‘Grandad’s Pride’. Really?

eddiecat78

It really is impossible to have a sensible discussion if one participant starts using their own definition of established words

Quite. This has long been a drawback of posting on these threads. That and saying something one minute and categorically denying it the next.

I dont know about anyone else but I definitely dont need an explanation about what not having sex involves

Bodach I know I am just repeating myself here but sexuality is not just about sex, it is also about emotions or "love" and some people do not have sex at all

You can check this out for yourself on the NSPCC website here which I felt an appropriate source on this thread

www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/sex-relationships/sexuality-sexual-orientation/

I will also attach a screenshot

It really is impossible to have a sensible discussion if one participant starts using their own definition of established words

Sex... That is a word that has two meanings.. one is the sex you are assigned at birth... So that has nothing to do with sex, the act itself

Sexuality, that is who you prefer to have a loving relationship with. Yes loving relationships may involve sex
Heterosexual and Homosexual are 2 examples but there is also Asexual. Now Asexual still is a sexuality and still has the word sex in it (sic) but Asexual people sometimes never have sex, despite having loving relationships
Here endeth the lesson.
Whoulda thunk Grans with degrees, PhD’s, years of higher or further education not to mention careers, life experience and decades-long relationships would need the benefit of your perceived superior knowledge.

we want to go deeper, yes sexuality is a word that might dictate who people do and don't want to have sex with but it is so much more than that by definition. It is social and emotional and an expression of who we are and who we love

Please do not presume to stuff your own definition of the term down our throats or lecture others. .

VioletSky

"Everyone should be treated with equality and respect, no matter who they are or what gender they are"

I stand by Pride

Can you please show even one post where the poster has suggested otherwise? You are very fond of putting words in other people's mouths - things that they never said and at times things that they have got back to you several times to deny.

As I said above, sexualising gay people is discriminatory when straight people are not sexualised. There is a lot more to being gay than stereotypical 'Village People' type outfits, and it is insulting to many gay people to suggest otherwise.

Perhaps years ago it would have been called 'Grandads Dxxxy Little Secret' 😊 thank goodness common sense wins and it's been withdrawn from the schools.

Dear VioletSky
Thank you for getting back to me (or nearly me) in your characteristic style. Let me just say that I still dispute your definition of sexuality as being about "who (sic) you prefer to have a loving relationship with". One's sexuality is about with whom one prefers to have a SEXUAL relationship. Love does not necessarily come into the equation - just as sex does not have to feature in a loving relationship. Just ask my old dogs...
PS: Please don't feel you have to respond. I won't be holding my breath waiting.
PPS: And I wasn't shouting; I capitalised SEXUAL because I couldn't get the underlining function to work.

"Everyone should be treated with equality and respect, no matter who they are or what gender they are"

I stand by Pride

BREAKING NEWS:

“A nursery has withdrawn a Gay Pride book which led a couple to withdraw their daughter from nursery – after receiving complaints from homosexual campaigners too.”

👏👏👏

If we want to go deeper, yes sexuality is a word that might dictate who people do and don't want to have sex with but it is so much more than that by definition. It is social and emotional and an expression of who we are and who we love.

It is ok for children to be shown that it is ok for men and women to choose each other, it ok for men and men to choose each other etc

That all variations of partnerships that make a family are ok and normal and also legal and protected

That has nothing to do with sex which they will not learn about for a long time

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202308/medium-329395-fx7eyrwwcaaadty.jpeg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202308/medium-610431-fx7e-kiwwaahglp.png

A little further digging suggests the first image is from the US version and the (sorry) more blurry image is from the UK version. If this is correct why have they changed it, the embrace and the erasure of the tattoos from the upper arm but not the leg? Who wanted the changes and why?

So your
It's not in the book

This has turned into some flat earth level conspiracy theory nonsense now

was a misinformation and an unjust accusation? Sorry, I got it wrong is the usual response..............not So it is there, I didn't notice it but that is a US reading of the book

Bodarch

Geeze

When someone pointed the tiny image out clearly, I did listen

People do do other things than gransnet and I am not here at your request

Right to your other point

Sex... That is a word that has two meanings.. one is the sex you are assigned at birth... So that has nothing to do with sex, the act itself

Sexuality, that is who you prefer to have a loving relationship with. Yes loving relationships may involve sex

Heterosexual and Homosexual are 2 examples but there is also Asexual. Now Asexual still is a sexuality and still has the word sex in it but Asexual people sometimes never have sex, despite having loving relationships

So it is there, I didn't notice it but that is a US reading of the book

As I keep saying though, it is just fashion, no children are harmed by a picture of gay men kissing

People wear tight shorts and short skirts all the time and sometimes they are leather

At least I don't get personal though

It just damages your own arguments

One is reminded of the Black Knight in Monty Python's 'Holy Grail', who blindly kept on ignoring the fact that his body parts were being progressively chopped off by his sword-wielding opponent...

