Scrotum

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Dreadsox said:
I would not even go into it with detail. I was say it is a boy's private part. I would take the moment to refresh my child's memory about private meaning for you and your doctor to touch only.

But that is me. I would not get into the anatomy of things.

a reasonable response

i wonder why this author
chose to have the snake bite the dog on the nuts? in the first place

so we have a 10 year old girl, Lucky having to contemplate "scrotum"

“Scrotum sounded to Lucky like something green that comes up when you have the flu and cough too much,” the book continues. “It sounded medical and secret, but also important.”




because some parents don't have a problem with it

and some do


what is the best thing to do?



many of you know
what is best when
many parents want a prayer in school
but some do not


i have no problem with this book being removed
 
I don't know why the only thing people can think of is banning the whole book.
Ever heard of the possibility just to adjust that part of the book, i.e. use another body part and describe that?
 
Vincent Vega said:
I don't know why the only thing people can think of is banning the whole book.
Ever heard of the possibility just to adjust that part of the book, i.e. use another body part and describe that?


this book seems to be built on "scrotum"

"scrotum" seems to be the driver here


again I don't think we need little children 3rd and 4th graders (girls) focusing on scrotums


why couldn't the snake have bitten the dog on the larynx?
 
OK, I thought it was just one page, not the entire book.

But, on the other hand, if the book handles the bite in the scrotum just as a bite in the larynx it could help to get away from this sexualization of that body part.

For them, it would just be as if the rattlesnake bit the dog in the larynx. Nothing special.

And the cartoonists came from Denmark :)
 
^ Nutsack dude, nutsack.

I don't see the need to ban the book, but I'm not big on book-banning either. I wouldn't ban Huck Finn for the word "******" and that's far worse than "scrotum".

If you have to explain it to a child...well if it's a boy he already knows he's got one, and if it's a girl, tell her it's a boy's private and leave it at that.
 
Well the phrase what a load of bollocks comes to my mind :wink:


I thought that the book was aimed at 9-12 year olds. I'd have thought by that age most children would know what a scrotum is or if not, it could then easily be explained. It's senseless to deny children the chance to read what's supposed to be a good book just because a small minority of adults have a hang up about one word.
 
Apparently the term is defined in the book, so the "Oh my! Whatever will we tell the children??" question isn't that much of an issue. The whole thing seems to me to be based around adult's discomfort with the word and with having a sex ed discussion with their kids, which needn't happen at all just because an eight year old has read a book that doesn't sexualise the word and in fact uses it in refering to a dog's body part.

Here's a list of other YA books that use the word:
http://www.gelfmagazine.com/gelflog/archives/youth_literature_is_filled_with_scrotums.php
 
Now if the book mentioned Jesus or cited the Ten Commandments - then there would be an uproar!
 
So it's Jesus vs the scrotum now? Next week on WWE :wink:

Seems to me there is an "uproar" over this whole scrotum thing. Do people ever consider that by making an issue of the word scrotum, you are acting as if it is a "dirty" word because it is associated with sex (in and of itself it is not a dirty word, and it is part of the human body which was and is God's creation if you believe that way). So by associating that with sex all the time, you are saying it only has to do with sex. Isn't that sending the message to boys somehow that their parts in that area are all about sex? What is that saying to them?
 
AEON said:
Now if the book mentioned Jesus or cited the Ten Commandments - then there would be an uproar!

And that would be wrong too.
 
My friend invented a new product with a curious name:

The "Ballganizer"

I first thought perhaps it was a niffy new name for a jock strap but I was wrong.

Here is a link to the product. It is for storing soccer, basketballs and footballs-so that they don't lay all over your garage floor causing one to trip..

http://www.ballganizer.com/


I grew up with the inventor as a child in So Cal and we have stayed in touch over the years.

dbs
 
Irvine511 said:

i think we all need to face reality: Jesus had a scrotum.

Oh no he didn't :wink:

I bet he thought it was part of God's creation too, and not something to be shamed about.

I also don't get getting all worked up over the word scrotum in a kids' book when there are Viagra and KY commercials on tv pretty much 24/7. Do people shield kids from all of that too? Not to mention all the other sex-and violence.

If you teach kids to have a healthy respect for, and image of, their bodies and to realize that certain parts aren't just all about sex, I think in reality they're less inclined to have sex at an early age. That's my naive and crazy belief.
 
Back
Top Bottom