This is just nuts.

February 19, 2007 1:15 AM

The word “scrotum” does not often appear in polite conversation.Yet there it is on the first page of “The Higher Power of Lucky,” by Susan Patron, this year’s winner of the Newbery Medal, the most prestigious award in children’s literature. Apparently this is a problem for some librarians and parents.
posted by three blind mice (86 comments total)

But of course on Metafilter...
posted by three blind mice at 1:20 AM on February 19, 2007

OMG! Do they know you can find that word in anatomy books too? Kids can also look up dirty words in the unabridged dictionaries! Those even have the word "dick" in the title! Ban them all!
posted by kyleg at 1:34 AM on February 19, 2007

so absurd.

are we asking children to deny the reality of the scrota of their pets as well? should 50 million dog sacs, on display for all the world to see, go forever undiscussed by the children? must we now endiaper our beloved male pets? (actually, come to think of it, we prolly oughtta put some drawers on great danes).

the ninnies that sign on to this jive-ass "uproar" should be forced to wear scrotum jackets for all eternity.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:49 AM on February 19, 2007

Schools no longer do sack races, for fear of leading kids into thinking naughty thoughts. The terrorists really have won.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:53 AM on February 19, 2007

For the sake of balance, she should have a mongoose shredding a cat's vulva in her next children's book.
posted by Pseudonumb at 2:06 AM on February 19, 2007

In other news, I have some hair gel/gum that is called Gooch.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:17 AM on February 19, 2007

a tad scrotum heavy today, no?
posted by sswiller at 3:30 AM on February 19, 2007

Bollocks!
posted by SteveInMaine at 3:41 AM on February 19, 2007

Wow. 'Scrotum?' In a childrens book? That takes balls...
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 4:14 AM on February 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

From the review in the NYT: “I think it’s a good case of an author not realizing her audience,” said Frederick Muller, a librarian at Halsted Middle School in Newton, N.J. “If I were a third- or fourth-grade teacher, I wouldn’t want to have to explain that.”

I think that the author is perfectly attuned to her audience of curious young children, but may not have forseen the delicate sensibilities of the imbeciles who have power over them while they are in school. Ban a book because you have a hard time explaining the word scrotum? It's time for those school librarians to find a nice comfy job, say, in a convenience store, holding up a slice of ham and asking, "Is this thin enough?"
posted by David Williams at 4:26 AM on February 19, 2007 [3 favorites]

What worries me is that there may be some third or fourth graders who *don't* know what a scrotum is. We tell our children about parts of speech, traffic safety, parts of the world, wars, etc, but apparently its time to bring out the fainting couch when there is the possibility that we might have to teach them about the human body. Horrors!

Maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to let these teachers know that around half of their students actually have these nasty "scrotum" you speak of.

Remember back on V-Day the theatre that tried to change the name to "Vagina Monologues" because some woman complained that she didn't want to have to explain to her daughter what a vagina was? My first thought was "you know, lady, your daughter has a vagina what's the fuss in telling her the proper term for it?"
posted by sotonohito at 4:42 AM on February 19, 2007

Well I realise that you liberals are all whooping it up in your communal bath of group-think-juice, but I agree completely with these librarians - words such as "scrotum" are completely in appropriate for young children, and this author should be censored for what is, esentially, a woeful mistake on her part.

Just think about it - YOUR child may read this book in a library, and - titillated by this new addition to his or her vocabulary - would no doubt start repeating this word in the playground. "Scrotum-face, ha ha ha!" - that's the sort of foul language you'd start to hear from potty-mouthed children in schools all across the land.

The word is BALLSACK, you little fucking eggheads. BALLSACK. If you want to get punched in your scrotum by the other kids for being a smart-arsed little word-wizard, don't come crying to me about it, four-eyes.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 4:48 AM on February 19, 2007 [8 favorites]

Ms. Patron, who is a public librarian in Los Angeles, said the book was written for children 9 to 12 years old. But some librarians countered that since the heroine of “The Higher Power of Lucky” is 10, children older than that would not be interested in reading it.

