Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'm sure we've all already heard about the Newbury Award-winning children's book that was banned by many primary school librarians for using the word "scrotum" to describe where a snake bit a child's dog. I'm also sure that most - if not all - of us agree that banning the book was wrong. However, if you believe banning the book was a good thing to do, I apologize for my ignorance and would love to hear your opinions.

Oh, and if you haven't heard about this, here's an article.

What I want to ask is why it was necessary to have the snake bite the dog on the scrotum. I mean yes, there's no point in sheltering kids about their genitals, but in all honesty, what really was the purpose? I feel like there wouldn't be much of a difference in the outcome of the story. Granted, I haven't read the book, however my impression seems to be that the scrotum is something of an arbitrary place for the dog to be bitten.



I have to say that I agree to some degree with Nilsson. I believe "Howard Stern-type shock treatment" is going a little too far, however, when you really think about it, it does feel like the snake biting the scrotum seems like it may be there to put parents and teachers in an uncomfortable position.

When it comes down to it, it is true that the author has every right to use "scrotum" in the context of the book, and that her book really shouldn't be banned just for that. However, what is really going on here? Does biting the scrotum serve a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by biting another body part? Is it possible that it is there just to shock parents and teachers? Or are we just too uptight that we can't say "Johnny, the scrotum is a part of your pee-pee."?

Can I move to Europe already gonk I can't stand these ******** neocons and their imposition of their morals gonk
I find the word horse and any images associated with it to be offensive and obscene. I want them to ban books with horses in it, any images with horses, and any sport with horses. How dare our children know about horses! My neighbor finds clothing to be offensive and obscene. I want them to ban any use of clothing, any movie with clothing in it, any store that sells clothing to be outlawed, etc. My friend find *insert something here* to be offensive. Notice how this kind of logic DOESN'T WORK. It pisses me off that people think the religious morals are the supreme ones that EVERYONE must abide by.

No, dammit! scream I wouldn't be surprised if that contributes to the problem -- the Americans who are capable of intelligent, rational thought all seem to want to leave, if they haven't already!

I'd make cracks about rats and sinking ships, except that I'm wanting to get out of the country, myself... xd sweatdrop


I suspect that their morals would be a lot easier to swallow if they were based on actual... well, morals. Repression and enforced ignorance aren't morals, they're dictatorial methods. A populace kept ignorant is easy to control.


Psh. Not all horse images are like the shows in Tijuana. :nina:

The entire idea of banning any book, for any reason, bothers me. I stand by my country's values, as much as I can, and last I checked, there was a nice little clause in the Constitution involving "freedom of speech". This might just be me, but I look at the printed word as an extension of speech, and therefore allowed those freedoms.

But seriously, who made the decision that false morals and retarding mental growth was beneficial to our children? Did I miss that memo?

Arguably, I haven't read the book, so I couldn't tell you whether or not using "scrotum" was necessary, but again. I know it's been said before, but "scrotum" is as neutral a word as can be said. I can think of no less than a dozen alternate words for that specific part of the male anatomy, and not a damn one of them is a medical term. Oh snap.

@MC: 1. No, you can't leave the country. Otherwise, who would be my foil? 2. I perceived your initial post as a description of the very dangerous slippery slope that these people stand on, and I agree with that. (If I got it wrong, and am therefore immune to sarcasm, by all means, tell me.) 3. I could find you support for that "banning clothes" thing in about thirty seconds. I have my phone on me.

Why would a snake bite a scrotum? Unless it's a sex-education book, in which case, scrotum is a perfectly acceptable word, there's no reason to have the snake bite the dog's scrotum. The only reason I can think of is manipulation of rhyme scheme, and even that's silly. "Jimmy went to get into the boat-um, and a snake jumped and bit his dog's scrotum!"

Bad descision on the author's side. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be confronted with a sex-ed lesson while reading to a group of third graders- that's not the book's intention. Sex may be criminalized in our society, but for ******** sake, chose your battles.

That said, censorship is fairly reprehensible to me. But honestly, it's not going to hurt the kids either way (like abstinance-only education will), and it would save the teacher a ******** of trouble. I'm neutral on the banning of that particular book, although it would make more sense to just recommend it not be read. At a young age like that, it doesn't matter so much. When you're older, it gets so that the banned books actually have material in it the administration doesn't want you 'getting ideas' about, and you should always strive to read the blacklisted material. The Catcher in the Rye was one of my favorites as a young teenager.