‘Grandad’s Pride’. Really?

but this isn’t about sex
So wearing bondage gear and leering in public is just part of your everyday relationship?

You must live in a parallel universe to most of us.

Grandad's Camper Van illustration is just Grandad in ordinary bloke gear.

No vitriol at all here.
I'm sure my gay neighbours, friends, relatives would not want to see themselves portrayed like the illustration in that book.
They're just normal people.

One is a very delighted new Grandad. 🙂

It's not in the book

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

I don't object to the subject matter but I do think it is overly sentimental and garishly coloured.

VioletSky

It's not in the book

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

Silly post.

The book has been removed from the nursery library on safeguarding grounds.
An audit of the library is taking place.

You don't need a book to show inclusivity to children you show it by doing it. A book with a man dressed in bondage gear, from whichever country, is not appropriate, surely at this age basic introduction, and not full on cod pieces is the best way.

So because Grandad was with Gramps the book is sexualised? Would this be the same if Grandad was with Granny? Would this also be sexual as it implies that they too had sex? It’s only adults that make it so, not children.

We do need books to show inclusivity

The evidence is on this thread

LadyGaGa

So because Grandad was with Gramps the book is sexualised? Would this be the same if Grandad was with Granny? Would this also be sexual as it implies that they too had sex? It’s only adults that make it so, not children.

Would it show them in bondage gear though?

Come back, Enid Blyton, all is forgiven!

Inclusivity my arse.

We mustn’t sleepwalk into allowing anything goes cos some say inclusivity! Or be kind!

LadyGaGa

So because Grandad was with Gramps the book is sexualised? Would this be the same if Grandad was with Granny? Would this also be sexual as it implies that they too had sex? It’s only adults that make it so, not children.

Yes, if they were dressed in bondage gear.

Must we not depict women in bikinis now then or men in trunks? Because fashion goes in all sorts of directions

Should we outlaw tiny shorts or short skirts?

What about cycling shorts? They don't cover much

Bondage is being tied up, this is just a facet of fashion...

People should get to wear what they want

Also that image is not in the book, if it is in the US version, which I have no idea, go hassle them about it

If granny and/or grandad were dressed in bondage gear then yes it would also be sexual.

If there are same sex couples in a family, the children of those family are more than likely to see them holding hands, giving one another a cuddle and sharing a kiss, but how likely is they would see both or either in bondage gear?

Of course we need books featuring inclusivity, and as Doodledog pointed out above, they have been around for over 30 years, certainly since my children were small. But I don’t think they need to include sexual images such as a man in bondage gear ( and yes there is one in the link provided by VS even though it’s a different one from that shown elsewhere). The very fact there seem to be different illustrations in the US version and the UK version make me ask why. And I still wonder why, if the inclusion of the MAP was purely coincidental, no one from the author right through to the publisher ever picked up the fact that this could be controversial, knowing the fact that so called MAPs are trying to become accepted as part of the wider LBTQ+ community. Why did no one think to pull that image or at least modify it?

I really try not to buy into conspiracy theories, but this worries me. I come back to my experience and training in child protection, and the lessons from inquiry after inquiry that in order to protect children professionals must leave behind optimism and be ready to ‘think the unthinkable’.

I don't understand - if the image is not in the book where has that image come from?

Since when was bondage just a facet of fashion?

Being realistic, no one has sanctioned the use of MAP as minor attracted person anywhere (because gross) and the usual meaning, that it means an image of the world, a part of the world, or the local roads in an area as well as topography and other geography words I can't remember.... Still applies

Bondage is bondage Smileless clothes that cover your bits are fashion

Have you never seen fashion week?

Because leather often features

Bondage is not just a facet of fashion VS. Bondage is the sexual practice that involves the tying up or restraining of one partner.

But anyone involved in the LBQT+ community is well aware of the acronym MAP and what it stands for, and should know better than to include such a controversial image in a children’s book. In plain sight?

I don’t see any images of dominatrices (not sure whether that is still an acceptable term) in the book, should they be represented as well?

Mumsnet has a more forthright view on this, not all of which I agree with but they seem to be better informed than I was before entering this debate.

VioletSky

Must we not depict women in bikinis now then or men in trunks? Because fashion goes in all sorts of directions

Should we outlaw tiny shorts or short skirts?

What about cycling shorts? They don't cover much

Bondage is being tied up, this is just a facet of fashion...

People should get to wear what they want

Also that image is not in the book, if it is in the US version, which I have no idea, go hassle them about it

Irrelevant what-aboutery
Also strawman argument.

Because the version with the bondage gear is the US version of the book, does that make it OK? Do principles or morals stop at Terminal4?

Give over VS this book is nothing to do with fashion, but sexual practices, so stop trying to be so cool and down with the kids.Bondage is not a “facet of fashion” and don’t be so flippin patronising about London (or wherever) Fashion Week while you are at it.

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.

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.

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.