Asda partners with Diversity Role Models and gets angry response to "love has no age limit" message [Edited by MNHQ at OP'S REQUEST]

[stumbledin]

"Asda teamed up with partner charity Diversity Role Models to create a home learning pack for primary school children for ages three to 11, which was sent out to Asda customers and includes the controversial phrase in a section on challenging racism.

In an email sent out on Sunday afternoon from the store's clothing department George, it said: "We've partnered with Diversity Role Models because we believe in a world where everyone embraces diversity and can thrive.

"By teaching empathy, understanding and how to be a good ally to the LGBT+ community, we hope to eliminate homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying and language from the classroom for good."

But a section on the primary school pack has drawn fierce criticism online from concerned parents who claim promoting discussion of "love has no age limit" may be advocating underage sex."

www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/asda-sparks-furious-paedo-backlash-22201608

A letter to Asda regarding their ‘home learning’ packs - Safe Schools Alliance safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2020/06/18/a-letter-to-asda-regarding-their-home-learning-packs/

[endlessginandtonic]

I have read through most of the long AIBU thread and the thread is clear that the issue is a six year old performing sexual acts.
Unlike the Baroness letter it doesn't reference adults abusing dc in that passage.
There will be an adult somewhere in the chain of abuse that ended with the six year old undertaking these acts.
The six year old is both acting in way that is sexually abusive and also victim of abuse themselves.
It is impossible to tell how old the "guys" in the book are, my impression was older dc but not adults.
I agree that it would be better not to have made this error but the it is a minor point in child protection terms.

[Datun]

I'm not at all sure the baroness is on mumsnet, to be honest.

She seems to engage almost exclusively on Twitter.

And appears to be quite fresh to a lot of the debate. Something you would not expect from someone who was getting their information here.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

Again, if you're worried go talk to the Baroness, she's on Twitter. "People will think this is MN propaganda" just makes me roll my eyes.

[Goosefoot]

We is anyone who read that it was reffering to an adult when it wasn't. The following paragraph made it clear it wasn't.

The fact that it seems to have been an error on MN that was repeated in the letter is a concern because it makes it look like it's just MN propaganda.

In any case the main point is why say someone is making claims about it being ok for kids to have oral sex when they said that the book didn't have a kid giving an adult oral sex. That's quite a leap.

[spottedelk]

My guess is that she made the mistake she did because she read something inaccurate on Mumsnet. But I may be completely wrong - I haven't checked the date of her letter against the original MN discussion, for instance. Anyway, it doesn't much matter how the mistake was made - it's a good idea to check the facts yourself before you send a letter like that.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

Who is this "we" you speak of? The Baroness does not appear to have a Mumsnet account. If anyone wants to correct any mistakes she may have made about the book then she is on Twitter and does often respond to people directly.

[Goosefoot]

So let me get this clear, we now have a (new, never seen them before) poster who thinks that ASDA promoting a book that talks about 6 year olds giving oral sex is fine as long as it specifies that the recipients are also children?

That hasn't happened though, and I'm not sure why anyone is claiming that.

Literally no one has said that the passage isn't deeply concerning.

Why accuse someone who pointed out a factual error that was being repeated - it was on the ABU thread too and seems to have been in the letter send by the baroness to Asda - that could be picked out to undermine the general statement which was a strong one. We all know that sort of technique would be used without compunction and that some people reading about the controversy would not look farther than "oh, they are making things up, those people are not reliable."

Why the need to jump all over someone making an innocuous factual point anyway? What's the issue with saying - oh yeah, actually it looks like that is true, we should amend what we are saying slightly?

[spottedelk]

I've also been on MN for several years and have posted a lot on the feminist board, because I feel strongly about transgender issues (on the same side of the debate as most of you). FGS. I also, like most people, feel strongly about child sex abuse. But get your facts right, especially if you're putting in a complaint to a major supermarket, and don't assume that because someone points out a mistake they are your greatest enemy and are grooming children. That behaviour reminds me of how people on the other side of the debate tend to behave.

[spottedelk]

Then say that it's shocking, but don't give the wrong facts. And don't make stupid accusations against someone because they correct a factual mistake.