Children older than 10 in this country aren't interested in reading anything. So keep it in; a trove for some cast-off fifth-grader to find some lonely night. To titter, and be gladdened by, one of the few times in his sad life.
posted by adoarns at 4:49 AM on February 19, 2007

I don't know, scrotum is just about the most polite way to refer to the ball sac.

And I don't know what polite conversations the rest of society is having, but I've often found occasion to shield myself under the gentle nobility and clinical sterility of the term "scrotum."
posted by Matt Oneiros at 4:50 AM on February 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

Isn't this the same school-of-thought which believes ignorance = innocence?
posted by Goofyy at 4:59 AM on February 19, 2007

From the Amazon excerpt:


Lucky Trimble crouched in a wedge of shade behind the Dumpster. Her ear near a hole in the paint-chipped wall of Hard Pan's Found Object Wind Chime Museum and Visitor Center, she listened as Short Sammy told the story of how he hit rock bottom. How he quit drinking and found his Higher Power. Short Sammy's story, of all the rock-bottom stories Lucky had heard at twelve-step anonymous meetings -- alcoholics, gamblers, smokers, and overeaters -- was still her favorite.

Sammy told of the day when he had drunk half a gallon of rum listening to Johnny Cash all morning in his parked '62 Cadillac, then fallen out of the car when he saw a rattlesnake on the passenger seat biting his dog, Roy, on the scrotum.

...

The question of Short Sammy's dog's scrotum settled into one certain brain crevice as she picked her way among the weedy bushes of the dry wash. Even though Lucky could ask Short Sammy almost anything and he wouldn't mind, she could never ask about the story of Roy, since she had overheard it. If she asked about Roy, then he would know that she'd been eavesdropping at the anonymous twelve-step meetings.

Scrotum sounded to Lucky like something green that comes up when you have the flu and cough too much. It sounded medical and secret, but also important, and Lucky was glad she was a girl and would never have such an aspect as a scrotum to her own body. Deep inside she thought she would be interested in seeing an actual scrotum. But at the same time -- and this is where Lucky's brain was very complicated -- she definitely did not want to see one.
posted by three blind mice at 4:59 AM on February 19, 2007

I cannot BELIEVE this.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using that word in that context. But I can see where a teacher might not want to read the book out loud to students that age simply because we all know how that would turn out.

But the book itself? The grownups need to grow up.
posted by konolia at 5:17 AM on February 19, 2007

But some librarians countered that since the heroine of “The Higher Power of Lucky” is 10, children older than that would not be interested in reading it.

Yeah, and children older than Harry Potter didn't want to read about him, either.
posted by MegoSteve at 5:25 AM on February 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

I heard about this yesterday on NPR when they were interviewing the author of Bridge to Terabithia, another book that is highly regarded yet often challenged. It seems a significant number of educators in this country feel that any book more challenging than the Dick and Jane series is inappropriate for children.

If there were a mechanism for favoriting post titles, I would give this one a thumbs up.
posted by TedW at 5:34 AM on February 19, 2007

I would argue that quite to the contrary, scrotum does appear in polite conversation, albeit infrequently. Now, yambag, on the other hand, does not, nor does it have any place in children's literature.
posted by The Straightener at 5:34 AM on February 19, 2007

This is like parents insisting The Vagina Monologue was renamed on a theatre sign. I mean, big deal if a kid asks what a vagina is, they either have one or came from one!
God, parents are far too often thoroughly unequipped emotionally to have children!
posted by opsin at 5:44 AM on February 19, 2007

Some people are just so testes.
posted by ColdChef at 5:49 AM on February 19, 2007

Nibbles chew through my ball sack.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:49 AM on February 19, 2007

"“I don’t think our teachers, or myself, want to do that vocabulary lesson.”

If they aren't comfortable explaining, maybe they should take it as an opportunity to promote some of the other sections of the library. The Reference section, where students can find materials such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, seems to fit the bill rather nicely.
posted by bwilms at 5:51 AM on February 19, 2007

Words most 10 year olds already know:

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Penis
...

