NationStates Jolt Archive

There are days when I despair for the human race. Is intelligence and education so feared in this country that one word would cause this kind of lunacy?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/childrens-book-stirs-battle-with-single/20070217193109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

What else is there to say?
But some librarians countered that since the heroine of “The Higher Power of Lucky” is 10, children older than that would not be interested in reading it.
So, like how no adults are interested in reading a book about a teenage wizard?

It's a "public decency" thing. The belief that children shouldn't even know they have genitalia until they're married.

Also, what's fluffle, in your sig, and why should someone be against it?

Another smart-ass writer being deliberately offensive just for the sake of being offensive.

It's about time to bury the concept of "pushing the envelope." Especially when it comes to children's literature.

Maybe the librarians just want the writer to dumb down the language. Say the dog got bit on the "butt" or something else as lame. Do these stupid attention seeking librarians think that parents are going to care about that one word?

What's wrong with you people...

There are days when I despair for the human race. Is intelligence and education so feared in this country that one word would cause this kind of lunacy?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/childrens-book-stirs-battle-with-single/20070217193109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Oh no, a children's book has a word for a body part that 50% of the population has! The children's innocence will be lost forever should they discover this! OH WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

There are days when I despair for the human race. Is intelligence and education so feared in this country that one word would cause this kind of lunacy?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/childrens-book-stirs-battle-with-single/20070217193109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Don't despair for us! Soon enough, we shall be gone, the universe none the wiser :)

Don't despair for us! Soon enough, we shall be gone, the universe none the wiser :)

I hope at least humanity will have a few thousand years where we can journey among the stars. If we were to be destroyed before leaving this pathetic planet then that would be very depressing.

Hehehe... 'scrotum'... she wrote scrotum!

Hehehe... 'scrotum'... she wrote scrotum!

Scrotum is certainly better then if the author made some kind of Uranus joke. :p

its a Mad World

For crying out loud, the book says scrotum, not balls, goulies, goody-sack, bean-bag or some other crappy slang. Frankly if more children were exposed to proper and correct terminology we might not have to endure hearing words like "cock" and "tits".

What I find disturbing is the number of people who are complaining about having to explain what this word means to curious readers....bad enough that girls of ten might not know that males have scrotums, but if there are 10 year old boys out there who dont know what that particular part of their anatomy is called, that's disgusting.:eek:

What's wrong with you people...descent from white puritan trash

I hope at least humanity will have a few thousand years where we can journey among the stars. If we were to be destroyed before leaving this pathetic planet then that would be very depressing.it is already very depressing. christianity cost us 1000 years of development.

The word “scrotum” does not often appear in polite conversation

it doesn't :confused: I was having very polite conversation over breakfast this morning and I believe we said "scrotum" about 5 times...........:)

I am filled with much anger. Though I have not read the article or the thread yet. I am filled with much anger because:
Please Upgrade Your Web Browser

Your Web browser does not meet the necessary requirements to access this content.

AOL recommends upgrading to improve your overall online experience. Download the latest version of Netscape Navigator or Microsoft Internet Explorer.

You may also proceed without upgrading, however some content may not be accessible or display properly. Continue without upgrading.

Also: What, children will read the word scrotum?! OH GOOD GOD NO! THE HUMANITY, OH THE HUMANITY! AND THE ALLCAPS, OH THE ALLCAPS!

You know kids will ask their parents "What's a scrotum?" and the adults jaws will drop so fast that there might be injuries. :p

It'll be like an epidemic of lockjaw, but in reverse.

I am filled with much anger. Though I have not read the article or the thread yet. I am filled with much anger because:


Also: What, children will read the word scrotum?! OH GOOD GOD NO! THE HUMANITY, OH THE HUMANITY! AND THE ALLCAPS, OH THE ALLCAPS!

You know kids will ask their parents "What's a scrotum?" and the adults jaws will drop so fast that there might be injuries. :p

Isn't it kind of important for a child to know about his or her body? Why are parents so goddamn afraid of TALKING? All this crap about "polite society"' they're probably afraid that their child will start saying "scrotum" in public...and since all of the other parents around them are as anal-retentive as his, they'll be shocked.

My opinion: The second a child is old enough to read the word, you can explain what it is. And, for good measure and protection, explain that not everyone likes the word and he shouldn't go around just yelling it.

Because you see Timmy, the Joneses nextdoor haven't see eachother's "pee-pee places" since they had their child 18 years ago, and sleep in separate beds, and I fear that if you say "that word" that they'll grow horns, start spewing flames out of their mouths, and will call Social Services and Gloria Alred to take you away from me. Fucktards...

I can't imagine what would have happened if the dog had been bitten on the penis. :eek:

Did anyone notice that this book won an award?

God! How is that possible when it contains such filth? :rolleyes:

I can't imagine what would have happened if the dog had been bitten on the penis. :eek:

Did anyone notice that this book won an award?

God! How is that possible when it contains such filth? :rolleyes:

Sorry comrade, I can't tell when you're being sarcastic...are you?

I can't imagine what would have happened if the dog had been bitten on the penis. :eek:

Did anyone notice that this book won an award?

God! How is that possible when it contains such filth? :rolleyes:

On assumes the award comes from some manner of pornographers association. Who else could approve of the use of the word scrotum?[/sarc]

Them people are idiots. Its a book that used the CORRECT term for the appendage. And was just one instance. Not like it was a book about sex.

Kids are going to learn this stuff anyways, might as well start them off on the right foot.

it doesn't :confused: I was having very polite conversation over breakfast this morning and I believe we said "scrotum" about 5 times...........:)

I want to have breakfast at your place. :D

Another smart-ass writer being deliberately offensive just for the sake of being offensive.

It's about time to bury the concept of "pushing the envelope." Especially when it comes to children's literature.

One word, and an entire book should be banned? That's not censorship, it's lunacy. The word "scrotum" isn't even that offensive. It's a body part. ZOMG! Whatever shall we do? Damn ebil liberals, lacing our children's book with poison! Work of the devil, I tell ye!
Please. You cannot seriously believe that one word should discredit an entire book?

It's not even offensive.

Ballsack would be much more edgy. Christ.

it is already very depressing. christianity cost us 1000 years of development.

And already, the thread has degenerated into christian-bashing by UB. On the first page? That must be a record. Try stay on topic,eh?

The word “scrotum” does not often appear in polite conversation

Yeah..and the word "scrotum" does not often appear in "non-polite" conversation either.

Ridiculous. Although I think her reasoning about the use of the word is hysterical:

"The word is just so delicious,” Ms. Patron said. “The sound of the word to Lucky is so evocative. It’s one of those words that’s so interesting because of the sound of the word."

Delicious? I think not....

Ridiculous. Although I think her reasoning about the use of the word is hysterical:



Delicious? I think not....

Yeah, something seems off about reffering to scrotum as delicious.

Sorry comrade, I can't tell when you're being sarcastic...are you?

Yes very sarcastic.

My opinion: The second a child is old enough to read the word, you can explain what it is. And, for good measure and protection, explain that not everyone likes the word and he shouldn't go around just yelling it.

I had a similar conversation with my kids, I said "that is a penis, it's a boy's private part, since it's private we don't talk about it at church, because that's a public place"

they seemed fine with that, I am pretty sure it would extend to scrotum.

Delicious? I think not....

Maybe with some fava beans and a nice chianti...

Yeah, something seems off about reffering to scrotum as delicious.

Evidently you haven't encountered a tasty ball sac as yet.

I had a similar conversation with my kids, I said "that is a penis, it's a boy's private part, since it's private we don't talk about it at church, because that's a public place"

they seemed fine with that, I am pretty sure it would extend to scrotum.

You used the word penis in conversation with your children? Oh, the shame of it all. :D

Ridiculous. Although I think her reasoning about the use of the word is hysterical:



Delicious? I think not....

She shouldn't need a reason to put that word in a book. For starters, it's a word. Zomg. Secondly, it's a word describing a body part. ZOMG. Thirdly, it's not exactly unpolite. If she used the word "dick" or "cock" then fair dos. But, she used a biological term for a body part. Hardly offensive, eh?

You used the word penis in conversation with your children? Oh, the shame of it all. :D

it was an accident.....I actually used the word cock, but then they asked what that was, and I tried to pass it off like a rooster, but they knew that's not what I meant, so I had to explain that it was slang for penis, and that I probably shouldn't say it.

She shouldn't need a reason to put that word in a book. For starters, it's a word. Zomg. Secondly, it's a word describing a body part. ZOMG. Thirdly, it's not exactly unpolite. If she used the word "dick" or "cock" then fair dos. But, she used a biological term for a body part. Hardly offensive, eh?

But...But...children shouldn't be aware they have bodies!!!!!:eek: :rolleyes:

Evidently you haven't encountered a tasty ball sac as yet.
Alas, no.
But...But...children shouldn't be aware they have bodies!!!!!:eek: :rolleyes:

If they know too much, they'll have sex and get AIDS and get themself or someone else pregnant before they're married, and live off welfare for the rest of their sad lives, then they'll go to hell for all eternity!

it was an accident.....I actually used the word cock, but then they asked what that was, and I tried to pass it off like a rooster, but they knew that's not what I meant, so I had to explain that it was slang for penis, and that I probably shouldn't say it.

ROFLMAO. Oh, the joys of motherhood. :p

ROFLMAO. Oh, the joys of motherhood. :p

I totally need to learn that "silent mad" thing. They listen to everything you say, it's almost like they have ears........:p

*smacks head on desk*

it's a motherfuking word!!!!!!!!!! it's a motehrfukcing anatomical part!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate people

But...But...children shouldn't be aware they have bodies!!!!!:eek: :rolleyes:

Oh, silly me! I forgot. They must grow up thinking they have a fireman in between their legs, and that when you rub his helmet, he fires his hose. (South Park FTW.)
Also, you might wanna reduce your sig. I count 9 or 10 lines.

She shouldn't need a reason to put that word in a book. For starters, it's a word. Zomg. Secondly, it's a word describing a body part. ZOMG. Thirdly, it's not exactly unpolite. If she used the word "dick" or "cock" then fair dos. But, she used a biological term for a body part. Hardly offensive, eh?

Not offensive and why would anyone need a reason to put any specific word in a book? I just think it's funny that she describes the word scrotum as delicious...not sure you followed my drift there. I wasn't saying anything about it being offensive just that she's a little strange:


Mmmmm scrotum. Say it again. Scrooootuuuuum. Delicious. Catch my drift?

Not offensive and why would anyone need a reason to put any specific word in a book? I just think it's funny that she describes the word scrotum as delicious...not sure you followed my drift there. I wasn't saying anything about it being offensive just that she's a little strange:


Mmmmm scrotum. Say it again. Scrooootuuuuum. Delicious. Catch my drift?