[Binterested]

Kind of hope Roger doesn’t go with that defence to the Baroness. It’s all atrocious and he needs to acknowledge that.

[Datun]

We can't afford to lose the moral high ground in this argument.

We're not losing the moral high ground.

If a mistake has been made, we still won't be losing the moral high ground.

The moral high ground is that this book is shocking and should not be promoted to children.

Adult blowjobs, or not adult blow jobs. No one will be able to sustain an argument that it's not shocking, because it's about children and not adults, and someone confused the two.

[lockdownbreakdown]

I think beyond Magenta has actually been banned in the USA . Why its been recommended by Diveristy Role Models is beyond me and utterly terrifying.

[Kokeshi123]

www.ala.org/awardsgrants/beyond-magenta-transgender-teens-speak-out

The Beyond Magenta book got a "Honor" award from Stonewall in 2015.

Of course it did.

[spottedelk]

I have never said or indicated in any way that oral sex between children is fine. I think that it is the opposite of fine - it's extremely concerning. I agree that it suggests that there may be child abuse in the background (to which child originally, we don't know).
All I have said is that some people (including the baroness) are accusing the supermarket of using training materials which describe children performing oral sex on adults. Whereas in fact what has happened is that the supermarket has used training materials which recommend a book which on one page talks about a child performing oral sex on other children, with the writer specifically saying that they did not perform sexual acts with adults because they thought it was wrong.
If you react this way towards someone who shares your views on sex/gender and is simply pointing out that a factual mistake has been made, I suggest that you take a look at yourselves. We can't afford to lose the moral high ground in this argument.

[VickyEadieofThigh]

Oral sex between children is a clear indicator of significant child protection concerns.

Sexually active six year olds are a significant child protection concern.

The normalization of child sex is a significant child protection concern.

Pretty much all adults are aware of this on some level.

This. ALL of this.

Speaking as a person professionally highly trained in safeguarding and with massive experience in it - this book is SHOCKING.

Any adult trying to mininise this issue on the grounds that 'as long as adults aren't involved it's not that bad' - RED FLAG.

[justanotherneighinparadise]

Oh if the anonymous poster @spottedelk says it’s fine then what the hell are we all moaning about? I’m off to spend my Saturday doing some anal and a light amount of docking. You’re all so very pedestrian.

[andyoldlabour]

I find it difficult to understand, how any right thinking person could ever downplay or try to excuse this. No organisation such as this should ever be involved with children.

[Ninkanink]

Yes quite.

It’s almost as if these people either a) don’t understand the basic principles of safeguarding or b) don’t care about safeguarding at all or c) actively want to circumvent safeguarding.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

So let me get this clear, we now have a (new, never seen them before) poster who thinks that ASDA promoting a book that talks about 6 year olds giving oral sex is fine as long as it specifies that the recipients are also children?

As ever I'm struck by how little gender supporting people understand about patterns of abuse. If it even occurs to a six year old to do that then they've probably been abused themselves already. Any teacher would spot that as a red flag immediately, as would anyone who's had any sort of training on working with kids. So how did it get past whoever at ASDA approved this?

[TheCuriousMonkey]

I have a six year old. It wouldn't occur to him that "guys" (of any age, but seriously who calls other children 'guys') in our neighborhood should or would put their penises in his mouth. If it did, I would be straight onto social services as I would be pretty damn sure he'd been sexually abused.

A certain amount of childhood curiosity about bodies is normal for six year olds. "Giving guys oral" is not that.

[skql]

and age six, kids do happy sexual life,
do some fun kinky thing, why not marry that age?

hmmmm...

[skql]

spotted

it's ok to kids love to oral with other kids
it's ok to kids love to oral with adults.
why not?

[NotBadConsidering]

There is no age specified in that passage, just “guys” and “we were really young”. There is abuse, blurred lines about ages, and now we have people arguing about the semantics of it. There are so many red flags waving it’s like a crash at the British Grand Prix.

[BitOfFun]

"Guys in the neighbourhood" though? That doesn't sound like children to me.

[Goosefoot]

I took the book to indicate the oral sex was with other kids. It's worth not saying adult if that's factually incorrect as any little error like that will be pointed at to say that it's a mischaracterisation or the person hasn't really even looked at the text.