I think worrying about scrotum is silly, although I do understand how some people get upset. They want to shelter their kids as much as possible and even if the kids do know much of this stuff already they don't want to further it. Whatever. None of those words, nor scrotum, concern me that much. I am perfectly happy to have a conversation with my kids about appropriate language. It's not about what they know so much as what they do and say. There is one word though that you really do not want the hear that your kid has used on the playground, the n-bomb.
posted by caddis at 6:04 AM on February 19, 2007

Anyone who makes a crack about Honoré de Balzac in this thread deserves to be cockpunched.
posted by horsewithnoname at 6:07 AM on February 19, 2007 [2 favorites]

What the hell? I heard one kid call another "scrotum head" on the playground in, like, fourth grade.
posted by pax digita at 6:10 AM on February 19, 2007

Like the rest of us, I don't understand how people can shit themselves over this.

But I also don't understand why a children's author would choose to mention a piece of sexual anatomy over any other body part. I haven't read the book, so I don't understand the context, but I have a hard time imagining that the scrotum is integral to the story line.

On the face of it, the author seems needlessly provocative. I'm not saying thats a bad thing, but let's be honest about what she is trying to accomplish here: she's trying to get children familiar with a piece of anatomy which they possibly haven't thought much about... (And yeah, I know that today's 10 year olds know more about sex than Hef, yadda yadda yadda...)

The thing is there are nutty parents out there and they see this as needlessly interfering with their children's perceptions of the world. I don't agree with that, but its the way they feel.
posted by wfrgms at 6:15 AM on February 19, 2007

Now, yambag, on the other hand, does not, nor does it have any place in children's literature

But what about the classic children's story "Ron Jeremy and the Bag of Yams"?
posted by TedW at 6:18 AM on February 19, 2007

I'm not saying thats a bad thing, but let's be honest about what she is trying to accomplish here: she's trying to get children familiar with a piece of anatomy which they possibly haven't thought much about...

Please, those kids know what a scrotum is. Think about the audience, the kids will think it's funny and enjoy the book more.
posted by delmoi at 6:24 AM on February 19, 2007

If childrens books were written by real kids for other real kids (without worrying about adults seeing the works and judging them for it) they would be absurdly crude.
posted by delmoi at 6:25 AM on February 19, 2007

another book that is highly regarded yet often challenged. It seems a significant number of educators in this country feel that any book more challenging than the Dick and Jane series is inappropriate for children.

'xactly. Good books have to be a little provocative. Many people (and I'm betting they're the ones who don't read much) assume that you can go into a classroom and say, "Who wants to hear the story of the perfectly normal little boy who behaved well and came out okay in the end?" and the kids will be like, "Me!!!!!" with their hands thrust so hard up they have to use their opposite arms to, like, steady them in the wind.

There's got to be something happening. And kids are not that terribly interested in quotidian or subtle conflicts.

scrotum does appear in polite conversation, albeit infrequently.

As it has been said, the politest way of referring to the sac containing the testes is the word scrotum. There are two issues here: mention of the scrotum, by any appellation, is not always appropriate in polite conversation—and in some contexts, probably inappropriately so; still, by highlighting the "soft" taboo (excuse the pun), adults are only helping kids in the process of coming up with slang terms for it, since we tend to reserve the best and most vulgar slang for the parts we feel are unmentionable.
posted by adoarns at 6:39 AM on February 19, 2007 [2 favorites]

Egads. I agree with wfrgms -- the author is being intentionally provocative by drawing attention to sexual anatomy that has no non-sexual function. Not terribly alarming to me personally, but I can imagine rational-but-different-than-me parents thinking that this is pushing it.

However, those who felt that the language was inappropriate might have a better case if they didn't say things like, "This book included what I call a Howard Stern-type shock treatment just to see how far they could push the envelope, but they didn’t have the children in mind."

Also, I found this description of the Newberry Awards annoying, "But in the world of children’s books, winning a Newbery is the rough equivalent of being selected as an Oprah’s Book Club title."

