There was a news item I saw on Fark, corroborated by a few Google News sources, that Merriam Webster’s 10th edition has been removed from schools because some kid’s parents saw it had “oral sex” defined in the book. Here’s a version of the story from The Guardian.
Surely this is a hoax, right? ETA: Or it’s an Onion article that got absorbed into real news feeds. Please tell me this is a hoax.
“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 read this earlier, and the only thing I could think of was that Menifee’s clocks all must have stopped right around 1950, and I picture Ms. Cadmus looking exactly like you’d expect a school marm to look.
Can we start a drive to get as many batshit crazy fundies as possible, to go over as many books as possible (the thicker the better) and screen them for “language”? Thus taking away from their obviously over-abundant spare time in which they wreak havoc with the rest of society…?
Doesn’t sound like a hoax to me. You wouldn’t believe some of the books that have been challenged or banned lately. They even (especially?) go after the classics.
I was suspicious when I read that one person involved is Betti Cadmus – Cadmus is the founder of Thebes in greek mythology, and I’ve never heard it used as a last name. And one father is named Jason.
But the story’s running in other newspapers, including LA Times
So it looks as if it’s legit. Utterly Amazing.
Does anyone know what this shockingly explicit definition for “Oral Sex” is that’s causing all the ruckus?
According to the link, the dictionary’s “online definition” of the term is “oral stimulation of the genitals”. So if it’s on line, does that mean the little ones are banned from the internet??? Good luck with that.