Hmm. Apologies. It was just the beginning when you said it was ridiculous, I must have missed it. And scrotum is delicious. Tastes like chicken. ;)

Not offensive and why would anyone need a reason to put any specific word in a book? I just think it's funny that she describes the word scrotum as delicious...not sure you followed my drift there. I wasn't saying anything about it being offensive just that she's a little strange:


Mmmmm scrotum. Say it again. Scrooootuuuuum. Delicious. Catch my drift?

I'm sure she's speaking from personal experience.

There are days when I despair for the human race. Is intelligence and education so feared in this country that one word would cause this kind of lunacy?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/childrens-book-stirs-battle-with-single/20070217193109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Feh. Anyway who wants to ban it should take their head and shove it up their ass.

Ballsack would be much more edgy. Christ.

You mistyped Balzac.

I'm glad that I just found out that we are stocking this book at the bookstore where I work.

Stupid. Maybe if they inaccurately called it a "wee wee" (which doesn't refer to testicles or scrotum anyhow) no one would be offended.

Seriously, what is the deal? Kids should learn the proper names for parts of the body -- even the genitals. You mean there has NEVER been a dodgeball, soccer, or other injury where an elementary kid got kicked, hit, or otherwise hurt "down there"?

:rolleyes:

it is already very depressing. christianity cost us 1000 years of development.

And what has your favorite religion to defend cost the human race in terms of development?

A fuss over "scrotum"? What's the big fuckin' deal, bitch?

When I read the OP I thought it would be something interesting; "cuntfucker", maybe; "facebuggery"; "fuckwit" is a classic; "wankstain", perhaps. But "scrotum"? C'mon, most ten-year-olds know what it is, even if they don't know the name. Just say it's a polite word for "knobsack" and they'll be happy.

Presumably by that age they can read the newspaper and come across much more interesting words? I'm reliably informed that when a four-year-old asks "what's rape, mummy?" it's disconcerting, but "scrotum"? Grow up!

A fuss over "scrotum"? What's the big fuckin' deal, bitch?

When I read the OP I thought it would be something interesting; "cuntfucker", maybe; "facebuggery"; "fuckwit" is a classic; "wankstain", perhaps. But "scrotum"? C'mon, most ten-year-olds know what it is, even if they don't know the name. Just say it's a polite word for "knobsack" and they'll be happy.

Presumably by that age they can read the newspaper and come across much more interesting words? I'm reliably informed that when a four-year-old asks "what's rape, mummy?" it's disconcerting, but "scrotum"? Grow up!

PG-13...?

Hmm. Apologies. It was just the beginning when you said it was ridiculous, I must have missed it. And scrotum is delicious. Tastes like chicken. ;)

Oh well, let's take the lamb fries and the rocky mountain oysters off the menu -- kids might realize that it CAN be tasty.

PG-13...?

Meh, most thirteen year olds use and hear worse. I wasn't using any of them to offend anyone in particular or in general, not even the South Park quote at the start. This is a discussion about inappropriate words in childrens books, and they'd probably be inappropriate.

Yes, it would be much better if the children learned that the correct term was ballsack...which is the inevitable result of getting such info from peers.

Mmmmm scrotum. Say it again. Scrooootuuuuum. Delicious.

I wouldn't know, this male has never eaten one and has no intentions of doing so in the future. :p

Meh, most thirteen year olds use and hear worse. I wasn't using any of them to offend anyone in particular or in general, not even the South Park quote at the start. This is a discussion about inappropriate words in childrens books, and they'd probably be inappropriate.

Meh, s'pose.

Ffs, it's a WORD. If you have to explain it to a kid, you just say "it's something that men have". Plus don't a lot of kids bathe together anyway? Even if you said EXACTLY what the word meant, most kids would just be like "oh" and forget about it. Wow, I never thought America would get so uptight. It's almost as if the USA and England are swapping places - England is becoming more liberal (albeit slowly) and the USA is becoming like England used to be in the 1950's. Weird.

Oh well, let's take the lamb fries and the rocky mountain oysters off the menu -- kids might realize that it CAN be tasty.

Nope, the corect name for lamb fries and rocky mountain oysters is testicles. Scrotum is the sack they come in that you make coin purses with.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2283917.ece

Clearly Susan Patron, a public librarian from Los Angeles, did something right when she wrote the novel The Higher Power of Lucky because it won her this year's Newbery Medal, America's highest honour for children's literature.

But she has also triggered a firestorm among conservative librarians and schoolteachers because of a certain word that appears on the book's very first page.

The word is "scrotum" - a clear enough anatomical expression, one might think, but one that has caused untold consternation among certain cultural guardians who believe children need protection from even the mention of certain body parts.


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2283917.ece
For the rest of the article

would people be objected to the word scrotum in a childrens book?

Personally its no worse than children here in the street or on TV or even during sporting events. The fact that its used in the context of a dog getting bitten on the balls. I think people need to stop treating children like idiots and show some maturity

it should of said nuts that way if some parent has issues they can say the dogs nuts where being eaten (by a snake which has shook me to the core)

haha that's funny! conservatives is so unfocused. this is not a surprise.

We had this yesterday, but I can live with lol'ing at the stupidity again.

We had this yesterday, but I can live with lol'ing at the stupidity again.

Did we? ah crap, oh well

It was in todays paper

still funny as hell though

this probably says more about the mental level of dominant so called conservatives then anything else. i'll leave it at that.

=^^=
.../\...

In my ideal country, attempting to ban or restrict the distribution of any book would be one of the most severe crimes...

*sigh*

Scrotum is one of the better words to describe the part of the body that got bitten. I see it as the author trying to give children better vocabulary. Besides, there are far more offensive words. But, censors like to focus on one or two words and not the context.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2283917.ece



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2283917.ece
For the rest of the article

would people be objected to the word scrotum in a childrens book?

Personally its no worse than children here in the street or on TV or even during sporting events. The fact that its used in the context of a dog getting bitten on the balls. I think people need to stop treating children like idiots and show some maturity
So we have a librarian from Colorado in objection. Hardly a "firestorm" of protest. Something that seems to be overlooked regularly is that there are stupid people on both sides of the moral and political spectrum.

So we have a librarian from Colorado in objection. Hardly a "firestorm" of protest. Something that seems to be overlooked regularly is that there are stupid people on both sides of the moral and political spectrum.

Libraries all over the country have either banned the book or are considering banning it - citing either their own moral shock or the anticipation of a storm of protest from parents if they went ahead and stocked it.


hardly "a" librarian

anyway if you have an issue with the title take it up with the Independent its their headline

Perhaps some people need something to bite THEM on the scrotum.

*looks around* I got just the thing!

*deploys the weasels* :D

hardly "a" librarian

anyway if you have an issue with the title take it up with the Independent its their headline

Probably or the anticipation of a storm of protest from parents if they went ahead and stocked it. this has more to do with it than "moral shock"

Perhaps some people need something to bite THEM on the scrotum.

*looks around* I got just the thing!

*deploys the weasels* :D
I approve of this pre-emptive weasel strike. Godspeed.

*stands on chair*

Indeed

So if they are thinking about not stocking it because of that line, then you cannot firmly say that it is a protest thing. I bet if ya poll them, that'll be the majority opinion.

Probably or the anticipation of a storm of protest from parents if they went ahead and stocked it. this has more to do with it than "moral shock"

Indeed

Nothing wrong with keeping children ignorant. It's the done thing.

This is a surprise? Books offend conservatives, period.

hardly "a" librarian

anyway if you have an issue with the title take it up with the Independent its their headline

He has only quoted a single librarian. How does he know that there are multitudes of other librarians out there that object to the book? Have they called him, has a professional organization issued a statement, has he interviewed them? This is either sloppy reporting, or outright bias. Like I said, we overlook that there are stupid people on either side of the moral and political center. Stupid people that should be ignored. I think we may be seeing an example of each in the same article.

Well, isn't this special?

Someone call me when Adventures of Huck Finn isn't 'banned' anymore for having the word ****** in it.

Because as we all know, only conservatives are for banning things that offend them. You know, like Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman (Sorry Joe, I love ya, but it's true).

Maybe the librarians just want the writer to dumb down the language. Say the dog got bit on the "butt" or something else as lame. Do these stupid attention seeking librarians think that parents are going to care about that one word?
The writer is also a librarian. She thought the word was "funny" and that seems to be the justification for having it there -- not that writers should have to justify their words.

Another smart-ass writer being deliberately offensive just for the sake of being offensive.

It's about time to bury the concept of "pushing the envelope." Especially when it comes to children's literature.

What word would YOU use then? Or you'd alter the entire plot of the book so the Uptight Asshole Mommies Club wouldn't get offended? There should be no innovation then? The accepted boundaries should be eternal then? Are you this much afraid of smart people that you want to hold them back due to YOUR fears, YOUR prejudice and YOUR limitations? Can you even IMAGINE what dull, barren, unimaginative world you would be creating here? Oh, right, you don't care, as long as children don't know what scrotum means! And you can't imagine anyways because imagination includes not caring about boundaries, and the world you so long for has them even in our minds!

These "moral decency" idiocies are exactly the kind of ignorance that leads to pregnancy in 12-year-old girls. "Don't talk about it"... to any kid means "don't talk about it when adults are around, but do it as soon as no one can see you".

Here is a notion for idiotic conservatives (meaning that not all conservatives are idiots, or at least I hope so): Kids are curious about sex as they are about anything else, and expecially if they're told that they're too young for it! They want to become adults all the time.

Kids need to be taught about sex and anatomy, what the hell! Also they need to know the proper terms. Does any sensible person believe that it's better for them to discover things the hard way? Maybe with a pregnancy? Or with a sexual disease like a candidiasis?

What word would YOU use then? Or you'd alter the entire plot of the book so the Uptight Asshole Mommies Club wouldn't get offended? There should be no innovation then? The accepted boundaries should be eternal then? Are you this much afraid of smart people that you want to hold them back due to YOUR fears, YOUR prejudice and YOUR limitations? Can you even IMAGINE what dull, barren, unimaginative world you would be creating here? Oh, right, you don't care, as long as children don't know what scrotum means!

First, there have been a lot of good children's books published over the years. Most all of them have managed to be good, without having to name any sensitive body parts. More and more, language like this is used to shock or just because the author lacks the imagination to avoid it.

Second, the reviews (http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Power-Lucky-Susan-Patron/dp/1416901949/sr=8-1/qid=1171894093/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3724688-3014857?ie=UTF8&s=books)on Amazon.com don't seem to hold the same cautionary note as the single librarian quoted in the article. The reviews are copyrighted, so read 'em at Amazon. They do make the book sound a little more challenging than the typical 9-12 year old would want to sit through. It does sound like the main character is a good one and that kids would enjoy the book, once they got into it.