It's more like being selected for Pulitizer. Newberrys are selected by Committee to reward significant contributions to the canon of childrens literature. Oprah's Book Club is ostensibly based on personal recomendations by one media personality.
posted by desuetude at 6:40 AM on February 19, 2007

But I also don't understand why a children's author would choose to mention a piece of sexual anatomy over any other body part.

Because it's funnier, duh. Were you 10 years old at any point in your life?

I am frequently grateful that I work at a library for adults, because I would find it hard not to slap anybody who complained to me about something this harmless. How much more shameful it is, then, that any member of the library profession would deny children a prize-winning book over the word "scrotum".
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:40 AM on February 19, 2007

What a bunch of scrotes.
posted by Standeck at 6:40 AM on February 19, 2007

There was a similarly idiotic recent situation in Toronto. Fortunately, in this case, the scrotum heads did not prevail.

Back when I was in high school (late 80's-early 90's), one kid and her family lodged a complaint against Timothy Findley's The Wars because it included a homosexual rape scene, and asked to have it removed from the curriculum. The request was denied, but these days I have to wonder how a situation like that would play out.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:46 AM on February 19, 2007

There are two issues here: mention of the scrotum, by any appellation, is not always appropriate in polite conversation—and in some contexts, probably inappropriately so; still, by highlighting the "soft" taboo (excuse the pun), adults are only helping kids in the process of coming up with slang terms for it, since we tend to reserve the best and most vulgar slang for the parts we feel are unmentionable.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You seem to have mistaken my set up line for the sheerly gratuitous use of the word, "yambag" as a serious comment.

Yambag. Hehe.
posted by The Straightener at 6:47 AM on February 19, 2007

Also, speaking as a librarian, and not a particularly passionate one at that, any member of the profession who willingly goes along with crap like this is a disgrace and should be sentenced to five years hard labour cataloguing government documents (unless, of course, they're one of those sick types who actually enjoy that sort of thing).
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:51 AM on February 19, 2007

Kirk Cameron became a fundamentalist Christian and he played opposite someone named "Boner" on Growing Pains.
posted by Falconetti at 7:06 AM on February 19, 2007

posted by TedW But what about the classic children's story "Ron Jeremy and the Bag of Yams"?

I'm more concerned about Harry Potter and his Sorcerer's Stones.
posted by fandango_matt at 7:08 AM on February 19, 2007

It seems a significant number of educators in this country feel that any book more challenging than the Dick and Jane series is inappropriate for children.

Hasn't enough damage been done? It's past time for those books to be rewritten as "Richard and Jane." No dicks for kids!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:09 AM on February 19, 2007

My sex education back in the 60's was instructed by nuns at the Catholic school I attended. Our class was divided by gender and we were told all of the facts of life without the use of any extraneous and unnecessary words like "scrotum" or "penis" or "vagina."

We were told about the hazards of shiny patent leather shoes, though, so our education was much more thorough than what kids today are getting.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:11 AM on February 19, 2007

It's more like being selected for Pulitizer. Newberrys are selected by Committee to reward significant contributions to the canon of childrens literature. Oprah's Book Club is ostensibly based on personal recomendations by one media personality.

I suspect they meant it more in terms of the sales than the honours.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:15 AM on February 19, 2007

There's a "Newbery" pun to be made here, but I ain't gonna do it.
posted by ColdChef at 7:16 AM on February 19, 2007

10 years old? I was that age when my school made us go to those damn health classes where they teach you about reproduction and all that fun stuff. If they can teach you about the entire process in school, why can't the library feature a book which contains the word scrotum?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 7:18 AM on February 19, 2007

Update: The New York Times has also mentioned this story, but I’m not sure how they thought librarian.net was an “electronic mailing list.” They also go on to claim “Authors of children’s books sometimes sneak in a single touchy word or paragraph, leaving librarians to choose whether to ban an entire book over one offending phrase”

One Fish
Two Fish
Red Fish
Blue Fish
This one has a little clit
I wonder if I can play with it.
Here and there and near and far
What a lot of fish there are!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:21 AM on February 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

