This makes perfect sense:
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.
I’m sure she will – for the kids, of course.
They should probably just ban the English language altogether considering all the filth it can conjure. But first, Betti Cadmus should busy herself documenting the myriad prurient words, phrases and assorted linguistic goings on. In the spirit of lending a helping hand, Ms. Cadmus, you can start here.
January 27, 2010 at 11:28 am
A very proper lady once congratulated Dr. Johnson on not including the improper sort of words. He replied,
“So you were looking for them?”.
January 27, 2010 at 11:29 am
In his dictionary I mean.
January 27, 2010 at 11:51 am
Interesting that her name’s “Cadmus,” the name of the Phoenician prince who married Harmonia, a goddess, and founded Thebes after the Delphic oracle told him to stop looking for his sister, Europa, who’d been kidnapped by Zeus, and among whose descendents were Laius, rapist of his best friend’s son and thus initiator of the Greek practice of pederasty, and Oedipus, that Oedipus. Funny what words can do when you learn about them.
January 27, 2010 at 11:56 am
Hence, they should be banned.
January 27, 2010 at 11:25 pm
But…wait…how to tell people to ban all words?…linguistic…conundrum–oh no! I just said “con”! Too close to “cun-” no!!! Kill me.
January 27, 2010 at 12:59 pm
And this is in California? Jesus. What is wrong with people?
January 27, 2010 at 1:11 pm
It’s back!.
But now parents can opt to have their kids banned from using it. I like this approach. Those of us who plan to have smart children can only benefit from policies that make the children of wingnuts even dumber.
January 27, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Good point. Weaken the competition for college, etc.
January 27, 2010 at 1:46 pm
But recent history tells us that it will lessen the likelihood of them being elected to public office only marginally.
January 27, 2010 at 2:10 pm
And improve their chance of being put in charge of sensitive jobs in newly formed regimes in foreign countries. Like, say, being put in charge of the country in question’s stock market or budget.
January 27, 2010 at 2:17 pm
this article:
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/755936–u-s-school-bans-the-dictionary
says it was a college level dictionary, not elementary school. so they could just buy the right one and not have to read the whole thing.
its a good thing california has enough money to pay someone to sit around and read a dictionary. oh wait lol.
January 27, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Cadmus, thou clitoris: thou contretemps puerile putrefascient pudendum, thou labia majora of latent lassez faire lentofascist fatuousness. And flatulent, too.
January 27, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Nothing good can come from reading books.
I said “come”.
January 27, 2010 at 6:07 pm
I recently saw one of those mobile sign things in front of a church that read: God’s favorite word is come.
I giggled; so I guess I’m going to hell.
January 27, 2010 at 2:44 pm
The average kid can reconfigure netnanny so it spies on their parent’s porn activities while making the kid look innocent. The only solution is to join a camp where shooting, hunting, fishing, skinning, and praying are all that’s available. Although I’m open to mandating conservative dictionaries, once the teabaggers take over.
January 27, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Conservapedia?
January 27, 2010 at 7:59 pm
No street cred. But wait’ll they start quoting from the Conservative’s Bible!
January 27, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Apparently a librarian in California in the ’50s or ’60s went through Catcher in the Rye and counted up all the instances of naughty words. I once saw a copy of the list; it was impressive, and I wouldn’t mind spending ten minutes with that librarian if I could guarantee that I would never see her again as long as I live.
January 27, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Ten minutes? I usually take at least 30.
January 27, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Wait…so that’s what oral sex is? Seriously? You’re kidding.
January 27, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I think maybe they’re just upset about the word “oral.” It hasn’t been so long since Oral died, you know.
January 27, 2010 at 5:51 pm
God forbid any of the kids graduate cum laude
January 27, 2010 at 7:46 pm
My brain hurts a lot.
January 27, 2010 at 8:47 pm
“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.
Come one, Betti, Malcolm X did it when he was in prison. Everybody can do it. I just did it and I’m ready to do it again.
January 28, 2010 at 2:01 pm
The book version was just a front to fool a busybody. All those kids have iphones, and Blackberries with full intertube access. Nobody reads books anymore. What a loser.
January 29, 2010 at 4:40 pm
I hope they keep those kids away from the bible. That book gets really rough.
January 29, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Any word can sound dirty if you say right