Oral Sex Definition Banned In US School Dictionaries...

acd

acd

Well-known member
MBTI
infp
Enneagram
9w8 sp/sx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/25/oral-sex-dictionary-ban-us-schools

What say you?


Dictionaries have been removed from classrooms in southern California schools after a parent complained about a child reading the definition for "oral sex".

Merriam Webster's 10th edition, which has been used for the past few years in fourth and fifth grade classrooms (for children aged nine to 10) in Menifee Union school district, has been pulled from shelves over fears that the "sexually graphic" entry is "just not age appropriate", according to the area's local paper.

The dictionary's online definition of the term is "oral stimulation of the genitals". "It's hard to sit and read the dictionary, but we'll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature," district spokeswoman Betti Cadmus told the paper.

While some parents have praised the move
Click to expand...
 
I just died a little inside.

For god sakes parents need to step back and wake up. Hiding things from your kids will only hurt them in the long run.

Sex is natural and people are stupid. so why I'm a little surprised? :m058::m156:
 
Notice the words murder, impale, gouge, etc... probably aren't removed. We live in a society that has no issue exposing youth to violence but dreads exposing them to sex.
 
Congratulation parents! Now they're going to type it into a search engine and a much bigger Pandora's box is gonna be opened.
 
Ages 9-10 IS young, but I say it's a greater depravity for a child to be in a classroom without a dictionary than it is for them to become aware of the notion of oral sex. Because the likelihood of this happening is quite minimal, I don't consider the dictionary a threat unless children purposefully search for terms (in which case, the dictionary would not be a culprit - they would likely find another dictionary, or other means to find out).

The thing is, this is a dictionary, not a porn magazine. I don't know any 9-10 year olds, so I may be off in my thoughts here, but I think the situation can be handled in a manner that informs and empowers the child. Finding out about the concept of oral sex does not have to be traumatizing or violating, even if it is unfortunate at this age. Chances are, if the child is exposed in any way to western culture, they're at greater risk from the media and their peer group than from reading this dictionary term.
 
This is simply parents not wanting to have to deal with explaining sex to their children. They want to keep them young and innocent as long as they can, I suppose, but the schools start sex ed. around the fifth grade. The separate the boys and the girls and explain the reproductive organs and such. Why do they do it around that age? Girls start their periods, boys have changes in hormones, kids start becoming preteens. So yeah they are going to look up things like Oral Sex in the dictionary. they will probably draw all over the pictures next to penis and vagina, too. It's what they do. They are children. It is the responsibility of the parents to accept the fact that they are growing up and have "the talk". If they are looking that up in the dictionary then it's well past due.
 
Well then, this is not really helpful in any sort of way, kids are kids and out of curiosity they will find their methods of knowing this things..parents are trying to prevent what is not preventable.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's good for the kids? To little book worms like myself, banned books were even more elusive. Hell, if the dictionary had been on the list I just might have walked my merry self down to the public library and read the whole thing. I would have learned about oral sex AND masturbation.
 
Dragon said:
Notice the words murder, impale, gouge, etc... probably aren't removed. We live in a society that has no issue exposing youth to violence but dreads exposing them to sex.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
My sentiments exactly.

(I am sort of stealing this from the south park movie)
Remember kids, gratuitous violence is all right as long as everyone keeps their clothes on.
 
Awesome.

So kids will grow up illiterate and sexually incompetent? Because it's much better they learn these things from other kids on the playground instead a dictionary or a sex ed class.
 
Who pushed this through, the creeping religious right? If such inanity is allowed to continue and gains pace, we'll see schoolkids in 50 years with the same intellectual horizon and questioning mentality as those of the 1700's.
 
Peguy said:
Actually that would be quite a step up in many ways.
Click to expand...
It would in the way that it would go a long way in removing anarchistic tearaway fibreless elements of modern culture.

It would not in the way that it would be replaced with the bigotry and self-centred essentially flawed human-run tenets of religion.

The key is achieving morality, and teaching it, without threats of hellfire and eternal damnation.
 
Peguy said:
I'm quite surprised you despise the Age of Enlightenment Krump.



Well that's more a Medieval thing, ala St. Bernard.
Click to expand...
I do not despise the elements of enlightenment in that age, in fact I revere them. But the age itself was fraught with religious dogma and doctrine that bore little difference from that of the Mediaeval times.
 
Krumplenump said:
I do not despise the elements of enlightenment in that age, in fact I revere them. But the age itself was fraught with religious dogma and doctrine that bore little difference from that of the Mediaeval times.
Click to expand...
You're quite wrong. Pietism shares very little in the way of Medieval religiousity. BTW, the Enlightenment was a development of liberal Calvinism.
 
All hail failed attempts of being politically correct?

Think about the children, they said. Indeed, think about the children when they typed through Google....
 
Peguy said:
You're quite wrong. Pietism shares very little in the way of Medieval religiousity. BTW, the Enlightenment was a development of liberal Calvinism.
Click to expand...
You are confusing enlightened movements with the prevalent dogma of the day.

What I am saying is that in those days, DESPITE THE GROWTH OF VARIOUS MOVEMENTS against established religious dogma and preaching, the prevalent manner in which children were educated was with a dogmatic and often fearful religious background.

You cannot claim that the demand of morality on pain of hellfire was not abound in those days and it is a return to THOSE days that I am predicting (specifically for the US) in light of events like the banning of the definition of oral sex. I'm not referring to the growth of various enlightened movements of those times at all and it is pointless to bring that up because they were hardly mainstream.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top