I bought Jeannie an animal book recently. On one page they call a bushbaby a possum. On another page they show a goat- with an erection. I kid you not. I plan to search for the publisher on the web and write to them. Maybe I should send the book to Leno.
Publisher's will do anything to pollute the minds of the young and innocent. What a sick world we live in! Brenda
Brenda, I looked at that thing ( the whole picture, I mean ) many times. I don't see goats daily, but I do know this goat has an issue. There's no mistaking what this is. They could have airbrushed that out. There's pictures of other animals standing up, like a bear and a dog, and you can't see anything but fur. It's an overseas publisher. Maybe that's acceptable over there. I don't feel like I should have skimmed through this before I bought it. It's a book about animals, and a board book at that! For pete's sake, can we ever let our guard down?
Jay Leno would have a field day with that one. :shock: Yeh, places like Germany, France....Italy... nudity and erect "things" (ahem) are common place and accepted around children. I lived in germany for 5 months when i was married to my exhusband and my oldest was a baby. Never go to a tanning salon there, or a public pool. I cant think of a good goat joke but I'm sure Leno can.
:lol: ....Sorry, just had to laugh. Not that I would love to have that picture in one of our books, but being an animal person (veterinary tech.) I see that all the time. It's part of God's Creation. Not that I like having to explain the first time my kids saw a gelding, uh, "relaxing" himself in the pasture.....or especially the first time someone sees dogs hind-end to hind-end out in the yard......well, you get the idea..... Yeah, it's yucky to have published for the picture to live forever, so to speak, but I can't say that I don't have not-so-flattering pictures of my dogs that we've said "oops!" when the pictures were developed......In fact, one of my bros' senior pics with our dog came out that way.....needless to say, we didn't purchase one of those :wink: , but it does happen and gets captured on film occasionally.
Jackie and Brooke- you turkeys!! :lol: There were mistakes all in this book, but the hot to trot goat was the worst.
Uhhhmmm ... I had to laugh, Becky ... sowwwwy. It MUST be the hippy in me because I'm not seeing at as a uhhh .... BIG .... deal at all. I've been to the zoo with the kids before, with a Zebra sporting a huge one :shock: ... at the very least it's a segue into explaining the birds and bees .... of goats LOL. Perhaps she won't even notice !!! :roll: Kathe
My issue with this is- A foreign company published this. I cannot find them on the web. I bought her what looked like a cute board book about animals. Inside was a picture of a goat with an erection. There should have been something in place to keep that from being printed. Suppose it had been a book called My Family, and it contained a picture of big brother smoking a blunt? I might be extreme in my example, but you get my point. I'm wondering if this publisher is the same one who made those Septemberv 11 toys? Did you hear about that- it was two tiny towers with a tiny plane between them, aimed at the one tower. When the company was contacted about why they made such a thing, they said they saw nothing wrong with it. Seeing animals in a zoo or at a farm is one thing. You can't control whhat happens in that setting. A printed book is a whole different ball park. That piucture did not need to be included. They even posed a steamed crab, the idiots! I know for a fact that it didn't faze Jeannie, but I still don't believe the picture belonged in there. If I buy her such an innocent looking book, one meant for a baby, I should not have to stand there and look through it for offensive material. I know some of you think it's funny, but try to see the bigger picture. And stop laughing!!!!!
Life is replete with 'bigger pictures' Becky, and I'm not missing your point at all. As was mentioned, perhaps it WAS an oversight; or, as has also been postulated, perhaps it's a somewhat twisted, thoughtless plot to corrupt little minds. If you can't find them on the web ... maybe there's a reason ... like they were sued to oblivion !!! Sorry I laughed.
I'm sorry for laughing, too. On here it is hard to tell that I was laughing at the situation....not your cause for concern. In fact, I would not want it in my home either. What really got me laughing this time was the steamed crab :lol: . I guess I find humor in most things and it isn't always funny to someone else. Forgive me if I've offended you.
I was jesting when I said stop laughing! I was wondering if you guys thought this was bad, though. I fight the good fight alone here at home- I need your support here :wink: No offense taken at all.