I am personally outraged by the shock tactics our competitors children's authors are using in pursuit of the all mighty ratings Newberry Medal. Freedom of speech is one thing, the word penis scrotum is another!
posted by aaronetc at 7:47 AM on February 19, 2007

Metafilter: The scrotum is integral to the story line.
posted by Cookiebastard at 7:49 AM on February 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

Fun With Dick and Scrotum
posted by kirkaracha at 7:57 AM on February 19, 2007

The inclusion of the word has shocked some school librarians, who have pledged to ban the book from elementary schools

That sentence made me very, very sad.
posted by papakwanz at 7:58 AM on February 19, 2007

I'm just happy to hear people talking about the Newbery awards. (And have you seen this year's Caldecott winner? Beautiful.)
posted by box at 8:07 AM on February 19, 2007

I have a feeling jessamyn hasn't commented yet because she's off KICKING A BUNCH OF LIBRARIAN ASS.
posted by koeselitz at 8:17 AM on February 19, 2007

I have a feeling jessamyn hasn't commented yet because she's off KICKING A BUNCH OF LIBRARIAN ASS.

Don't you mean kicking a bunch of librarian....yambag?
posted by 235w103 at 8:28 AM on February 19, 2007

I suspect they meant it more in terms of the sales than the honours.

Yeah, I know. But they could'a compared to the Academy Awards and gotten the "insta-sales" concept across -- the Oprah's Book Club reference struck me as weird.


Because it's funnier, duh. Were you 10 years old at any point in your life?

Sure, but from the exerpt handily included by three blind mice, it doesn't seem that guffaws were the intended response. Still saying that the scrotum-censors are overracting, mind you.
posted by desuetude at 8:41 AM on February 19, 2007

"the word 'scrotum' does not often appear in polite conversation..."
these mountain oysters were removed from the scrotum before i deep-fried them for you!
posted by bruce at 8:54 AM on February 19, 2007

This reminds me of when I was in second grade with a mother for whom English was not her native language. Mom would check over every homework assignment, even the writing ones, which in retrospect was probably not a great idea. The task was to assign an appropriate descriptive word to an animal, and the sentence, I remember it as clear as day 28 years later was "The donkey is full of BLANK".

Well, I was pretty sure that the word "sperm" meant like "pizazz" or "coolness" so I decided that this particular donkey was full of sperm, which true as it might have been, netted me a trip to the principal's office.

I'm bawling my everloving head off, the principal is in my face, his secretary standing at the ready with a bar of soap, and I blurted out "I don't know what I did wrong! My Mom is Japanese and she checked over it and said it was fine!" Mr. McNutt (hah just remembered that was his name, how apropo) turned to the secretary, who nodded yes Mom is not of this country, and with that I was on my way.

I've had a soft spot for sperm ever since.
posted by vito90 at 9:31 AM on February 19, 2007 [8 favorites]

Frankly, I have difficulty imagining a conversation where the word "scrotum" would be used in preference to "balls," with the sole exception of medical checkups.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:35 AM on February 19, 2007

vito90 - I don't know how the word sperm ever became associated with pizazz and coolness, but as a kid I had a real liking for the word spunk. I could use it in front of adults to mean energy and attitude, but secretly laugh behind their backs because I knew what it really meant.
posted by arcticwoman at 10:04 AM on February 19, 2007

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You seem to have mistaken my set up line for the sheerly gratuitous use of the word, "yambag" as a serious comment.

I guess I did; it seemed such a grab-bag of discussable issues.
posted by adoarns at 10:11 AM on February 19, 2007

But I also don't understand why a children's author would choose to mention a piece of sexual anatomy over any other body part. I haven't read the book, so I don't understand the context, but I have a hard time imagining that the scrotum is integral to the story line.

According to the NYT article, the story about the rattlesnake bite is taken from something that happened to the author in real life.

But anyway, I kind of think that the parents and librarians who are so obsessive about protecting their poor, little babies' innocent minds deserve what they get. This country seems to be dividing down the middle between the rationalists and the fundamentalists, and as long as the fundamentalists stay on the other side of the line from me I don't really care how they educate their children.
posted by footnote at 10:12 AM on February 19, 2007

I've had a soft spot for sperm ever since.

