Listen, the snake could have bitten the dog on the ass. That wouldn't have been a problem. As soon as you throw sex organs in the mix, it becomes an issue for many people.

The author did it for the shock value. And it worked.

Quick question: How would you feel if the snake had bitten the dog (well, a female dog) on the clitoris?

hah!

wouldnt have batted an eye. Seriously. That mini part of the story is about kids coming into contact with odd and charged words like that, doesn't work the same otherwise. Its like a part of growing up or something, when kids havent learned proper societal context towards stuff due to not even knowing what words like that mean. Getting bitten in the ass would be a potential swear word trying to mask it as innocent, considering its not a donkey we're talking about.

“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.”

Scrotum? Delicious? Not so much.

Her intent is obvious, but her audience is 3rd and 4th graders where the word is inappropiate.

And I see no problem with banning the book as a whole because of one word. I, as a parent, don;t want to have to deal with it. When my kid is 13, I'll deal with it.

"He bit my dog in the Gluetus Maximus." That falls into all the qualties of the word she is looking for. Sounds weird. A body part. And pretty innocent.

Juan you're such a prude.

See thats the thing. The proper term is innocent, not innapropriate and its being treated like a bad word. Thats what I don't get. I guess you'll want your kids saying things like wee wee until they're 13, but age 9 and 10 is at or past the age where you semi-confusedly grow out of this stuff.

Indigo, when you and your life partner adopt, you'll understand.

Squee, I would never hide the words for body parts. I've said scrotum to Greg a half dozen times when he points his out. I just don't like to have to hear about a dog getting his clitoris chewed on by my nine year old.

I'm sorry. We'll just have to disagree and you can buy the book on-line instead of getting it from the library.

This must be an example of the 'generation-gap' people talk about.

Yeah. Kids change everything.

And quit looking at my penis Indigo! [link]

From the article, 'The word “scrotum” does not often appear in polite conversation.', I think that sums it up.

Sure, scrotum is a valid medical term. Just because it's a medical term doesn't make it innocent and nice. Hemorrioids is also a valid medical term. I don't want to hear about Hoochie's hemorrioids. No one does. Keep that shit to yourself, Hoochie.

I don't want a kid reading about a snake biting a dog's smelly balls. Why, because it's gross. No matter what word you use for the dogs balls, it's still a dog's nutsack. That dog's balls are still getting BITTEN. You can't really pretty it up by calling it a different name and claiming your a scientist.

I'm not for censorship, but I have to agree with Juan on this one.

Scrotum is too technical a term to be used in non-polite conversation. In fact, I haven't heard anyone use it in conversation that wasn't a mature discussion. There are many slang variations that would be more appropriate for that.
And ooo a dogs getting bitten and because its on a sexual organ thats visible to any and all children that have pets, its GROSS! Carpanza you should grow up a bit.
In any case, children are growing up a lot faster these days, with the Internet and all, and the word scrotum in a childrens book designed to stimulate learning in young minds is the least of your worries.

Here's how it is - as stated already, scrotum is a technical term describing a part of the anatomy. In the story it is use to describe a part of the anatomy; there is no abuse of the word to take on a different meaning such as to be offensive like fuck or shit can be. Whether it was intended by the author or not, to be offended by this use of such a word in any book is pathetic.

Kids aren't idiots and aren't going to be corrupted by hearing the word scrotum, or even hearing about a dog being bitten on theirs. And before the "wait 'til you're a parent" argument crops up again (because it's so valid obviously), I have nephews and a niece, the two I see most are ages 4 and 5 and if either one of them read the book and asked me to explain the situation I'd have no trouble with it, and I'd be pretty confident in their ability to accept it too. They're bright kids sure, but as far as I'm aware not super intelligent or anything.

I also can't keep myself from pointing out the irony of the main opposing replies coming from juan who (once again) has to resort to gay jokes to argue his point against hoochie.

I'd wonder if perhaps I've missed the point and it's just the scrotum being bitten that has people up in arms; this seems to be the crux of juan's argument - maybe you could clarify this, juan. But even if this is the case why is the dog being bitten on the gluteus maximus acceptable? It's clearly not about the violence of the situation if this is ok so again it just boils down to the fact that people can't take their kids learning about parts of the human body.

Man... I'll have to write a response after work.

And my "Hoochie is gay" sayings are not part of my argument, but rather introductions or ice breakers. If anyone was offended by Hoochie's latent homosexuality, I apologize.

I'll kick in my two cents:

1) The thought of anything - dog or otherwise - getting bit by a snake in the scrotum isn't pleasent. The author obviously chose this for shock value and to make the situation a bit sensational. Had the author chosen to have the snake, say, bite out the dog's eye in the first scene or something in the same line, many people would complain it was too violent.

2) Scrotum isn't a word I'd use in polite conversation. Whether this is material to the argument or not is debatable.

3) Parents have the right to choose when they should expose their children to material dealing with sex (and, yes, the scrotum is involved in sex). While it's obvious that some revelations can come in spite of the parents' will where there is no control over the environment. However, school should be a controlled environment responsive to the desires of parents. While students may share information with each other that parents may not like, the school as an institution should not do so or make such information easily available, or at least make it available at a reasonable level - third or fourth grade are likely not the appropriate level, although older children may have no difficulty with the matter and it would not raise concerns of most parents of older children.

4) The issue here isn't censorship - no one is stopping the publisher from selling the book, only certain schools and parents do not want it in their library. If you really want it that badly, go to Amazon.com or a public library - no problem. If you want to say scrotum around your kids, say scrotum around your kids, whatever. The question is what a government institution should provide for its students.