For crying out loud, the book says scrotum, not balls, goulies, goody-sack, bean-bag or some other crappy slang. Frankly if more children were exposed to proper and correct terminology we might not have to endure hearing words like "cock" and "tits".

What I find disturbing is the number of people who are complaining about having to explain what this word means to curious readers....bad enough that girls of ten might not know that males have scrotums, but if there are 10 year old boys out there who dont know what that particular part of their anatomy is called, that's disgusting.:eek:

Thank.....you...... *worships* :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

I knew what testicles and penises and vaginas an ovaries and uteruses were at 8. It was the slang I didn't know. You wouldn't believe how many people in my class would readily call the teacher a dick but be afraid to say the word "penis" aloud.

What word would YOU use then? Or you'd alter the entire plot of the book so the Uptight Asshole Mommies Club wouldn't get offended? There should be no innovation then? The accepted boundaries should be eternal then? Are you this much afraid of smart people that you want to hold them back due to YOUR fears, YOUR prejudice and YOUR limitations? Can you even IMAGINE what dull, barren, unimaginative world you would be creating here? Oh, right, you don't care, as long as children don't know what scrotum means! And you can't imagine anyways because imagination includes not caring about boundaries, and the world you so long for has them even in our minds!

If a writer puts sensitive language in there just to offend, that person shouldn't be a writer. If the writer is giving a more important message however and cannot avoid the term (or rather, thinks that avoiding it would destroy the story) then it's okay.

So, I talked to my husband and emailed him a link to the article, and he says that he thinks the author was trying to shock people and push the envelope because the word is unneeded and while he isn't offended by it (because he would have no problem explaining it to a kid) he can see where others would be, and that it was in there just to cause problems.

I said "your own kids have a book with a drawing of a penis in it, and it points out all of the parts, even the scrotum..."

and he said "yes, and that has a purpose, it's educational, this book doesn't even do that, it just says "scrotum" and leaves it" and then he compared it to how I don't like poop jokes.........:eek: :mad:

why does he always win debates?:(

Thank.....you...... *worships* :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

I knew what testicles and penises and vaginas an ovaries and uteruses were at 8. It was the slang I didn't know. You wouldn't believe how many people in my class would readily call the teacher a dick but be afraid to say the word "penis" aloud. You mean you didn't have that game where you have to say "penis" as loud as you can without the teacher noticing? :eek:

I don't think anyone's tried it with "scrotum" before.

Can someone please tell me why they couldn't have used "balls"? I mean every kid understands that one anyway.

Any time a parent or teacher complains about something based on the fact that they don't want to have to explain a subject they are uncomfortable with to children, an angel has its wings pulled out of their sockets.

Seriously, if you can't explain the word "scrotum" to a child, then you shouldn't be a parent or a teacher. If you can't handle your child knowing what a scrotum is, you shouldn't be a parent or a teacher. You aren't mature enough to be allowed to take care of children.

So, I talked to my husband and emailed him a link to the article, and he says that he thinks the author was trying to shock people and push the envelope because the word is unneeded and while he isn't offended by it (because he would have no problem explaining it to a kid) he can see where others would be, and that it was in there just to cause problems.

Sounds to me like the word is necessary to the story. In fact, the situation sounds like something that very well could happen to a child. She overhears adults using a word she is unfamiliar with and speculates as to the meaning of the word. How many sheltered young children have heard the word vagina, clitoris, penis, or foreskin and felt the same way?

There's another author who gets in trouble for portraying children in situations that their parents are uncomfortable with. Her name is Judy Blume. And the fact that her works are often banned from school libraries is a travesty.

These librarians aren't hired to protect the "morality" of children. The librarians opinions shouldn't matter in the least. They're hired to keep track of what books the children have, making sure they get returned, etc. Any of them who feel self-righteous enough to censor the book themselves should be fired.

It's just a word, very true, but if i posted F...you know what, you'd all complain to the mods and it'd get deleted.

Just pointing that out :O.

Other than that, does your library have simpsons or futurama comics around? they could be rude for lil kids....(cause no adults reads futurama *cough*)

These librarians aren't hired to protect the "morality" of children. The librarians opinions shouldn't matter in the least. They're hired to keep track of what books the children have, making sure they get returned, etc. Any of them who feel self-righteous enough to censor the book themselves should be fired.

God forbid you point that out. You don't want to get blamed for promoting censorship, now would you? :)

These librarians aren't hired to protect the "morality" of children. The librarians opinions shouldn't matter in the least. They're hired to keep track of what books the children have, making sure they get returned, etc. Any of them who feel self-righteous enough to censor the book themselves should be fired.

So who should choose wether a book goes in the adults department or childrens department? I really don't see kids looking around the whole library for a book and then picking up some uninteligable gargabe which is sexualy erotic and morally wrong in a lot of peoples views.

Sounds to me like the word is necessary to the story. In fact, the situation sounds like something that very well could happen to a child. She overhears adults using a word she is unfamiliar with and speculates as to the meaning of the word. How many sheltered young children have heard the word vagina, clitoris, penis, or foreskin and felt the same way?
hubby claims she could have used another word, since the word is only in the book once. His example was sacrum. I don't know. I am against censorship for any reason, he is too. I just didn't see the problem with this and he tried to explain it to me, he doesn't support the censorship of it though.

There's another author who gets in trouble for portraying children in situations that their parents are uncomfortable with. Her name is Judy Blume. And the fact that her works are often banned from school libraries is a travesty.
I know :( her books are in the "adult" section of the library in a the town my dad used to live in.

Any time a parent or teacher complains about something based on the fact that they don't want to have to explain a subject they are uncomfortable with to children, an angel has its wings pulled out of their sockets. .

Every time you bring up anything related to sex, God molests a child. Plees THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Seriously, if you can't explain the word "scrotum" to a child, then you shouldn't be a parent or a teacher. If you can't handle your child knowing what a scrotum is, you shouldn't be a parent or a teacher. You aren't mature enough to be allowed to take care of children. :fluffle::fluffle: My thoughts exactly.


Sounds to me like the word is necessary to the story. In fact, the situation sounds like something that very well could happen to a child. She overhears adults using a word she is unfamiliar with and speculates as to the meaning of the word. How many sheltered young children have heard the word vagina, clitoris, penis, or foreskin and felt the same way? I figured out the male parts on my own in this book my mom bought about 8 years ago. I can't say I was sheltered about sex or the like, but I can't recall my parents ever telling me what boys hid beneth their pants.

There's another author who gets in trouble for portraying children in situations that their parents are uncomfortable with. Her name is Judy Blume. And the fact that her works are often banned from school libraries is a travesty :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle: to Judy Blume. :fluffle:

It is this kind of small allowance that adds up to the demoralization of a society. I can't believe that some of you actually have decided to defend the book.

It is this kind of small allowance that adds up to the demoralization of a society. I can't believe that some of you actually have decided to defend the book.

Whose puppet are you?

Well that articles a bit contradictory. I was reading the newspaper when I was ten, so if their so intent on keeping words out of the grasp of kids mabey they should ban children from reading the newspaper.
Or anything for that matter. Who knows when a naughty word might come up!


Seriously though, I find censorship offensive and it should be banned. By censoring something you are effectively saying that no one should have any knowledge of this things existence even though it is a very real thing. And when you censor one thing and admit that it's wrong to see, lets just take the swastika as an example because I have been discussing it in class recently, then whats stopping other people from saying they find something just as disgustingly offensive and censoring that too? Aside from its more modern associations the swastika was a religious symbol of sorts (not sure of the specifics). Well, the Christians went on crusades and killed in the name of god, why not censor the cross? I'm sure quite a few people could be offended by the sight of the symbol bared by those knights who slaughtered thousands of their kin a few hundred years ago.


Censorship is a slippery slope. Either it happens and grows into a state where everything becomes banned because everything can offend someone, or we get rid of it.

It is this kind of small allowance that adds up to the demoralization of a society. I can't believe that some of you actually have decided to defend the book.

Do you actually have a point to make here or are you merely stating your opinion?

This is a surprise? Books offend conservatives, period.

We do? Funny. I'm a conservative and I love books. I love reading Harry Potter too. Oops. I guess books do not offend most of us conservatives. Just the extreme conservatists.

These librarians aren't hired to protect the "morality" of children. The librarians opinions shouldn't matter in the least. They're hired to keep track of what books the children have, making sure they get returned, etc. Any of them who feel self-righteous enough to censor the book themselves should be fired.

I agree but what if a Librarian does not want the book because of the uproar that it will have among people? Should they be fired too?

Another smart-ass writer being deliberately offensive just for the sake of being offensive.

It's about time to bury the concept of "pushing the envelope." Especially when it comes to children's literature.


What! Sorry since when has the proper term for a part of the body been offensive?

What! Sorry since when has the proper term for a part of the body been offensive? BALLS is the correct term dammit!

What! Sorry since when has the proper term for a part of the body been offensive?

it's not.

neither is the word Penis, but if I were to stand up in church and shout it repeatedly for no reason, it might be.

why is it in this book? that's the question. I think it's not a problem, but someone in my very house points out that there isn't a reason for it to be in that book other than to piss people off.

The ? (approximately equals) symbol does apply, though. Or the "equivalent to" one, which I can't figure out how to do on my superior mac keyboard without opening some kind of window.

Besides, silence woman, you know not about these things!

BALLS is the correct term dammit!

scrotum and testicles are not the same.

don't you know anything?:headbang:

BALLS is the correct term dammit!

Geez, I don't know... Nuts, Balls, Gonads... They all do it for me.

it's not.

neither is the word Penis, but if I were to stand up in church and shout it repeatedly for no reason, it might be.

why is it in this book? that's the question. I think it's not a problem, but someone in my very house points out that there isn't a reason for it to be in that book other than to piss people off.

Huh! as far as i could see the snetance went somethink like 'The dog bit him on the scrotum'

I guess if she really wanted to piss people off, she would has said 'the dog bit him on the bolocks'

As far as I could see it was there to show how some words, in fact some things are not understood by kids, or it was just part of the story. really, whats the big deal, can we not use the S words if kids are around? Shit they hear and say worse in the playground.

The ? (approximately equals) symbol does apply, though. Or the "equivalent to" one, which I can't figure out how to do on my superior mac keyboard without opening some kind of window.

Besides, silence woman, you know not about these things!

I can't do the proper symbol either.......it's pretty frustrating.

and I do know, I have a book right here, written on a preschool level that explains it to me.

scrotum and testicles are not the same.

don't you know anything?:headbang:
It's not the importantly painful part. Bite or kick a scrotum and you know what happens...

It's not the importantly painful part. Bite or kick a scrotum and you know what happens...