My first experience was later on, at a sweaty boys' camp laundry room. But yeah I'm totally with you.
posted by adoarns at 10:14 AM on February 19, 2007

Sweet Jeebus. This is inane. I remember that my Grade Six teacher had to get special permission to read Harriet the Spy to us, because it mentioned divorce, and I can't tell you how glad I am that our principal granted the permission and also fought off some parental complaints. What kind of inner lives do these people think their children have? As far as I can tell, the answer is none, and they want to keep it that way. No questions, no reality, no answers about the world or how it works. I could rant further but I'll spare you.
posted by jokeefe at 10:19 AM on February 19, 2007

I haven't read the book, so I don't understand the context, but I have a hard time imagining that the scrotum is integral to the story line.

Because it's a funny word, one which the heroine has never heard before, and she wonders what it means, and imagines all sorts of things based on its sound. Didn't you ever do that as a kid? Hear things and wonder what on earth they were? Didn't it rouse your curiousity? It's a joke, one that any semi-sophisticated reader will get, and one that will tickle any child who loves words.
posted by jokeefe at 10:21 AM on February 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

From the first link:
The book has already been banned from school libraries in a handful of states in the South, the West and the Northeast, and librarians in other schools have indicated in the online debate that they may well follow suit.

I love how instead of saying "across the country", it's preferred to throw in a little bashing of the South.
posted by acetonic at 12:05 PM on February 19, 2007

Even though they got it wrong, and called it a mailing list instead of a blog, it's cool that the NYT namechecked Jessamyn's blog (librarian.net).
posted by matildaben at 12:07 PM on February 19, 2007

The worst thing about this in my mind is the automatic assumption on the part of everyone involved that the mention of the scrotum is automatically a sexual reference. It's goddamn stupid. Get some context before you overreact, please.

On the other hand, I did catch myself in a similar issue over Christmas - I told my older brother in an offhand way that I would kick him in the balls if he tried to take the last beer.

His six-year-old son (who was standing behind me - I didn't see him!) piped up and asked "What are balls?" Dead silence. I couldn't hold it in - I started to snicker. He asked "They are something naughty, aren't they?" at which my brother said "Yes, they are and your uncle should not have said that."

End of story. End of conversation. I went away and died laughing, my brother was annoyed but amused as well, and I'm certain that my nephew sat quietly for a while turning this interesting new phrase over and over in his head. The sneaky little gleam in his eye as he walked away told me I was right about that. But, he didn't suddenly become a sex-crazed fiend screaming "balls!" at the top of his lungs, he didn't sell his soul to Satan afterwards, and as far as I know he didn't even run off to try to find some balls to kick on his own.

My point is that there's no reason a responsible adult can't deflect the interest in a new word, or at least explain it in a way that somewhat satisfies the kid's curiosity. The total overreaction to a "naughty" word is what teaches kids that it is naughty to begin with - and all kids like naughty words. Hiding it just makes them more interested. And none of these overreacting fools seems to realize that it is entirely possible to explain that the scrotum is the bit that hangs down behind the family dog, end of story, without launching into an epic tale of male vs. female anatomy, sperm production, penetration and ejaculation, things that kids at that age are really probably not going to be ready to learn.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:13 PM on February 19, 2007

it doesn't seem that guffaws were the intended response

Are you kidding, it's a drunk's dog getting bit on the scrotum by a rattlesnake! What's not funny about that?

I remember our teacher having a quiet word to us, when I was 11, about a story she was about to read, which had the word 'bitch' used correctly, and warning us not to giggle. When she got there, we all studiously and conscientiously resisted outbursts of mirth for a full forty seconds, until the end of the paragraph which, while discussing the fate of Tat - an orphan puppy whose mother had died in childbirth, made the observation that there was "No tit for Tat". Puerile hilarity ensued.
posted by Sparx at 12:49 PM on February 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

"Bitch" is nothing...I remember my grade five teacher reading us The Hobbit. Everything was fine until she got to the word "faggots" (i.e. firewood)...
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:02 PM on February 19, 2007

My point is that there's no reason a responsible adult can't deflect the interest in a new word, or at least explain it in a way that somewhat satisfies the kid's curiosity.