🤣🤣🤣

🤣🤣🤣

Bodach

VioletSky

Sexuality is who you love, it has nothing to do with sex, the act

What? Quite apart from the who/whom matter, that statement seems completely wrong to me. Surely sexuality is everything to do with "sex, the act"? At the very least, the inclination/desire to have sexual relations with someone else arises from one's inherent sexuality, and not from love. In some cases sexuality and love are enmeshed - in one's feelings for one's husband/wife/partner, for example. In others they are entirely separate: I love my children and grandchildren, but there is nothing remotely sexual about that love. On the other hand, since my (long ago) puberty, I have been intensely sexually attracted to countless members of the opposite sex - often in passing, and without love coming anywhere into the equation. If sexuality is solely about whom you love, what does that say about the heartfelt love I have had for every dog I have owned over the years?
And, by the way, (having viewed the video reading) I think the book is an appallingly woke, virtue-signalling, fetish-indulging, propagandist load of saccharine tripe.
Nil carborundum, Urmstungran..

I'm still waiting, VioletSky, for your response to my comments on your "Sexuality is who (sic) you love.." statement. Also, despite having been told more than once that the offending image of 'Bondage Fetish Grandad' does appear in the version shown in the link you posted above, you persist in denying the fact. One is reminded of the Black Knight in Monty Python's 'Holy Grail', who blindly kept on ignoring the fact that his body parts were being progressively chopped off by his sword-wielding opponent...

Thank you, Rosie51. I’ve just been back for another look as I missed it first time around.

Rosie51

VioletSky

It's not in the book

This has turned into some flat earth level conspiracy theory nonsense now

Look at the book reading you linked to. At around 50 seconds that couple in bondage gear are to the left of the illustration.

Well said Rosie51.

VS would argue ‘black’s white’ if it suited her agenda. Scurrilous posts. Deflecting and dodging the issue as per.

Bodach

VioletSky

Sexuality is who you love, it has nothing to do with sex, the act

What? Quite apart from the who/whom matter, that statement seems completely wrong to me. Surely sexuality is everything to do with "sex, the act"? At the very least, the inclination/desire to have sexual relations with someone else arises from one's inherent sexuality, and not from love. In some cases sexuality and love are enmeshed - in one's feelings for one's husband/wife/partner, for example. In others they are entirely separate: I love my children and grandchildren, but there is nothing remotely sexual about that love. On the other hand, since my (long ago) puberty, I have been intensely sexually attracted to countless members of the opposite sex - often in passing, and without love coming anywhere into the equation. If sexuality is solely about whom you love, what does that say about the heartfelt love I have had for every dog I have owned over the years?
And, by the way, (having viewed the video reading) I think the book is an appallingly woke, virtue-signalling, fetish-indulging, propagandist load of saccharine tripe.
Nil carborundum, Urmstungran..

Well said - and thank you Bodach. 👏
Your wise words are a balm to my soul.

And yours too Foxy you very eloquently expressed a very valid point. Made me laugh too (Terminal 4!) which was an added bonus.

I think the author knew exactly what he was up to here. Sneaky. Smirking all the way to the bank.

I hope the planned audit (thanks Calli) has this book taken off the school’s bookshelf permanently.

Over on MN, a discussion about this book and the fact that one set of parents removed their child apropos of the picture with the two men in bondage gear, which confused me, as it has been stated that is the American version, but often where America leads we tend to follow down the line somewhere. Given that those on MN are a demographic who are more likely to have children of nursery age, the general consensus amongst them, is that most say they have no problems of a narrative and illustrations with grandpa in a gay relationship context, but why the bondage gear?, why normalise something that "some" may deem as a fetish and would have little relevance to the life of a pre school child, who could never be the arbiter of what is age appropriate or safe. In any case, how would that be introduced to a classroom discussion about the book anyway? Some may remember back in the 1970s an organisation called "PIE", an acronym which stood for Paedophile Information Exchange they, at the time, gained a certain amount of credence from a number of politicians before they finally disbanded. Now we know that Stonewall for example have infiltrated most schools, they too have an agenda and whilst I'm not implying it includes paedophilia, they do espouse certain ideologies which are not shared by everybody and parents have a right to express concerns otherwise they might as well hand over their kids to the state to educate, under the auspices of being directed by a third party, of practices they might deem fall outside of the parameters what they wish, as the parent/s be acceptable. From a government website "Non contact sexual abuse includes where someone made the individual watch or listen to sexual acts or sexual images" I'm just wondering how men in bondage, gear could be defined as dressing up without a sexual undertone? and why, even if this is an image shown in the US book, although the tone of the MN discussion seems to imply otherwise, why would that be deemed fit for pre school or even older children.

Some people will do anything to support the sexual rights of men. Women and children tend to be the ones who suffer with regard to this. Some people just cant stop prioritising mens needs.
I actually think it's quite homophobic, I have never seen a straight couple portrayed in a childrens book in this way.