:eek:

yes, I do, it's not nice. :(

If a writer puts sensitive language in there just to offend, that person shouldn't be a writer. If the writer is giving a more important message however and cannot avoid the term (or rather, thinks that avoiding it would destroy the story) then it's okay.

I'm aware of both these things, having graduated in Language and Literature and being a writer myself. However, the way Mit put it seems to indicate that he thinks works he deems inadequate should be censored.

It is this kind of small allowance that adds up to the demoralization of a society. I can't believe that some of you actually have decided to defend the book.

I will defend the author's right to write the book, regardless of quality, to my death, much like I will defend your right to write your post, also regardless of quality.

I don't believe that any book should be censored - if I don't like it I just won't buy the book . . . I am just making the statement that I believe we continuously push the envelope in the name of art, or the evolution of society, or whatever anybody wants to call it - and we make small concessions to allow such things, shrugging it off as nothing major, and in the end, it all adds up to our demoralization.

it's not.

neither is the word Penis, but if I were to stand up in church and shout it repeatedly for no reason, it might be.

What if a snake had bitten your dog on the penis and you were telling another churchgoer (not during the sermon, obviously) the story? Would it be offensive then?

why is it in this book? that's the question. I think it's not a problem, but someone in my very house points out that there isn't a reason for it to be in that book other than to piss people off.

It is part of the plotline. It isn't as if, in the middle of the page, there's simply a big, all-caps "SCROTUM!" The author says she drew from an actual experience in which a dog was bitten by a snake in that very area, and decided to include it in this story.

I haven't seen anything at all to suggest she included it to piss people off.

What if a snake had bitten your dog on the penis and you were telling another churchgoer (not during the sermon, obviously) the story? Would it be offensive then?
to them? yeah, they don't talk about "down there" no matter what. it's pretty sad.



It is part of the plotline. It isn't as if, in the middle of the page, there's simply a big, all-caps "SCROTUM!" The author says she drew from an actual experience in which a dog was bitten by a snake in that very area, and decided to include it in this story.

I haven't seen anything at all to suggest she included it to piss people off.
I didn't get the feeling from the article that it was part of the plot. I will try to go see if we have it at our library when we go tomorrow.

1. I know they'd rather we just pretend it didn't exist at all, but since some of us can't ignore the fact that it IS a persistent, perceptible object in our world then what would they have us call it? Ballsack? Nuts? Cockbag? "A rattlesnake bit my dog in the nuts." While I expect that is a more realistic depiction of the conversation between 10 year old boys, I fail to see any of these as improvements.

2. "The word is just so delicious."

Best. Quote. Evar.

I didn't get the feeling from the article that it was part of the plot. I will try to go see if we have it at our library when we go tomorrow.


And one of the themes of the book is that Lucky is preparing herself to be a grown-up, Ms. Patron said. Learning about language and body parts, then, is very important to her.

Unless you actually read the book..you really can't say wether or not there was a reason for it to be there.

Unless you actually read the book..you really can't say wether or not there was a reason for it to be there.

I am going to make an attempt to check it out from the library when we are there tomorrow. I will post my real opinion when after I read it.

:eek:

yes, I do, it's not nice. :(

My mate Dave (who now lives in L.A) woke up one morning with a swollen testicle. He was in agony when he went to the hospital. He fainted and when he woke up was on a ward and only had one ball. He had had a twisted and infected epididymis. His dad had it too and never told him it could be hereditary.

Maybe the librarians just want the writer to dumb down the language. Say the dog got bit on the "butt" or something else as lame. Do these stupid attention seeking librarians think that parents are going to care about that one word?

In a sufficiently large population, there is going to be someone dumb enough to be pissed off by just about anything.

I don't believe that any book should be censored - if I don't like it I just won't buy the book . . . I am just making the statement that I believe we continuously push the envelope in the name of art, or the evolution of society, or whatever anybody wants to call it - and we make small concessions to allow such things, shrugging it off as nothing major, and in the end, it all adds up to our demoralization.

Which is not a bad thing. Society has to have ethics, not morals.

It's just a word, very true, but if i posted F...you know what, you'd all complain to the mods and it'd get deleted.

Uuhh....No we wouldn't...


Please excuse the ensuing obscenity:
Fuck. Fucknutters. Metric Fuckton. Freestyle Fuckwittery.

There are days when I despair for the human race. Is intelligence and education so feared in this country that one word would cause this kind of lunacy?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/childrens-book-stirs-battle-with-single/20070217193109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

I think it's more to the harm that can be "abused" by introducing such a word too early in a child's vocabulary.

granted the lightest offense would be a little child yelling out in the park, "Mommy, I hurt my Scrotum... can you kiss it to make it better!"

or a child grabbing his father while they're entertaining guests and saying out loud, "hehehehe i got your scrotum"

but can you imagine a child reading this book alone with an adult nearby
"what's a scrotum?"
"well, here... let me show you" [sound of a zipper being undone] "this is a scrotum, here, you can touch it if you want..."
or
"well, lets take down your pants... now this is your scrotum..." *Gropes child's privates*

and the defense if this should get to trial?

"your honor, I was educating this child on the parts of the body that they read in this book and asked me about it, I tried to explain it without visual aids but..."

in some cases like this, ignorance can provide a bit of protection in not providing an opportunity for preditors to make their move. and it definately won't provide an excuse as to their actions. let the child learn about certain parts when they are emotionally and intellectually old enough to learn about those parts.

As some maintain, a child is inquisitive, they will ask and they will spread the knowledge of what they ask around. untill they learn discretion and caution, some things are better off not being learned.

Uuhh....No we wouldn't...


Please excuse the ensuing obscenity:
Fuck. Fucknutters. Metric Fuckton. Freestyle Fuckwittery.

correction. YOU won't but I'll bet some fucker will take offense, thinking that a muther-fucking post is pointed at them and they'll run to the mod complaining about all the Fucking Flaming directed at them. :p

correction. YOU won't but I'll bet some fucker will take offense, thinking that a muther-fucking post is pointed at them and they'll run to the mod complaining about all the Fucking Flaming directed at them. :p

Oh shut the fuck up you fucking twit. Don't offend the fucktwads on these boards who are overly fucking sensitive :D

Huh! as far as i could see the snetance went somethink like 'The dog bit him on the scrotum'

I guess if she really wanted to piss people off, she would has said 'the dog bit him on the bolocks'

As far as I could see it was there to show how some words, in fact some things are not understood by kids, or it was just part of the story. really, whats the big deal, can we not use the S words if kids are around? Shit they hear and say worse in the playground.it's not just one sentence and as far as I read, it's not part of the story except it being an interesting word.

Lucky Trimble crouched in a wedge of shade behind the Dumpster. Her ear near a hole in the paint-chipped wall of Hard Pan's Found Object Wind Chime Museum and Visitor Center, she listened as Short Sammy told the story of how he hit rock bottom. How he quit drinking and found his Higher Power. Short Sammy's story, of all the rock-bottom stories Lucky had heard at twelve-step anonymous meetings -- alcoholics, gamblers, smokers, and overeaters -- was still her favorite.

Sammy told of the day when he had drunk half a gallon of rum listening to Johnny Cash all morning in his parked '62 Cadillac, then fallen out of the car when he saw a rattlesnake on the passenger seat biting his dog, Roy, on the scrotum.

Lucky balanced herself with a hand above the little hole that Short Sammy's voice was coming out of. With her other hand, she lifted the way-too-curly hair off her neck. She noticed two small black birds nearby, panting like dogs from the heat, their beaks open, their feathers puffed up. She put her ear to the hole because Sammy's voice always got low and soft when he came to the tragical end of the story.

But Short Sammy didn't head right to the good part. To stretch it out and get more suspense going for the big ending, he veered off and told about the old days when he was broke and couldn't afford to buy rum, so he made homemade liquor from cereal box raisins and any kind of fruit he could scrounge up. This was the usual roundabout way he talked, and Lucky had noticed that it made people stay interested, even if the story got quite a bit longer than if someone else had been telling it.

She stood up, her neck and the backs of her knees sweating, and mashed wads of hair up under the edges of her floppy hat. She carefully angled an old lawn chair with frayed webbing into her wedge of shade, and made sure the chair wouldn't break by easing herself onto it. Flies came, the little biting ones; she fanned them away with her plastic dustpan. Heat blasted off the Dumpster.

There was a little silence, except for the wobbly ticking noise of the ceiling fan inside and people shifting in their folding metal chairs. She was pretty sure they had already heard the story of Short Sammy hitting rock bottom before, as she had, and that they loved the pure glory and splendiferousness of it as much as she did -- even though it was hard to imagine Short Sammy being drunk. Short Sammy's voice sounded like it could barely stand to say what came next.

"That Roy, man," said Sammy, who called everyone "man," even people like Lucky who were not men. "He was one brave dog. He killed that snake even though it bit him in the place where it hurts the worst for a male. And there I am, trying to get away, falling out of the Cad. I break a tooth, I cut my cheek, I give myself a black eye, I even sprain my ankle, but I'm so drunk, man, I don't even know I'm messed up -- not till much later. Then I pass out.

"Next day I wake up on the ground, sand in my mouth, and it feels like death. I mean, it's like I died, man, but at the same time, like I'm too sick and ashamed to be dead. There's a mangled rattlesnake under the car, there's blood, lots of blood -- I don't even know if it's my blood or Roy's or the snake's. Roy's gone. I call him -- nothing. I figure maybe after saving my stupid life he went off to die alone somewhere. It's probably like a hundred degrees in the shade, man, about as hot as it is now, but I'm so cold I can't stop shivering."

Lucky's hands smelled metallic, like the thin arms of the lawn chair; they felt sticky. She pushed her hat back from her forehead; air cooled the sweat there.

"I make this deal with myself," Sammy continued. "The deal is if Roy is okay I'll quit drinking, join AA, get clean."

Lucky edged her bare leg away from a rough, poking strand of chair webbing. Each time Short Sammy came to this part in his story, Lucky thought of what kind of deal she would make with herself if she hit rock bottom. Like, let's say she didn't know if her dog, HMS Beagle, was alive or dead; she would have to do something really hard and drastic as her end of the bargain. Or, let's say that her Guardian just gave up and quit because Lucky did something terrible. The difference between a Guardian and an actual mom is that a mom can't resign. A mom has the job for life. But a Guardian like Brigitte could probably just say, "Well, that's about it for this job. I'm going back to France now. Au revoir." There poor Lucky would be, standing alone in the kitchen trailer, at rock bottom. Then she would have to search for her own Higher Power and do a fearless and searching moral inventory of herself, just like Short Sammy and all the other anonymous people had had to do.

