6 of 117 people found the following review helpful
Not worth even 1 Star. Very strange. Should be trashed,
By A Customer
This review is from: In the Night Kitchen (Caldecott Collection) (Hardcover)
I was very disturberd by this book. Should 3 grown men be looking at a naked little boy? I try to teach my children that this is bad. I would have liked the story, had my children not been looking at a anatomicly correctly drawn little boy. Not appropriate for this age group, unless you are ready to open discussions about childrens bodies.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 14, 2008 9:50:55 AM PDT
Why shouldn't we be ready to discuss the human body with our children?
Posted on Mar 24, 2009 9:13:07 PM PDT
J. Stuart Lee says:
would you prefer an anatomically incorrect naked little boy so that your children grow up wondering what kind of person has no reproductive organs?
Posted on Oct 26, 2009 7:54:43 AM PDT
I agree. Naked bodies are wicked and sinful and children should be taught deep shame about the stuff between their legs.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2010 10:33:42 AM PDT
Isn't that what Sendak said, that it'd be a LOT creepier to put a little boy with no penis on the page?
Posted on Jun 2, 2011 6:29:26 AM PDT
Macy Ford says:
In 1971, I was in the second grade and checked this book out of my school library. On the bus that afternoon, the high school kids took it from me and immediately pointed out the sexual innuendo. I was embarrassed and confused. Of course, I see it now. I completely understand why someone would be uncomfortable reading this to his or her child.
The smugness of the answers to "A Customer" is typical, kneejerk tripe. Substitute a naked, anatomically correct little GIRL for the little boy in this story, and I'd wager that these same people would be screaming about sexism and predators and exploitation of women. As a mother of two young men who were once little, innocent boys, I truly resent the hypocrisy .
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 2, 2011 7:24:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 2, 2011 7:30:23 AM PDT
"Substitute a naked, anatomically correct little GIRL for the little boy in this story, and I'd wager that these same people would be screaming about sexism and predators and exploitation of women."
You would lose that wager. What you have presented is what's known as a "straw man," a facsimile of someone you disagree with which you imbue ridiculous viewpoints he/she never actually said. I can do it too, watch: "You conservative types who can't bear the thought of an exposed penis are probably also trying to repeal a woman's right to vote in this country!" See how that works?
But it's interesting that you mention it. Tell me, Macy, why would there be a difference? Seems like the one bringing the double-standard to the discussion is you. Care to explain that?
Regardless, there is no sexual innuendo *in this book.* Any sexual connotations are brought to it solely by the reader. That includes the high school kids on your bus, and you for going along with it and simply accepting it. Tell me, Macy, if I told you mushrooms were all phallic, would you endeavor to immediately eradicate them from your yard? What about public parks? OGM I just realized... there are mushrooms growing near SCHOOLS!
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 6, 2014 1:24:16 PM PST
avid reader says:
Yeah...like Barbie & Ken!! That's real life. Why are we Americans so ashamed of our bodies?
‹ Previous 1 Next ›