For what it's worth, I would have thrown it out, too. I agree there is a difference when you see something out "natural", so to speak. You might want to use that as a "teachable moment" or just kind of rush past, as is more appropriate for your kids. But in a children's board book, where the kids are obviously too young for an explanation, is different. I was at camp once with a group of inner city kids, where we saw some animals going at it, so to speak. The one boy got all excited, "LOOK! THEY'RE F'ING!" Only he said the actual word. This very proper church gal was embarrassed to death!
Well ... since this is still being discussed, I may as well throw in another two cents, which is what ... about .00000000001 cents Canadian ??? I would be VERY surprised if I saw such a thing in a child's book, but I don't think I would throw it out, or any such reaction. I can't help but think that we have intensified the shock such moments bring by perhaps having a "hush" "hush" attitude toward a supposed "impropriety" regarding sex and young children. Such happenings are perfectly normal and the "hushing" and the giggles come when the impression is left that something is "naughty." In our home, we're very free about such things and personally don't see how a goat's erection pictured in a book (albeit maybe not a little kiddies board book) is any different than seeing it out in the open at a zoo as far as using it as a teachable moment. All moments are teachable moments ... including the one in which the little boy used the "f" word. At least that's how we are here. Are African women's hanging breasts in a National Geographic Magazine offensive too ??? That's just my view ... clearly bohemian based on the preceding posts. Anyway, don't lynch me LOL. I did concede the point that it IS very shocking that the picture was in a little kiddies board book. Kathe
No, I wouldn't find the pictures in National Geographic offensive, but at the same time we were surprised about the amount of nudity in the Usbourne hsitory book. DH decided that he didn't want us using it with the kids, because a good bit of it wasn't necessary. Some of it, such as dipicting the Olympic athletes naked, were "normal"...after all, that is how the performed. But others seemed very out of place. For me, the question is if it's necessary. And in a children's book, especially a board book, it is NOT necessary and I think inappropriate.
Are we talking about the Usborne Internet Linked Encyclopedia of World History ??? I have that book but haven't perused every single page, evidently. Either that, or we're not referring to the same book. There was a person on the used Canadian book site I frequent, who was selling a copy of an Usborne book, and told everyone that bathing suits were drawn on the pictures that were supposedly "offensive".... now THAT, to me, is censorship. I wanted the book, but I want to be the one to decide if it's not appropriate, not someone else who passes on their judgements, and expects me to pay them for such. I chose to buy the book new ... I'm going to have to comb through it, I guess. Hey Jackie ... what exactly was the word you used that was censored out ... I'm nosey and curious. Did it rhyme with "grasses" or "huts" or "stinks" ... hmmmm ????
None of the above! The word I used was n-a-k-e-d. (I'm hoping by spelling it I can get past the censors. Sorry, Amanda!) The book I have is "The Usborne Book of World History". It's not the Internet linked book. I didn't notice at first, other than the very prominent picture of the Olympic athletes. But we had talked about it before we came to this board, so I went looking. For example, on pg. 148, it shows an Indian village. The men are wearing loin cloths (which is to be expected) and the women wear dress-like oufits, covered from shoulder to knees. But down below, there's a picture of Pocahontas saving Captain John Smith. Pocahontas is topless in it. It's a back/side picture with a very definate breast (complete with nipple) showing. It's very out of place, especially since the others in village picture aren't topless. On page 123, it shows native Africans hunting totally (I almost used that word again!). This doesn't bother me particulary, though I wonder if the didn't wear SOMETHING. Another page has a battle with a man fighting n****. A note is made that many fought this way to show courage; that doesn't bother me, nor does the statue of the goddess Ishtar.There's a lot of topless women in the Egyptian sections, and they do bother me. I guess I've never seen it under Egypt before, and don't see why it needs to be there now. For example, a picture of a woman baking bread topless. I think I would be upset if I were to buy a book and find that someone had drew "swimsuits" on figures.
Funny the Usborne books came up. I got a catalog the other day that had a curriculum that included Usborne books, but I forget for what subject. This catalog suggested coloring over the pictures that were offensive. Usborne sounds funky.... I've bought some of their story books at a thrift store already and they were cute.