5) I enjoy the irony of those without children commenting on this so passionately, particularly JellyFish's assertion that having children is not important to this matter which he immediately qualifies by pointing out his own status as an uncle - does Jelly believe his own argument? Squee herself has expressed a desire not to have children at this time, if I'm not mistaken, yet she seems more than willing to demand how the children of other people be educated - this from the traditional American left that complains of the right's supposed interference with the "families" of others. I suppose interference is only wrong when it goes one way.

Here's the deal - if you have kids, you get to decide what they are exposed to within reason. I've noted above that there are many uncontrolled environments where children can be exposed to whatever material is objectionable to the parents, but a school as an institution - not necessarily a student body - should be a controlled location, responsive to the demands of parents. Sex is a touchy subject in American culture, as it is in any culture, and matters dealing with sex should be discussed with proper parental consent, appropriate to the age level of the children involved.

The book is not sex education - it is simply for shock value and to create controversy, otherwise known as free advertising.

5) This seems based on a lack of understanding of Jelly's comment. There was nothing to suggest you don't need experience with children, I see him saying he has some despite not having children and thats why saying 'you'll understand when you have kids' is meaningless. Its speaking from experience only. As it happens I'm the same way, kids still exist in my life that I'm responsible for and don't want getting corrupted. Also, nobody ever pays attention to my opinion on adopting children do they. I know its there every time I say something about not conceiving kids. I'm all for having/raising kids, just not bearing them cos I actually care about living kids already here that need homes. Very anti-wanting-kids of me I know.

Now, based on experience with children and also myself, I remember being a kid and having various body parts knowledge with zero understanding about sex. I knew something like girls had stuff and guys had different stuff, there was no sex involved in my understanding that much and its weird and sick at worst, completely out of touch with kids at best to fly off the handle worrying about them and sex at the slightest mention of these things. I realize its a touchy subject in america and thats what I think this case is a capitally embarrassing example of. Which by the way is the only place I'm going with this. I suppose I think they shouldn't ban it, but only because if they weren't americans gone nuts, they wouldn't be considering whether to ban it or not. Not cos I disagree with point 3 at all or want to interfere with how others kids are educated. Its simply neither here nor there.

What if the author wrote, "Bit the dog on the balls," or even better, "Bit the dog on the cunt."

'Balls' and ' Cunt' are defined as vulgar slang while 'scrotum' is a technical biological term.

I don't find the word "balls" vulgar.

It doesn't matter what you think, in that context it is vulgar. [link]
Scrotum, on the other hand, has no established vulgar connotation. [link]

Yeah, I'd be pretty pissed off if my kid came home obsessed with his scrotum because of a seemingly-innocent children's book.

There seems to be two schools of thought evolving here: The first, feels we should be open to all discussions of body parts and their purposes, at whatever age a kid should become curious, because to do otherwise makes them "body modest".

The other thinks it's blasphemous, for religious reasons, or irritating, just because you shouldn't have to start the "birds and bees" discussion with your child until a time of your mutual choosing. This is a choice issue: I'd rather determine the right time for my child to understand sexuality than have some "progressive" author decide it for me. And since the scrotum has no biological purpose beyond procreation, there's no other basis for such a discussion.

Finally, what was this author thinking? Is it inherently more interesting to describe a bite on that region of the body? If so, why? And does it actually further the story? Or does it instead offer a digression away from the core plot? Again: If so, why? What's the value and intended effect of choosing "scrotum" over "butt", as Juan has suggested?

Answer: There is none. And this is why people are upset.

Here's another twist: If I walked up to a fourth grader and asked them how their scrotum was, I'd get throw in jail.

That's because you're a known sex offender, juan.

My posts have to be 100 pixels away from children under 16's posts.

Ok...here is my take...

When I was in 3rd grade I read the book Forever. Any of you girls remember that?
It discussed a lot more than scrotum. I think it depends on the maturity of the child, but even more the maturity of the parent to handle simple questions about body parts. It may be some sort of horrid nightmare to discuss these things with your kids (it need not be) but believe me they hear and talk more bullshit around other kids WORSE than scrotum.

For a second opinion, I asked a friend of mine with a son around that age group. He found all of this quite laughable. He says if his kid doesn't know what a scrotum is by that age, there is something weird about that. People are way too uptight. As a matter of fact, that is why people end up with weird psychosexual disorders as adults...over stupid shit like parents weirding out about body parts when you are nine. Believe it or not, the bigger the deal is made about it, the more emotional scars kids develop. If you just chill the hell out and talk to them openly, it's all cool. Someone find me a copy of Forever, and then we can talk.

Check this out...

[link]

I've got no prob with the vag.

THis article says nothing:

[link]

Dude, say something besides Bush is an idiot. We already know that.

I LOVE PINE NEEDLES! WOOOO! dfkjfdk dsja kfldjsfkl jdslkfjdslk fjdsklj kjdkflj dlkdsjfk sdjfkljds

If your dogs gets bit in the package, I can't think of a better way to explain it. I read where the read fern grows when I was 10 which graphically described a child's death and a dog's death. It wasn't a 'he died peacefully in his sleep" sorta death either. I haven't read this book and I don't know how bad it is, but there is probably an alternative to Tom Sawyer-ing it.

No one got bit on the clitoris in "Where the Red Fern Grows."

lol No, they didn't.