Short Sammy went on, "Then my wife drives up. Man, I didn't even know she'd gone. I'm still kind of laying there on the ground. She gets out of her car, but she doesn't say one word about how messed up I am.

"All she says is, 'I took Roy to the vet's in Sierra City.' She's talking real calm, almost like she's not mad or anything. She says, 'Fifty miles from here, and I drove it in, like, maybe half an hour. That was the worst drive of my life, Sammy, thanks to you. But Roy's okay because I got him there in time for the antivenom to work.'

"Then she goes into the house and comes out with her suitcases that she must have packed the night before, and Roy's food dish and water bowl. That killed me, her taking his food dish and water bowl. All she says to me is, 'Don't call me.' That, man, was rock bottom. So I threw down the shovel. And here I am."

There was clapping, and Lucky knew that pretty soon they would pass a hat around for people to put money in. It was a little disappointing that today nobody had explained how exactly they had found their Higher Power, which was what Lucky was mainly interested in finding out about.

She didn't get why finding it was so hard. The anonymous people often talked about getting control of their lives through their Higher Power. Being ten and a half, Lucky felt like she had no control over her life -- partly because she wasn't grown up yet -- but that if she found her Higher Power it would guide her in the right direction.

Chairs scraped as everyone stood up. Now they would all say a little prayer together, which Lucky liked because there was no church or synagogue or anything in Hard Pan, California, so the Found Object Wind Chime Museum and Visitor Center was the closest they got to one. That meant the end of the meeting and time for her to disappear quick. She'd finished her job of clearing trash from the patio in front -- smashed beer cans and candy wrappers from yesterday's Gamblers Anonymous meeting. It wasn't likely that anyone would be coming back to the Dumpster behind the museum, but someone might. She had to hurry, but she had to hurry slowly, in order not to make a sound.

She stashed her dustpan and rake beside the wall and left the aluminum lawn chair hidden behind the Dumpster. Tomorrow, Saturday, would be her day off. Then on Sunday afternoon, before the Smokers Anonymous meeting, she would again clean up the museum's little patio. The patio was where the anonymous people sat around talking after their meetings. All the anonymous people left lots of litter, and each group could not bear to see the butts or the cans or the candy wrappers of the group that met before it. The reason was that they were in recovery. The recovering alcoholics hated to see or smell beer cans left by the recovering smokers and gamblers; the recovering smokers could not stand cigarette butts left by the recovering drinkers, and the recovering overeaters hated to see candy wrappers left by the recovering drinkers, smokers, and gamblers.Which meant that Lucky had a job -- a great job -- and except for Dot's kitchen-and-back-porch Baubles 'n' Beauty Salon and the Captain's mail-sorting job at the post office, it was the only paying job in town.

Wrestling with the straps of her survival kit backpack, which she had with her at all times, then jogging down the dry streambed toward home, Lucky thought of a question that Short Sammy's story had lodged into one of her brain crevices. She figured she had so many crevices and wrinkles, almost all of them filled with questions and anxious thoughts, that if you were to take her brain and flatten it out, it would cover a huge space, like maybe a king-size bed.

The question of Short Sammy's dog's scrotum settled into one certain brain crevice as she picked her way among the weedy bushes of the dry wash. Even though Lucky could ask Short Sammy almost anything and he wouldn't mind, she could never ask about the story of Roy, since she had overheard it. If she asked about Roy, then he would know that she'd been eavesdropping at the anonymous twelve-step meetings.

Scrotum sounded to Lucky like something green that comes up when you have the flu and cough too much. It sounded medical and secret, but also important, and Lucky was glad she was a girl and would never have such an aspect as a scrotum to her own body. Deep inside she thought she would be interested in seeing an actual scrotum. But at the same time -- and this is where Lucky's brain was very complicated -- she definitely did not want to see one.

A little breeze had come up by the time she got home to the half circle of trailers. First was her little shiny aluminum canned-ham trailer, where she and HMS Beagle slept. Next, the long kitchen-dining room-bathroom trailer, and last, Brigitte's Westcraft bedroom trailer. Instead of having wheels and being hooked up to cars to tow them around, the three trailers were mounted on concrete blocks; plus they were anchored to the ground with metal cables to keep from being blown over in windstorms. The best part was that you could walk from Lucky's canned ham to Brigitte's Westcraft without ever going outside, because passageways had been cut where the trailers' ends touched, and sheets of metal had been shaped and soldered together to join all three trailers, so not even a mouse would be able to find a crack or an opening anywhere.

HMS Beagle bounded out from under the kitchen trailer to smell her and find out where she had been. "HMS" stands for "His Majesty's Ship," and the actual original HMS Beagle was a beautiful ship that took the scientist Charles Darwin all around the world on exciting discoveries. Lucky's dog -- who was neither a ship nor a beagle -- got her name because of always being with Lucky on her scientific adventures. Also, HMS Beagle was beautiful, with very short brown fur, little dog-eyebrows that moved when she was thinking, and big ear flaps that you could see the veins inside of if you held them up to the light.

A breeze rattled the found object wind chimes at the Found Object Wind Chime Museum and Visitor Center, and the high desert air carried that sound in front of it, all the way across town, down to the three trailers at the very end of Hard Pan. Just the sound of those chimes made Lucky feel cooler. But she still had doubts and anxious questions in all the crevices of her brain, especially about how to find her Higher Power.

If she could only find it, Lucky was pretty sure she'd be able to figure out the difference between the things she could change and the things she couldn't, like in the little prayer of the anonymous people. Because sometimes Lucky wanted to change everything, all the bad things that had happened, and sometimes she wanted everything to stay the same forever. how the word is incorporated will make a child curious as to what a scrotum looks like. and the word could be replaced with other words.

audio clip (http://www.randomhouse.com/audio/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780739338797)

Oh shut the fuck up you fucking twit. Don't offend the fucktwads on these boards who are overly fucking sensitive :D

:(

Hey, hold on people. It's a well-documented medical fact that reading words in relation to the genitalia of any animal can instantly turn your innocent 15-year-old into a cum-hungry slut. Nope, it's not the hormones.

:(

Awww

*hands JuNii hands him/her a bakers dozen of his/her favorite cookies*

I think it's more to the harm that can be "abused" by introducing such a word too early in a child's vocabulary.

granted the lightest offense would be a little child yelling out in the park, "Mommy, I hurt my Scrotum... can you kiss it to make it better!"

or a child grabbing his father while they're entertaining guests and saying out loud, "hehehehe i got your scrotum"

but can you imagine a child reading this book alone with an adult nearby
"what's a scrotum?"
"well, here... let me show you" [sound of a zipper being undone] "this is a scrotum, here, you can touch it if you want..."
or
"well, lets take down your pants... now this is your scrotum..." *Gropes child's privates*

and the defense if this should get to trial?

"your honor, I was educating this child on the parts of the body that they read in this book and asked me about it, I tried to explain it without visual aids but..."

That you have to imagine such transparent scenarios in order to justify the censorhip only makes your argument more ridiculous.

in some cases like this, ignorance can provide a bit of protection in not providing an opportunity for preditors to make their move. and it definately won't provide an excuse as to their actions. let the child learn about certain parts when they are emotionally and intellectually old enough to learn about those parts.

As some maintain, a child is inquisitive, they will ask and they will spread the knowledge of what they ask around. untill they learn discretion and caution, some things are better off not being learned.

Ah, ignorance is bliss. The favorite argument of censors.

Him...

and did I offend you? with my post?

No you didn't :) Not a day goes by when I'm not offended on this board :D

Mmmm Chocolate covered fudge and peanut butter cookies!

Your welcome :)

Awww

*hands JuNii hands him/her a bakers dozen of his/her favorite cookies*

Him...

and did I offend you? with my post?

Mmmm Chocolate covered fudge and peanut butter cookies!

That you have to imagine such transparent scenarios in order to justify the censorhip only makes your argument more ridiculous.really Cat-Tribe? can you not imagine the laywers for those predators using that defense in their trials?

heck, you read about lawyers suing people for the flimsiest of reasons and winning. can you honestly say that the Lawyer's responsibility to "Give their client the best defense" won't cause them to actually USE this defense?

they already blame movies, television, books and even Video games for people's actions. why not include this?

are you saying it's not possible that a Judge and jury will be swayed that a child was merely asking for clarification as to what was written in a book aimed at 9 - 11 year olds but could easily fall into the hands of a younger child?

Ah, ignorance is bliss. The favorite argument of censors.I thought the favorite argument of Censors was "think of the children." :rolleyes:

Then again, you probably suppored the right to sell the Little Miss Stripper Dance Pole that was shown here a while ago.

really Cat-Tribe? can you not imagine the laywers for those predators using that defense in their trials?

heck, you read about lawyers suing people for the flimsiest of reasons and winning. can you honestly say that the Lawyer's responsibility to "Give their client the best defense" won't cause them to actually USE this defense?

they already blame movies, television, books and even Video games for people's actions. why not include this?

are you saying it's not possible that a Judge and jury will be swayed that a child was merely asking for clarification as to what was written in a book aimed at 9 - 11 year olds but could easily fall into the hands of a younger child?

Re-read that last paragraph to yourself and see if you really think it is reasonable.

I thought the favorite argument of Censors was "think of the children." :rolleyes:

You are right, you used the top two arguments of censors. Wanna medal?

Re-read that last paragraph to yourself and see if you really think it is reasonable.yes. with a good enough lawyer, I can see that being pulling it off. can't you?

You are right, you used the top two arguments of censors. Wanna medal? sure, why not. :p

Actually its irresponsible not to teach children these words because if, heaven forbid, they ever got molested they need to know what words to use to tell someone what happened.

BALLS is the correct term dammit!

Balls = testicles.
Ballsack = scrotum.

There's a real difference if you're talking being bitten there by a snake :eek:

...

why is it in this book? that's the question. I think it's not a problem, but someone in my very house points out that there isn't a reason for it to be in that book other than to piss people off.

It being used once, on the first page, seems like a clue to me.
It's a teaser for kids browsing the book, and a fair warning to parents that the book might not be complete fluff. It's even a bridge between the two if the kid has to ask about that word.

I have this lovely image of little Robert opening his chrissy present from Granma, trying to hide his disappointment that it's a book. Pretending to be interested, opening it and reading the first page.
"Mum, what's a scrotum? Is it what I think it is?"
Granma thinking 'oh no, I should have read some of it instead of just buying it because it won an award!'

Quite right.

If I had a kid and I was trying to interest them in reading books, I wouldn't give them Harry Potter, because I tried to read two of those and they seemed like rubbish to me. I'd give them books I knew were good because I'd read them.

EDIT: Thanks to Junii for the big 'ol quote.

