The paranoid style of American politics is at work again-this time in Riverside County, California, which recently banned Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition, from its districts’ school libraries because of the entry “oral sex” and its accompanying definition.Menifee Union School District’s spokeswoman, Betti Cadmus, called it “sexually graphic,” and said that while “it’s hard to sit and read the dictionary, but we’ll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature.”The definition at issue: Main Entry: oral sex Function: noun Date: 1973 : oral stimulation of the genital. It should be noted that in the online version of things, genitals are plural. Already, the response has gotten pretty heated, both at Witness LA and at the Los Angeles Times blog, which features reader feedback. Even The Guardian has weighed in. A committee is forming to decide whether or not to allow the dictionaries, which were initially purchased so that young readers might look up definitions to words they don’t know, back in their good graces. In the meantime, doesn’t the whole thing reek of abstinence-only sex education-namely that if we don’t teach kids about safer sex and birth control, if we don’t so much as mention it, they won’t have it. If you’re so much as doubtful, see Mississippi’s failed experiment.Photo via
Tags
advertisement
More for You
-
14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations
These trailblazers redefined what a woman could be.
Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.
-
Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories
Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.
While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.
When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.
Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.
advertisement