Well, I'm way too late on this one, but I would like to respond nonetheless. It seems to me perfectly appropriate that a school librarian or teacher wouldn't want to read this to schoolchildren. Given the context in which the word is used, you would have to explain it - no dodging will do, contrary to the above post. Furthermore, this is not a sensitive topic to be explored. This isn't a topic that will increase empathy and understanding amongst students (like divorce, for example). There's nowhere to go from scrotum - the class will just dissolve in giggles. It's hilarious, but what value do you get out of it? You'll lose the class's attention, but for what?

I don't think this is necessarily a sexual or free speech issue, though no doubt some people who are against the book do. I just think the word scrotum is a derail. It's not a great teaching tool.
posted by taliaferro at 2:28 PM on February 19, 2007

I love how instead of saying "across the country", it's preferred to throw in a little bashing of the South.

I love how hyper-defensive southrons can completely miss the inclusion of the West and Northeast in the "offending" statement.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:32 PM on February 19, 2007

And none of these overreacting fools seems to realize that it is entirely possible to explain that the scrotum is the bit that hangs down behind the family dog, end of story, without launching into an epic tale of male vs. female anatomy, sperm production, penetration and ejaculation, things that kids at that age are really probably not going to be ready to learn.

But the next question is, "why does it do/what's it for?" And there's no answer that doesn't have to do with sex. Boys pee from their penis, girls from their vaginal area. Even breasts hold up a dress. But the scrotum doesn't have any other purpose than to hang around waiting for reproduction, and the analogous girlbits are internal.

On preview, what taliaferro said about "scrotum" being a derail.
posted by desuetude at 2:37 PM on February 19, 2007

I just think the word scrotum is a derail. It's not a great teaching tool.

Yeah, that was my reaction too. There's no context there for an anatomy lesson. I have a nine-year-old daughter and an 11-year-old son, and I doubt they know the word scrotum. They know the basic mechanics of sex, and I wouldn't be a bit squeamish defining scrotum for them (or clitoris, or any related term) if it came up; but those do get into a level of detail that isn't common knowledge for all kids at that age. I can see a librarian thinking he/she doesn't want to get into it with a nine-year-old.

And--a correction to many of the comments above--the issue in the story was librarians not wanting to get into it. Parents were not mentioned.

All that said, the scrotum in question belonged to a dog. Seems like a librarian could just keep a picture handy of a male dog, and point out the part to any curious kids. No real need there to get into human sexuality.
posted by torticat at 2:44 PM on February 19, 2007

I love how hyper-defensive southrons can completely miss the inclusion of the West and Northeast in the "offending" statement.

Of course they're tetchy: rattlesnakes keep biting their scrotums.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:52 PM on February 19, 2007

But the next question is, "why does it do/what's it for?"

And the answer is, it's where the dog keeps the sperm it uses for making puppies.

However, honestly, if the part were pointed out in a picture, most kids this age would likely go "ah, okay," and move on.

A lot of them really aren't as sexually aware as folks on metafilter seem to think they are. They're getting there, but they're still young. My husband and I have explained sex to our kids multiple times because they actually forget. They're not quite to the point where they have a personal context to put it in (i.e. sexual attraction to others).
posted by torticat at 2:54 PM on February 19, 2007

A list of other children's books that contain the word "scrotum."
posted by honeydew at 3:03 PM on February 19, 2007

Scrotal trifecta on the blue in play...
posted by disillusioned at 3:55 PM on February 19, 2007

Good link, honeydew.

How many guys who read all the scrotal-related links had their own testicles shrivel?
posted by leftcoastbob at 4:36 PM on February 19, 2007

There are some things you just don't do when reading books out loud.