That passage Junii quoted seems pretty difficult to me. The FOG test came up 7 which is sixth-grade, but it only takes account of long words, which isn't what seems difficult about it to me. A hand-count on three 100-word passages gave me 136 syllables and 5.5 sentences per 100 words, which the Fry Readability graph says it top of grade 7.

It reads harder than that to me. For instance, how many adult readers can describe the "wedge of shade" in the first paragraph? "Paint-chipped" to describe a hole is pretty awful. Panting birds? I find it pretty badly written (perhaps it was heavily edited to shorten words and force it into grade-appropriate form.)

My point being that if the book requires adult reading skills, I don't give a damn what words it uses.

If someone has Word (recent version) on their computer, they could do a Flesch-Kincaid test on the passage? Tools > Options > Spelling & Grammar > Show readability statistics, then it will be shown after a spelling & grammar test apparently.

Pardon the third post, but it snuck up on me. I think I get it now.

This choice of word was deliberate, yes.
It was meant to offend, yes.
It's meant to offend boys. "This book isn't for boys. Stop reading now."

Sometimes pubescent boys read a book which isn't meant for them, because some female friend said it was really good. Most would get the hint from the cover, (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1416901949/ref=dp_image_text_0/105-0854023-3990823?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books) but some would need stronger medicine ... :(

yes. with a good enough lawyer, I can see that being pulling it off. can't you?

Then you need to fix the justice system, not censor a book. Saying something should be forbidden because it "can be misused" would begin by forbidding the presidency of the USA.

it is already very depressing. christianity cost us 1000 years of development.

I am assuming you mean "social development."

Yes, one may be tempted to heft the bulk of the blame for repression of socially acceptable acts today on Christianity. But to do so, however sheik, would be to ignore the multitude of factors and other players in and around the same period that also affected said "development."

I think it's more to the harm that can be "abused" by introducing such a word too early in a child's vocabulary.
I think that is absurd.

granted the lightest offense would be a little child yelling out in the park, "Mommy, I hurt my Scrotum... can you kiss it to make it better!"

or a child grabbing his father while they're entertaining guests and saying out loud, "hehehehe i got your scrotum"
How ridiculous, if a child doesnt know not to grope their parents genitalia, knowing what it is called doesnt aggravate the situation. Whether such a child says "hehehe I got your scrotum", or "hehehe, what have I got a handful of daddy?", is neither here nor there. They either know not to grab their parents' (or other peoples') genitalia or they dont, and in the case of the latter, not knowing the correct terminology doesnt make matters one iota better.

but can you imagine a child reading this book alone with an adult nearby
"what's a scrotum?"
"well, here... let me show you" [sound of a zipper being undone] "this is a scrotum, here, you can touch it if you want..."
or
"well, lets take down your pants... now this is your scrotum..." *Gropes child's privates*

and the defense if this should get to trial?
I cannot imagine that such an adult wouldnt have abused a child in the absence of the question "what is a scrotum", nor can I imagine any healthy, sufficiently informed child would fall for such a stupid and frankly unsophisticated tactic, nor can I imagine any reasonable judge or jury falling for such a pathetic and lame 'defence'.

"your honor, I was educating this child on the parts of the body that they read in this book and asked me about it, I tried to explain it without visual aids but..."
Any judge or jury stupid enough to fall for this would fall for the same story without the book.

in some cases like this, ignorance can provide a bit of protection in not providing an opportunity for preditors to make their move.
No it cannot, quite the opposite. A child who knows what genitalia are and what they are and are not for is better equipped to know they are not for some perve to interfer with or force on them, than a child who is ignorant of such matters.

and it definately won't provide an excuse as to their actions. let the child learn about certain parts when they are emotionally and intellectually old enough to learn about those parts.
Which is well-before the reading age this book is aimed at.

As some maintain, a child is inquisitive, they will ask and they will spread the knowledge of what they ask around. untill they learn discretion and caution, some things are better off not being learned.
The proper terminology for the human anatomy is not one of whatever things are better off unlearned.

really Cat-Tribe? can you not imagine the laywers for those predators using that defense in their trials?
I dont see that it matters. If any judge or jury would accept such a defence, then they'd accept it in the absence of the book.

heck, you read about lawyers suing people for the flimsiest of reasons and winning. can you honestly say that the Lawyer's responsibility to "Give their client the best defense" won't cause them to actually USE this defense?
I can't honestly see that it matters.

they already blame movies, television, books and even Video games for people's actions. why not include this?
What does it matter what they use unless the use is successful?

are you saying it's not possible that a Judge and jury will be swayed that a child was merely asking for clarification as to what was written in a book aimed at 9 - 11 year olds but could easily fall into the hands of a younger child?
I'm saying it's not possible that any judge and jury that would be swayed by such a defence wouldnt be swayed by the same defence based on the child having asked in the absence of the book.

So we have a librarian from Colorado in objection. Hardly a "firestorm" of protest. Something that seems to be overlooked regularly is that there are stupid people on both sides of the moral and political spectrum.
Something someone seems to have overlooked is having bothered to read and comprehend the article the thread is about before making comments that indicate they've failed to do one, or the other, or both. :rolleyes:

Children are old enough to know "scrotum" as soon as they are old enough for "elbow" or "toe" or "bellybutton." Anybody who thinks otherwise has a lot of growing up to do before they will be equipped to teach children about anything.

I think it's more to the harm that can be "abused" by introducing such a word too early in a child's vocabulary.

There is no such thing. If a child can talk, a child is old enough to have any word in their vocabulary.

but can you imagine a child reading this book alone with an adult nearby
"what's a scrotum?"
"well, here... let me show you" [sound of a zipper being undone] "this is a scrotum, here, you can touch it if you want..."
or
"well, lets take down your pants... now this is your scrotum..." *Gropes child's privates*

Can you imagine a child asking, "What's a wand?" and a man pulling down his pants and saying, "I got one right here!"? If an adult is planning on victimizing a child, they don't need a book question to do it.

and the defense if this should get to trial?

"your honor, I was educating this child on the parts of the body that they read in this book and asked me about it, I tried to explain it without visual aids but..."

Anyone who victimizes a child will try and use this defense. They already do. They already try to say they were "educating" the child. And the defense doesn't work, because we all know that you don't have to whip your own genitalia out or touch a child's to teach about it. You aren't going to convince 12 jurors that this type of action was harmless.

Seriously, this is a truly ridiculous argument for trying to keep children ignorant. It's right up there with the, "If my child knows the word 'vagina', she'll be a raging slut at age 7!"

in some cases like this, ignorance can provide a bit of protection in not providing an opportunity for preditors to make their move. and it definately won't provide an excuse as to their actions. let the child learn about certain parts when they are emotionally and intellectually old enough to learn about those parts.

You mean the minute they're old enough to learn in the first place? There is no reason whatsoever that a child should ever be ignorant about their bodies.

As some maintain, a child is inquisitive, they will ask and they will spread the knowledge of what they ask around. untill they learn discretion and caution, some things are better off not being learned.

Wrong. A child who asks about such things should be told - period.

it's not just one sentence and as far as I read, it's not part of the story except it being an interesting word.

The dog getting bitten, as well as where it was bitten, seems to be pretty much a main part of Short Sammy's story. The story would have been a bit different if the dog had been bitten on the paw or tail or whatever, because it might not have been quite so much of an eye-opener for Sammy. It takes something pretty extreme, often, for an addict to hit rock bottom.

Then you need to fix the justice system, not censor a book. Saying something should be forbidden because it "can be misused" would begin by forbidding the presidency of the USA.anything can be misused. including the Constitution. so your solution is to create a legal system that guarentees non-abuse through legal means and not personal responsiblity?

How ridiculous, if a child doesnt know not to grope their parents genitalia, knowing what it is called doesnt aggravate the situation. Whether such a child says "hehehe I got your scrotum", or "hehehe, what have I got a handful of daddy?", is neither here nor there. They either know not to grab their parents' (or other peoples') genitalia or they dont, and in the case of the latter, not knowing the correct terminology doesnt make matters one iota better.and this is proof that you have no experience with children. I've been hit in the groin by kids while horsing around with them and rarely do they say sorry without prompting. you have reports of kids sticking their fingers under the waistband of other kids while playing, all in fun but still it happens. you have reports of kids kissing each other. so again, try to say that they "know" it's wrong to grab and do certain things to other people only supports those that punnishes children for innocent acts.

I cannot imagine that such an adult wouldnt have abused a child in the absence of the question "what is a scrotum", nor can I imagine any healthy, sufficiently informed child would fall for such a stupid and frankly unsophisticated tactic, nor can I imagine any reasonable judge or jury falling for such a pathetic and lame 'defence'.and why give them the opportunity.

Any judge or jury stupid enough to fall for this would fall for the same story without the book.except now that there is an actual item actually meant for pre-teen children. can you name any book that would do this? before you say Health textbooks, you better double check them.

No it cannot, quite the opposite. A child who knows what genitalia are and what they are and are not for is better equipped to know they are not for some perve to interfer with or force on them, than a child who is ignorant of such matters.[QUOTE]no they won't. it only allows them to bring it up in public conversations. and since not all parents are smart and wise enough to caution their kids, it opens up a whole new way to get to kids.

[QUOTE=Zagat;12350207]Which is well-before the reading age this book is aimed at.and what is the reading age you think the book is aimed at. and what is preventing a younger child from reading those books?

The proper terminology for the human anatomy is not one of whatever things are better off unlearned. and if you re-read my posts, learning proper terminology isn't my concern.

I dont see that it matters. If any judge or jury would accept such a defence, then they'd accept it in the absence of the book.no they won't accept it in the absence of this book. why? what other book aimed at that age group opens up that discussion? again, you better check those 6th grade and lower health books before you say Health.


I can't honestly see that it matters.
What does it matter what they use unless the use is successful?so instead of preventive measures like smoke alarms, you would rather reactive measures. fine, you can wait till it happens. that is your choice.

I'm saying it's not possible that any judge and jury that would be swayed by such a defence wouldnt be swayed by the same defence based on the child having asked in the absence of the book.
but normally, the child will not ask unless the topic is introduced to the child. when my neices and nephews were growing up, they didn't automatically point to their bellybutton and ask, "What's this?" no, it was only when it was pointed out to them, then suddenly it's "look bellybutton" untill the novelty of it ran out of their system. granted the Book is aimed at 9-11 yr olds. but can you honestly say that no one will show this book to anyone younger than 9?

There is no such thing. If a child can talk, a child is old enough to have any word in their vocabulary.so if the child can talk, they can say ******, Kike, Raghead, Jap, Fuck, Shit, MotherFucker, Cocksucker... boy I want to hear your 5 year old say those words in public, in your presence and NOT have you punish the child for saying those words. Can doesn't mean Should.

