Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by BoyBach, Feb 19, 2007.
- The Independent
Please save me, and the children, from these crashing bores.
Well, I personally would have felt better if she'd gone with "balls" or "nuts". "Scrotum" is too long a word.
I'm bothered by it, but that's only because the thought of anything biting any other thing's scrotum makes me cringe. And that cringing offends me.
What if the word had been breast or penis?
Mountain out of molehill if you ask me. Kids should not be made to feel ashamed of their own bodies.
Ya know, I'm beginning to think it's a conservative's job to be offended by things.
Case in point: we're not even talking about a human here, and we're using the proper word for a perfectly normal body part.
What these people are really afraid of is the second question their kid is likely to ask them: what's it for?
And libraries banning the book? Is that what their job is??
Ya don't like it, don't read it. But goddam it, don't ban the thing.
I describe myself as a liberal conservative, and I'm not offended by it at all. The crazy thing in my mind, is most "conservatives" are "religious". I've read enough of the Bible to know that most of it would be rated R if it were made into a movie... It bugs me how touchy people can be about stupid stuff.
Their job is to censor all the things they think is bad, silly.
Actually, it would likely be rated NC-17.
Regulating offensive speech -- isn't that supposed to be dirty liberal trick?
Why would the author even have the scrotum biting thing in the book anyways? There's plenty of other places to get bitten, foot, leg, butt even. I mean if you're going to be writng childrens books, keep it clean. I really do think the author put that in there because she wanted to be controversial so her book would sell. It's not a morality thing in her eyes, it's all about money. Would she get the publicity now if the scrotum bit wasn't in the book? I don't think so.
A publicity stunt? The book has already won an award which would secure it a degree of publicity. It's the moral-right that have got themselves into another frenzy and made it into a 'story', not the author or the publisher.
Plus, what's wrong with the dog being bitten on the scrotum? Maybe it's important to the story? Or maybe it's there to make the reader laugh?
Maybe the parents should ask God why he chose to include parts of the Bible like this? It doesn't hold any relevance either does it? (I'm not trying to be patronizing, just showing an example from what is believed to be a "conservative" book)
2 Samuel 20:10
Amasa was not on his guard against the dagger in Joab's hand, and Joab plunged it into his belly, and his intestines spilled out on the ground. Without being stabbed again, Amasa died.
i guess you're not a writer, huh? and have you read it? you're as guilty as the rest, judging it out of context.
...embarrassingly overwrought...strikes me as much overdone, and even pretentious...I feel rather hopeless about his having a future. -- Rejection letter to John Knowles regarding A Separate Peace
An endless nightmare. I do not believe it would take. I think the verdict would be "Oh don't read that horrid book." -- Rejection letter to H. G. Wells regarding The War of the Worlds
Good God, I can't publish this. We'd both be in jail. -- Rejection letter to William Faulkner regarding Sanctuary
Well if you've read it, then please explain why the dog being bitten on the scrotum by snake is intrinsic to the story line.
The author made it very clear why it's there. It's all about the kid's fascination with new words and growing up. How the word sounds is more important than what it means.
It's so funny that people are seriously defending the outcry. You wouldn't even have a discussion about this in the rest of the world. Some things are really only possible in America.
Conservatives are so annoyingly politically correct.
So there is actually no reason why its there other than it sounds good?
It is a little strange to be using that word for a book that was meant for kids under ten. I guess dont read or check out the book.
hm. by the time i was 10, i was fascinated by words like vulva and defecate (though i preferred the more-accurate-sounding 'deficiate'), both for their sounds and meanings. i was also (and still am) heavily into palindromes.
it's absolute rubbish to think a 10 year old, in this day and age, can't handle any technical world that describes a body part: scrotum, penis, vagina. for all those "think of the children!" pro-censorship 'fraidy conservatives, when did you first hear the word scrotum?
if it was after 10, maybe if you'd heard it before then, you wouldn't be such a pro-censorship, 'fraidy-cat conservative.
it's ironic to me that some of those who grew up seeing the un-edited, violent Warner Bros cartoons, are the same who make the call to edit out most of the violence. ****ed up country we got ourselves over here in the states.
Thats a lot of adjectives there. keep in mind this is only a little children book were talking about and a couple of librarians.
Its all a load of b*****ks if you ask me.
My 6 year old and 3 year old are educated on all of their body parts - including their genitalia. If I were to read a book that had the word "scrotum" in it, I would likely need to explain what it was, and I may get a giggle from my older daughter, but nothing much else. It was actually funny when my son first discovered his own scrotum...
Why are parents so adverse to explaining to kids about their bodies? They're curious. Would they rather they learn various colloquialisms from their friends? It is absurd that people are concerned about this.
Some of the greatest children's literature, and subsequent cartoons, of all time (the classic fairytales) are full of death and ghastly deeds. Did I need protecting from the troll who lives under the bridge, or the giant that eats Englishmen, or the wicked witch? Did my parents, or their parents?
What makes the current generation of children so exquisitely fragile that they need 'protection'?
You know, I agree with you here. The views of a couple of people, however wrong-headed, does not a cultural trend make. This is the same point I've made when people on the Right rail about political correctness gone amuck, or some such nonsense, citing the words of a few individuals as proof.
what was that illustrated childrens book that had a boy drawn "naked" in it, so people banned it AND/OR underwear was drawn/pasted onto it...?