and Christmas is entirely religious in origin -- first the solstice festivals and later the Christianization that brought it to the United States. It's still very much a secular holiday here. My entire family is atheists and we celebrate it. The fact that circumcisions origins are religious doesn't change the fact that it's the custom here -- it's done because it's normal to do it, and so people who aren't really religious go along with it.

Yeah - except that Christmas does not hurt anyone, while circucision does.

First, it is a completely unnecessary operation without any use (aside of a few cases where it is medical necesssary, but these are quite rare) - that's never good, every operation is, as a rule, a risk.
Second, this "operation" is often performed under horrific circumstances, often without anasthesia (not even local one). Great, a potential early childhood trauma.
Third, it DOES impair sexuality - the foreskin is quite sensible, sso removing it does detract from sexual experience.

About the only benefit from circumcision is slightly easier hygiene - and that is actually a two-edged sword, since you are also removing a protective layer of skin (and frankly, you have to be really filthy to make a problem out of the area beneath the foreskin).

Circumcision is performed for the same reason in males and females: Detracting from sexual experience, because abrahamic religions regard sex as evil (except for procreation). It is not as bad for males as for females, but it is still cruel.

Fun fact:
The foreskin is one of the most important part for male-to-female genital-creating operations (you know, the "sex-change"-operation), since it is the best way to give sensitivity to the inner side of the vagina.
Having a foreskin more than doubles the chances being successfull in achieving orgasms after the operation.
(I guess i will spare you the pictures )

[General Zod]

Yes, and Christmas is entirely religious in origin -- first the solstice festivals and later the Christianization that brought it to the United States. It's still very much a secular holiday here. My entire family is atheists and we celebrate it. The fact that circumcisions origins are religious doesn't change the fact that it's the custom here -- it's done because it's normal to do it, and so people who aren't really religious go along with it.

In any case this is rapidly getting derailed because some people are missing the forest for the trees. Ultimately it doesn't change my point that Americans have hangups over genitals thanks to centuries of backassward religious customs and indoctrination.

[Simon_Jester]

In any case this is rapidly getting derailed because some people are missing the forest for the trees. Ultimately it doesn't change my point that Americans have hangups over genitals thanks to centuries of backassward religious customs and indoctrination.

This, at the least, is true. We're not Saudi Arabia, but the level of hangups we do have are far from admirable by civilized standards.

Circumcision is entirely religious, and specifically Jewish in origin, so I don't know what kind of secular customs that aren't bullshit rationalizations to justify its religious use you're talking about.

1)There are and have been cultures that practice it without reference to Judaism, such as ancient Egypt, Polynesia, and sub-Saharan Africa (not just the Muslim areas). In all cases there are superstitions related to the practice, but since the superstitions vary so wildly, calling the custom "Jewish in origin" when it existed before Judaism and exists today in parts of the world Judaism never came into contact with is nonsense.'

2)The circumcision movement in the US adopted a practice that was formerly carried out only by Jews and other specific religious groups, but it has spread into something that crosses religious lines, and is practiced by many people who are otherwise nonreligious or very weakly religious- they do not do it out of specific fear of divine wrath.

And yes, it's stupid and sick. That doesn't make it a religious rite; many people have done sick and stupid things to their children without reference to religion. Religion is not the only source of human evil, after all.

...Third, it DOES impair sexuality - the foreskin is quite sensible, so removing it does detract from sexual experience...

Point of information: I suspect you meant "sensitive," not "sensible." While both words are true, one of them isn't really relevant to your argument.

Circumcision is performed for the same reason in males and females: Detracting from sexual experience, because abrahamic religions regard sex as evil (except for procreation). It is not as bad for males as for females, but it is still cruel.

I broadly agree, but if you poll American families who circumcise their children, I doubt you'll find a majority of them saying they do it so that their boy will experience less sexual pleasure. That's one of the big reasons the custom originated, but at this point the only thing keeping it alive is retarded social inertia. People do it because they did it ten years ago, when they did it because they did it ten years before that, and so on.

I do not approve of this custom. I'm just saying that it isn't being done by a great majority out of Americans because we think we shall be Smited by the Dread Almighty Smiter for not doing it.

[Akhlut]

In any case this is rapidly getting derailed because some people are missing the forest for the trees. Ultimately it doesn't change my point that Americans have hangups over genitals thanks to centuries of backassward religious customs and indoctrination.

American circumcision among Christians was never performed to recreate Jewish circumcision, but was started by a group of Victorian doctors (in England, as I recall) as an effort to prevent masturbation. It continued for a while under that express purpose until it just got carried on through the weight of inertia, with parents often being unable to opt out until relatively recently (70s or 80s, perhaps? I don't know, but it was being done unless the parents told the doctor to not perform the surgery until even more recently).

[Anguirus]

Do students have Sex Ed in America?

Usually, but it is often criminally incompetent. I just read a report on sex ed in Texas (which is a very large state) and it is an unmitigated disaster. Most counties do teach something, but it's abstinence-only (despite the fact that this is NOT the law) with sexist and religious under- or OVERtones.

On the whole, students would not learn about the parts of the vagina in Texas. In fact, I received very little of that sort of education myself. I mostly learned about the process of conception on a cellular level and about the features of various methods of birth control.

[Darth Holbytlan]

Getting closer to the original topic, I can't believe I forgot about that passage hongi quoted. While it's really pretty innocent, I'm not surprised that some parent got it pulled. Plenty of books have been banned for less, including the expurgated edition of her diary.

And, yes, this country is quite prudish. That passage was as explicit than anything I read1 in High School Health class, which is what passed for Sex Ed in Texas two decades ago. Perhaps more so—it implied she tried to stick her finger up her yoo-hoo. That's practically pornographic by US standards. And Virginia (where this happened) is not one of the more liberal parts of the country.

1Not counting the amateur piece of bondage porn that was being passed around class.

[The Spartan]

It continued for a while under that express purpose until it just got carried on through the weight of inertia, with parents often being unable to opt out until relatively recently (70s or 80s, perhaps? I don't know, but it was being done unless the parents told the doctor to not perform the surgery until even more recently).

It's not quite that bad. My dad, for instance, was not circumcised and he was born in the early 40's. Presumably my uncles aren't cut either. I wasn't circumsized at birth because my mom, a nurse, didn't want it done without anesthesia. In fact, I probably would not have been had I not required another surgery around the age of two, but at that point the medical establishment had still deluded itself into thinking that it was healthier for children to get cut. The old hygiene myth, if I'm not mistaken.

Honestly, with what I know now I would have preferred it not have been done. Sure as shit any son of my isn't getting it done.

[hongi]

Even if people wanted to mutilate their sons' penises for religious or medical reasons, why not wait until he's old enough to decide for himself? We're not talking about when he's 30 years old, why not just talk to him about it at 18?