Can you imagine a child asking, "What's a wand?" and a man pulling down his pants and saying, "I got one right here!"? If an adult is planning on victimizing a child, they don't need a book question to do it.ah, but that when that happens it clear cut case of child abuse. now how clear would it be when the defense says. "Your honor, the child asked what a Scrotum was."

Showing a picture of male genitilia is illegal, so that leaves describing it with words. but to most children, words are not enough, so if they insist on seeing one, what would you do?

Anyone who victimizes a child will try and use this defense. They already do. They already try to say they were "educating" the child. And the defense doesn't work, because we all know that you don't have to whip your own genitalia out or touch a child's to teach about it. You aren't going to convince 12 jurors that this type of action was harmless.except now they have a book that is not a text book, a book that can be obtained at the library or any bookstore. a book that can be submitted into evidence as proof that the adult did not broch the subject, but the child did.

Seriously, this is a truly ridiculous argument for trying to keep children ignorant. It's right up there with the, "If my child knows the word 'vagina', she'll be a raging slut at age 7!"did I say keep them ignorant? no. I said there are some words that shouldn't be taught untill they are ready, Just as there are some words that shouldn't be taught.

You mean the minute they're old enough to learn in the first place? There is no reason whatsoever that a child should ever be ignorant about their bodies.so you would teach sex education to third graders?

Wrong. A child who asks about such things should be told - period.and a child who asks should be taught, BUT most children won't ask untill the subject is broached first. via the television, conversation, what they read, etc...

The dog getting bitten, as well as where it was bitten, seems to be pretty much a main part of Short Sammy's story. The story would have been a bit different if the dog had been bitten on the paw or tail or whatever, because it might not have been quite so much of an eye-opener for Sammy. It takes something pretty extreme, often, for an addict to hit rock bottom.and is Short Sammy's story intergral to the main story? the story of her search for the perfect mother?

anything can be misused. including the Constitution.
And including a book.
so your solution is to create a legal system that guarentees non-abuse through legal means and not personal responsiblity?
Is it your solution to ban everything that could be misused including both books and legal systems?

and this is proof that you have no experience with children.
That's impossible.

I've been hit in the groin by kids while horsing around with them and rarely do they say sorry without prompting.
There is a difference between grabbing daddy's genitals at dinner and accidental bumbs, thumps and similar occuring during horseplay.

you have reports of kids sticking their fingers under the waistband of other kids while playing, all in fun but still it happens.
There is a vast difference between sticking fingers under the waistband of other children and grabbing daddy's genitals in front of the dinner guests.

you have reports of kids kissing each other.
Presumably in your mind this stems from their possessing the dangerous knowledge of the meaning of the word 'lips'.....
Whether that is the case or not, there is a vast difference between kissing and intentionally grabbing daddy's genitals in front of the dinner guests.

so again, try to say that they "know" it's wrong to grab and do certain things to other people only supports those that punnishes children for innocent acts.
How absurd. No 9 year old (the younger end of the age-range the book is aimed at) that I have ever met doesnt know that it is inappropriate and unacceptable to go about the place grabbing and groping the genitals of others. More to the point (which you have chosen to ignore in favour of beating this strawman), either a child knows not to grab the genitals of others, or they do not, and knowing the meaning of scrotum wont cause a child who knows not to grab someone's genitalia to suddenly forget this and start gropping daddy in front of the dinner guests. Where a child doesnt know to not grab daddy's (or other peoples') genitals, be there dinner guests or not, not knowing what to call their handful wont make matters any better.

and why give them the opportunity.
The existence and/or reading of a book that includes the word scrotum is not equivalent to giving a person the opportunity to sexually abuse children. It seems to me that you are rather ignorant about the functioning, tactics and methodology of pedaphiles.

except now that there is an actual item actually meant for pre-teen children. can you name any book that would do this? before you say Health textbooks, you better double check them.
Except nothing. The existence of such a book doesnt render juries and judges suddenly brain-dead and incompetent. And as for 'do this' if you mean specifically name genitalia, then yes I can name a book off the top of my head "Where did I Come From". It names genitalia, it describes their function, it even has cartoon illustrations of genitalia and it's aimed at children younger than the book we are discussing is.

no they won't.
Yes it will.

it only allows them to bring it up in public conversations. and since not all parents are smart and wise enough to caution their kids, it opens up a whole new way to get to kids.
It does not open up a whole new way to get to kids. What the hell are talking about?

and what is the reading age you think the book is aimed at. and what is preventing a younger child from reading those books?
It's aimed at an age range that starts at 9. It doesnt matter if younger children do read it since the word scrotum will do them no harm, however, most children younger than the range wouldnt have the reading/comprehension skills necessary, nor would the content and prose be likely to capture their interest. This is not a word that a child capable of reading the prose is too young to know and comprehend.

and if you re-read my posts, learning proper terminology isn't my concern.
We are discussing the proper terminology 'scrotum', if this word isnt what you were referencing when you stated "they will ask and they will spread the knowledge of what they ask around. untill they learn discretion and caution, some things are better off not being learned" then firstly what the hell were you referring to, and secondly what on earth has it got to do with this discussion?

no they won't accept it in the absence of this book. why? what other book aimed at that age group opens up that discussion? again, you better check those 6th grade and lower health books before you say Health.
They dont need a book to claim that a child asked them what a word meant and they were merely attempting to demonstrate. The book is not necessary for them to try a 'I'll show you mine and you can touch it if you want' or 'let me show you yours' tactic, nor is a book needed to claim that education/clarification was the purpose of your genital display/exploration.

so instead of preventive measures like smoke alarms, you would rather reactive measures. fine, you can wait till it happens. that is your choice.
So instead of addressing the points raised you prefer to knock about strawmen, fine that is your choice.

but normally, the child will not ask unless the topic is introduced to the child.
Normally children dont need a book to introduce them to words they hear from kids at school with older siblings. Normally a liar who thinks 'I was just trying to give them a vocabularly lesson' is a defence against sexual abuse wouldnt hesitiate to say that the question had been asked even if it hadnt, or to 'carelessly' use the word in front of the child to cause them to ask the question. Any judge or jury willing to accept 'I was just trying to improve their vocabularly' or 'they asked' as a defence against child abuse, will accept the word of the accused that the question was asked whether it was or not. If you'll believe someone when they attempt such a defence, you'd believe them if they told you the fairies made them do it, so it's no stretch to accept their word that the question was asked. And at any rate a sexual predator would have no problem manipulating the child into asking in the absence of this or any other book.

when my neices and nephews were growing up, they didn't automatically point to their bellybutton and ask, "What's this?"
Really? I find it highly unlikely your neices and nephews didnt ask questions about their bodies when they were growing up. That would be highly unusual and is contrary to the normal development of children. I dont see what makes you think that their parents would inform you of every question they ask.

no, it was only when it was pointed out to them, then suddenly it's "look bellybutton" untill the novelty of it ran out of their system.
It's highly unusual for toddlers to not discover and explore their own belly-button and other parts of their body before they have the vocabularly to ask 'what's this?'. Further why wouldnt a child's attention have been drawn to their genitalia well before they were 9 years old in the normal course of teaching them basic hygiene?

granted the Book is aimed at 9-11 yr olds. but can you honestly say that no one will show this book to anyone younger than 9?
What on earth are you talking about. Do you really think someone wanting to corrupt or abuse a child would choose a book because it said scrotum rather than say the latest copy of Penthouse? Why would a child who doesnt have the vocabulary skills needed to comprehend the prose 'hone in' on the word scrotum? Any child too immature to have the word 'scrotum' explained to them is too immature to pick it out of the prose and ask after it.

so if the child can talk, they can say ******, Kike, Raghead, Jap, Fuck, Shit, MotherFucker, Cocksucker... boy I want to hear your 5 year old say those words in public, in your presence and NOT have you punish the child for saying those words. Can doesn't mean Should.
Any child mature enough to comprehend that they dont know what the word scrotum means, and to ask after it is mature enough to be given a truthful answer about it.

ah, but that when that happens it clear cut case of child abuse. now how clear would it be when the defense says. "Your honor, the child asked what a Scrotum was."
Crystal clear.

Showing a picture of male genitilia is illegal, so that leaves describing it with words. but to most children, words are not enough, so if they insist on seeing one, what would you do?
Showing a picture of male genitalia is illegal where you live? Wow. To most children words are more than enough to explain the meaning of scrotum. What if children insist on staying up till 3.00am, or eating candy for dinner or drinking booze when they are underage? How about the word 'no' and an explaination why not?

except now they have a book that is not a text book, a book that can be obtained at the library or any bookstore. a book that can be submitted into evidence as proof that the adult did not broch the subject, but the child did.
None of which makes an iota of difference. No competent jury or judge would accept the defence you are suggesting with or without such a book, and no judge or jury that would accept such a defence couldnt be made to accept it without such a book.

did I say keep them ignorant? no. I said there are some words that shouldn't be taught untill they are ready, Just as there are some words that shouldn't be taught.
Yes the necessary implication of your words is that children should be kept ignorant about something that there is no need to keep them ignorant of and which in fact they are better off not being ignorant about.

so you would teach sex education to third graders?
Yes.

and a child who asks should be taught, BUT most children won't ask untill the subject is broached first. via the television, conversation, what they read, etc...
Actually most kids will ask questions about their own and other peoples' body, it's actually expected as part of normal development.

and is Short Sammy's story intergral to the main story? the story of her search for the perfect mother?
The 'act' serves multiple purposes and there is no reason to believe that the there was some alternative and equally effective way for the author to do convey what she intended to convey.

and this is proof that you have no experience with children. I've been hit in the groin by kids while horsing around with them and rarely do they say sorry without prompting.

And that prompting is teaching them, no?
no they won't. it only allows them to bring it up in public conversations. and since not all parents are smart and wise enough to caution their kids, it opens up a whole new way to get to kids.

In other words, parents shouldn't actually be expected to be parents. They should try to keep their children ignorant and then blame the responsible parents when their children are victimized. :rolleyes:

and what is the reading age you think the book is aimed at. and what is preventing a younger child from reading those books?

Who cares? A child who has the reading comprehension to read a book above the average level of children their age *should* be allowed to read said book.

no they won't accept it in the absence of this book. why? what other book aimed at that age group opens up that discussion? again, you better check those 6th grade and lower health books before you say Health.

They won't accept it in the presence of this book either. Those who victimize children already try to portray it as "education". It doesn't fly because as responsible adults, we know better.

but normally, the child will not ask unless the topic is introduced to the child.

I think you've been around some pretty abnormal children, then. Most children are curious. Even casually hearing about a concept or word can spark all sorts of questions.

so if the child can talk, they can say ******, Kike, Raghead, Jap, Fuck, Shit, MotherFucker, Cocksucker... boy I want to hear your 5 year old say those words in public, in your presence and NOT have you punish the child for saying those words. Can doesn't mean Should.