For example, you really want to avoid any mention of birthdays, when you're dealing with children around 3-5. Because they will all want to tell you what their birthday is. I had a counting book dissolve into chaos when I got to four because everybody wanted to tell me, "I'm four!"

And I probably would not make my first choice for a read-aloud any book that would invoke either uncontrollable giggling, or a vocabulary lesson, on the first page. (Which is not to say that the book's other qualities might not balance it out).

But not to have it in the library at all? That is pretty much unconscionable.
posted by Jeanne at 5:39 PM on February 19, 2007

Hoo boy. I've recently started a project on my book review blog - to review all the Newbery medalists. Can't wait to review this one.
posted by orange swan at 6:07 PM on February 19, 2007

Maybe afterwards they could go out on recess and play some scrotoss.
posted by anthill at 6:23 PM on February 19, 2007

Why are they reading aloud a book aimed at 9 to 12 year old children?
posted by figment of my conation at 6:28 PM on February 19, 2007

I had some read-aloud time (A Wrinkle in Time, as it happens) as late as sixth grade, an immensely valuable experience; it isn't really done in today's high-pressure testing environment, but a lot of people will advocate reading aloud to older children for any number of reasons. Says Jim Trelease:

According to experts who have studied children's listening skills, it is a reasonable assertion, based upon numerous observations, that reading and listening skills begin to converge at about eighth-grade. Until then, they usually listen on a higher level than they read on. Therefore, children can hear and understand stories that are more complicated and more interesting than anything they could read on their own—which has to be one of God's greatest blessings for first-graders. The last thing you want first-graders thinking is that what they're reading in first grade is as good as books are going to get! First-graders can enjoy books written on a fourth-grade level, and fifth-graders can enjoy books written on an seventh-grade reading level.

posted by Jeanne at 7:13 PM on February 19, 2007

torticat: I have a nine-year-old daughter and an 11-year-old son, and I doubt they know the word scrotum.

You've got to be joking. You have kids that verge near teenage and you don't think they know terminology for their body parts?

My four year old knows what a scrotum is. He knows what a penis is, and he knows what they do. He knows the correct name of the parts because he would point at his parts and say "Mommy, what's this called?" and I would tell him.

Do you really think that because you're too afraid to use correct terminology with your children that they're not going to have questions? Would you rather they get their information from their peers than knowing they could come to you? Really?

We had a neighbor, bless her pointed head, that would absolutely freak if she heard my son use correct terminology. When his foreskin was becoming moveable, it itched, and he would say "My penis itches" and she would jump like she'd been stuck by needles. She kept saying that he should call it a pee pee, or a winkie, or some other random made up word, and I explained over and over that I would prefer my child face the world with facts and knowledge rather than fear and baby words.

That people would ban this book because of the word scrotum is a sad thing. That there are people who don't want their children to *know* the correct terminology for body parts is even sadder. To realize that this all comes down to fear and shame over parts that 50% of our population carries around in their tighty whiteys, well that's just tragic.
posted by dejah420 at 7:34 PM on February 19, 2007

dejah420, wow, thanks for the illustration of how reasonable comments can be misunderstood--now I really do feel sympathy for the librarians.

I don't flinch from explaining anything to my kids, and I don't use euphemisms. They were three and five respectively when we first explained sex to them in clinical terms. And we've gone over it with them multiple times since then. That doesn't mean they understand every detail about sex or have the full vocabulary. It happens neither of them has asked what a scrotum is. So what?
posted by torticat at 11:57 PM on February 19, 2007

What's worse? that the theatre who (temporarily) caved to the crazies renamed the show The Hoohah Monologues on its marquee...
posted by bitter-girl.com at 6:21 AM on February 20, 2007

NYTimes has an editorial on the book today.

Another [librarian] suggested that teachers reading the book aloud replace that word with “a clearing-throat noise,” a bleep in the form of an “ahem.”

I can't imagine that this would get fewer laughs from the kids than would saying the word. Doing so would only teach kids that "scrotum" is a word to be avoided or laughed at.
posted by CiaoMela at 7:54 AM on February 21, 2007