Having a word in one's vocabulary does not mean one uses it. I know what all of those words and slurs mean, but I don't use most of them at all and I don't use the others very often. A child is very likely, however, to hear an ethnic slur at some point, no matter what age they are. And they will most likely ask what it means. A responsible parent isn't going to try and hide it from them. Instead, that parent will explain that the term is insulting, and exactly why it should not be used.

ah, but that when that happens it clear cut case of child abuse. now how clear would it be when the defense says. "Your honor, the child asked what a Scrotum was."

Responsible adults know that the response to, "Daddy, what is a scrotum," is not, "Let me show you. Now give Daddy a handjob." You explain the anatomy to a child and, if you need visual aids, you use an educational book. There are plenty of them out there.

Showing a picture of male genitilia is illegal, so that leaves describing it with words. but to most children, words are not enough, so if they insist on seeing one, what would you do?

Showing a diagram of male genitalia is not illegal. Nor is showing them a diagram of female genitalia. Such diagrams can be found in many health books. They can even be found in books geared towards children (I had a series when I was six or seven, when I really began questioning such things).

Showing children porn is illegal, as is showing them any documents made with the purpose of being lewd. I suppose there might be some jurisdictions in which showing children a medical text or anatomy book is illegal, but the lawmakers in such areas are idiots and any such laws should be promptly repealed.

except now they have a book that is not a text book, a book that can be obtained at the library or any bookstore. a book that can be submitted into evidence as proof that the adult did not broch the subject, but the child did.

So? A child will often broach the subject of sex to her parents, but no jury would accept the defense of, "Well, she asked me what sex was," as a defense in a child molestation case. Many children will broach the subject of guns to their parents as well, but you wouldn't come here and argue that a person who shoots a child will get off on the, "He asked me about guns..." defense, would you? Children will ask questions. Many children will hear the word "scrotum" and ask about it long before they can even read a book, much less this one. Adults in our society are expected to act responsibly around children, and no jury of 12 people (unless you somehow manage to get 12 child molesters on the jury) is going to accept such paltry excuses.

did I say keep them ignorant? no. I said there are some words that shouldn't be taught untill they are ready, Just as there are some words that shouldn't be taught.

In other words, keep them ignorant. Of course, when most people say, "until they are ready," they really mean, "until I am ready." If a child is old enough to ask what a word is, that child is old enough to know what it means, and to be told when it is and is not appropriate to use it.

so you would teach sex education to third graders?

Of course.

and a child who asks should be taught, BUT most children won't ask untill the subject is broached first. via the television, conversation, what they read, etc...

And the subject can be broached in a variety of ways. At least, if it is through a book and the child asks a parent, they won't be fed misinformation.

Interestingly enough, I was reading through a parenting guide the other day and the subject of a child walking in on his parents having sex was brought up. The guide was pretty clear in saying something I absolutely agree with - that the whole experience will be much less of a problem if the child has already been introduced to the concept of sex and understands that it is a healthy thing for mommy and daddy to be doing.

and is Short Sammy's story intergral to the main story? the story of her search for the perfect mother?

It is integral to the story the author is telling, or it wouldn't be there. When you read any long story, are all of the side stories absolutely integral to the main story? Generally not. But they all contribute to the book as a whole and were meant to be there by the author.

anything can be misused. including the Constitution. so your solution is to create a legal system that guarentees non-abuse through legal means and not personal responsiblity?

No, my solution is admitting that anything can be misused and making sure the misuses don't get (too) harmful. My point was, the word "can be misused", according to you, in an unlikely scenario. The presidency of the United States currently IS being misused. Would you ban that too?

No, my solution is admitting that anything can be misused and making sure the misuses don't get (too) harmful. My point was, the word "can be misused", according to you, in an unlikely scenario. The presidency of the United States currently IS being misused. Would you ban that too?

I could use a fire extinguisher to harm a child. Obviously, we should ban them.

I could use a fire extinguisher to harm a child. Obviously, we should ban them.

Yes, but by not having fire extinguishers, fire will harm our children! We must harm our children to keep them away from harm! DOES... NOT... COMP-*Head explodes*

:eek:

yes, I do, it's not nice. :(

...Once again, Smunkee fails to sound like a conservative christian. :D

The librarians then went home and performed oral sex on their husband's *GIANT BLACK LINE*

Dempublicants and Heikoku, I think you are both missing the obvious and only rational solution. To try to palm off the problem as being either books (as JunNii does) or fire-extinguishers (as you both appear to do) is absurd.

I think it's time we faced facts, the one constant in both these instances of misuse is children. Children can be misused in such a way that an innocent book is suddenly a tool of sexual predation and a wonderful safety device is turned into a brutal weapon. It should be clear that the variable that consistently characterises these potential misuses is 'children' and obviously the only sane thing to do is ban children.

So I beg you and everyone else to take the only rational stance and think of the children - specifically how to ban them.

Dempublicants and Heikoku, I think you are both missing the obvious and only rational solution. To try to palm off the problem as being either books (as JunNii does) or fire-extinguishers (as you both appear to do) is absurd.

I think it's time we faced facts, the one constant in both these instances of misuse is children. Children can be misused in such a way that an innocent book is suddenly a tool of sexual predation and a wonderful safety device is turned into a brutal weapon. It should be clear that the variable that consistently characterises these potential misuses is 'children' and obviously the only sane thing to do is ban children.

So I beg you and everyone else to take the only rational stance and think of the children - specifically how to ban them.

Holy smokes your pimping hand is strong! :eek:

...Once again, Smunkee fails to sound like a conservative christian. :D

it's not Christian-like to hurt someone ;)

and what is the reading age you think the book is aimed at. and what is preventing a younger child from reading those books?

What's to prevent a younger child from reading a book that displays bared ankles?! :shock:


no they won't accept it in the absence of this book. why? what other book aimed at that age group opens up that discussion? again, you better check those 6th grade and lower health books before you say Health.

If you're implying that there are no books geared toward teaching young kids about sex, I think that says some pretty bad things about the state of education and the quality of the books our children have available to them.

Of course, the reality is that there are some very lovely children's books specifically geared to educate children about their bodies and about sex. I strongly recommend Where Did I Come From? by Peter Mayle. This book was on my childhood bookshelf for as long as I can remember. It was a favorite of mine before my family moved into our new home, which means it was a favorite of mine before I turned 5.


so instead of preventive measures like smoke alarms, you would rather reactive measures. fine, you can wait till it happens. that is your choice.

You're the one who seems to be advocating that. Instead of teaching kids about sex and their bodies from the beginning, you appear to think that keeping them ignorant until it's too late will somehow help them.


but normally, the child will not ask unless the topic is introduced to the child. when my neices and nephews were growing up, they didn't automatically point to their bellybutton and ask, "What's this?" no, it was only when it was pointed out to them, then suddenly it's "look bellybutton" untill the novelty of it ran out of their system.

You appear to associate with very weird children. Every single little kid I've ever encountered has been curious about their own body and its various parts. Hell, pretty much every little boy I've ever encountered has had to be taught not to play around with his penis in public, because it's this cool dangling thing that is very interesting for him to handle.

Kids don't start out with sex hangups, they're just curious. It's up-tight adults who teach kids to be afraid of asking questions.


granted the Book is aimed at 9-11 yr olds. but can you honestly say that no one will show this book to anyone younger than 9?

Who cares? It has a word for a human body part. Do you believe the scrotum is evil or dangerous? Do you realize that half of the children who might see that word actually HAVE one?


so if the child can talk, they can say ******, Kike, Raghead, Jap, Fuck, Shit, MotherFucker, Cocksucker... boy I want to hear your 5 year old say those words in public, in your presence and NOT have you punish the child for saying those words. Can doesn't mean Should.

The fact that you compare words for human body parts with ethnic slurs and curse words is very telling.

Yes, it's true, our culture often freaks out over words like "vagina" or "penis" or "scrotum." That's terrible. It is horrible that we teach children to view their natural body parts as dirty, shameful things. It's horrible that we teach children to think that saying the names of their own body parts is as bad as calling another person a ******.

I think the best thing we could do for our kids would be to make sure we change our culture such that saying "scrotum" in public is as accepted as saying "elbow." A scrotum is not shameful or harmful or wicked. It is a body part. It does not hurt anybody. It does not devalue anybody. It is ludicrous for anybody to consider a body part "offensive."


ah, but that when that happens it clear cut case of child abuse. now how clear would it be when the defense says. "Your honor, the child asked what a Scrotum was."

"But your honor, the child asked what pants were!"
"But your honor, the child asked what a zipper is!"
"But your honor, the child asked what knees are!"

None of the above is considered a legit excuse for dropping trou and raping a child. Why should "scrotum" be any different? Actual adults are capable of understanding the difference between healthy discussions and child molestation. Courts of law are more than capable of distinguishing between them, as well.


Showing a picture of male genitilia is illegal,

No, it's really not.


so that leaves describing it with words. but to most children, words are not enough, so if they insist on seeing one, what would you do?

Show them a picture of one, of course. Or let them look at their own, if they wanted.

Of course, in my family we all saw each other naked sometimes, and it wasn't anything unusual or weird. I've seen my parents and brother nude, and they've seen me nude. What's wrong with that?

I know it may be hard for many Americans, in particular, to understand this, but the nude human body does not always have to be associated with sex. That's a fucked up element of our culture. We are taught that naked bodies always have to do with sex. Seeing bared genitals is always about sex. Seeing a woman's breast is always about sex. Well, hate to tell you, but that's bunk.


except now they have a book that is not a text book, a book that can be obtained at the library or any bookstore. a book that can be submitted into evidence as proof that the adult did not broch the subject, but the child did.

The book I mentioned above, Where Did I Come From, has been around for more than 20 years. It contains drawings of completely nude men and women, and includes images of male genitalia. I am not aware of a single person attempting the kind of defense you are describing.


did I say keep them ignorant? no. I said there are some words that shouldn't be taught untill they are ready, Just as there are some words that shouldn't be taught.

A child is ready to learn "scrotum" as soon as they are ready to know about "nose" or "ear." It's a body part. Don't force your hangups onto little kids.


so you would teach sex education to third graders?

If not sooner. I knew about body parts and the physical mechanics of sex before kindergarten.


and a child who asks should be taught, BUT most children won't ask untill the subject is broached first. via the television, conversation, what they read, etc...

If you want your kid's first introduction to sex ed to come from the telly, that's up to you. I'd rather not, though.


and is Short Sammy's story intergral to the main story? the story of her search for the perfect mother?
Who cares? If the dog were bitten on the leg, would you be criticizing whether or not it is integral to the main story? Your problem is with one particular body part, and the fact that children might actually learn it exists.