Some years ago I was in a shop that specialized in sensual and erotic gifts. Let me stress that it was not a porno shop- it sold vibrators and books like The Joy of Sex, but also things like massage oil, feminist literature, serious tantric works, and so forth. A refined, upscale erotica shop, if you will.
One of the books they had for sale was entitled Show Me!. It was published in I think the mid-1970s. Remember that at this time the Sexual Revolution was in full flower. AIDS hadn’t appeared, and lots of people experimented with a new less prudish approach to sexual matters. The book was all about how you should teach your children about sex in the context of a sexually relaxed atmosphere at home. It condoned family nudity, advocated making sure your children knew how to masturbate, and even allowing them to be spectators to sexual acts between their parents. The book featured lots of photos of nude adults and children together sharing such sensual activities as baths and massages. It did not portray any genital stimulation, or any pornographically explicit poses.
This book was openly and legally for sale. Yet now I wonder if anyone caught possessing a copy could be charged with owning kiddie porn. Regardless of your opinion of the book’s contents, is it fair that something that was legal, if perhaps a bit avant-gard, could now get you busted?
P.S., for the record, I myself have never owned a copy, and have not seen it for sale for years.
My gut response is that nudity is not pornography.
I am reminded of a comment that (according to a book I read) a lady uttered at the end of one of the early screenings of “2001: A Space Odyssey”. According to her, the whole movie was fine but she saw no reason why they had to resort to “pornography” at the end of the movie (she was referring to the depiction of the Star Child as a foetus).
A foetus is not pornographic, and neither is a child. Even a naked child. A nude adult is not pornographic either. It’s not the clothes, it’s the actions that make something pornographic.
The book is available in the Library of Congress (it’s not checked out).
Here’s the full title:
Show me! : A picture book of sex for children and parents
author: Will McBride
I’d guess it would be up to a judge or jury to ultimately decided if the book were illegal.
Other legal items that became illegal would have gotten the owners in trouble. When LSD became illegal, couldn’t anyone caught with it get arrested, even if they originally bought it legally?
I don’t know about the States, but here knowingly exposing a child to a sexual act as suggested in the book is an offense. The publishers could probably be charged with incitement or something similar.
I love the scene in Auntie Mame where the toddlers are lying on top of each other “like fish wiggling to spread sperm over eggs”. Now that was taking progressivism too far.
It’s not child pornography unless it depicts children being exploited sexually. Naked kids are fine, so long as they’re not: having sex, “spread” wide open in a sexual manner, penetrating themselves, touching, etc… Otherwise it’s considered “art”. This definition is causing problems recently as sites have been popping up which are within the definition’s “safe zone”, but are obviously quite sketchy.
As a network admin, I sometimes have the wonderful job of locking down sites which are obviously not work related (i.e. porn, games…). One day, I was pouring over some logs and found a lot of activity at an unknown site. There was almost 10M worth of pics downloaded, so I went to check it out. I found pictures which I thought were child porn, and had to report it. The individual’s termination procedure was started, and charges were being considered when his lawyer demonstrated that those pictures were not legally considered child porn. Thus, we had no basis to press charges. He was right. Even the site’s homepage proudly posted the law, and declared the site OK. It wasn’t illegal, and it wasn’t porn: it was “art”. Oh well. So he was fired for internet abuse anyway.
**It’s not the clothes, it’s the actions that make something pornographic.
**
[/QUOTE]
Nope, sorry, your’re out. It’s not the clothes, or the actions, that make something pornographic. It’s the laws.
One can make a MORAL deciscion, that these people are all scum, and I must wash them off the face of the earth (OT JHVH) or a PERSONAL/MORAL decision, that I find X Y & Z personally repugnant will label pornographic. However, pornography has a dual life as a fuzzily constructed concept in law in the US. It mixes, willy-nilly, community standards with Prurient Interest, trying to address our (American) conflicting core values of freedom of expression, protection of the innocents, and our unfortunate tendency toward turning the Government into some kind of Super-Nanny.
As this thread has already shown, community standards (and hence our laws) change over time. It’s my observation that they do so in a pendulumic manner.
I don’t think that we’ll return to those libertine days of the late 60’s/early 70’s that spawned this heretical tome until I’m 80 - if I make it that far. Until that time, I would advise people to pick up anthropology, if only as a hobby. Pick up law, like every good latin citizen did.
Pick up American history! The fact that you shudder when I mention that is part of the conspiracy to separate you from this big, bungling parade we’re all attached to.
Here in Ontario, I remember seeing a story on the news of some father and/or mother who got in trouble because they had taken a picture of their kid naked in the bathtub. The person developing the film called the police. It wasn’t the first time I’d heard of a story like this.
The actual application of the law varies from place to place in the USA. There was a recent case against Barnes and Noble in South Carolina because they were selling a art book of nude young persons. I don’t remember how it turned out.
Also, Susie Mann (sp) ,who was famous for taking nude art photos of her children, was taken to court in one of the southern states. She won her case, but do you have the time or money to spend in court. Also, she could have easily lost her case. Twelve differnet people might have come to a differnet conclusion.
"Her next collection, Immediate Family (1992), brought even more acclaim for its hauntingly beautiful tableaux, and even more notoriety for its nude shots of her own preadolescent children. Conservative critics called the images “child pornography” and further evidence of the art world’s amoral decadence. "
[nitpick]
My parents had that book, albeit stored in the cellar. We found it anyway. And it did; there was a very explicit penetration shot in the sequence talking about the children’s older brother and his girlfriend having sex.
[/nitpick]
Times change. What was permissible, or at least winked at, thirty years ago is shocking now. I honestly don’t think anyone in possession of that book, since it was freely and legally published literature, would get busted for its possession. Though I don’t think they’d want to put it out on their coffee table, either.
I went to school in Lexington, VA and I knew Sally Mann…
What a great woman, and her kids were so cool. I used to go mountainbiking with the son and his friends in the woods behind campus.
My friend also worked for her for a summer as a gardener/hand on her hobby farm. Michael Stipe came to visit and stayed for a week. She also took Stipe to our college formal ball. How cool was that?!!!
It’s ludicrous that she could ever be considered a pornographer. I’ve seen the pics, and they are brilliant.
FTR, there were two books in the B&N fiasco, “The Age of Innocence” by David Hamilton, and “Radiant Identities” by Jock Sturges. Both extremely impressive proof that there’s a whole lot more to nude photography of children than “kiddie porn.” There were cases in several states, most were thrown out as being without merit. One state (I’m thinking Tennessee, but may have been S. Carolina) charged B&N with “Improper Display”, as the cover of the Sturges book contained a topless portrait of an adolescent Misty Dawn. The finding was exposure to this image could be “harmful to minors.” Clue? Minors already know people have nipples. It ain’t gonna shock them to see a couple more. :rolleyes: indeed.
[rambling semi-hijack]
Wow, Ivar, that is tres cool. I’ve been a Sally Mann fanatic for years, and must admit a long-time secret crush on Jessie, even though I’ll probably never meet her. I read somewhere that Emmett was almost killed in a car accident a few years ago. Have you kept in touch with them and/or heard how he is doing? I always figured they would have to be cool people to know. There was a story I found on the Internet regarding a review of “Immediate Family” in (I believe) the Wall Street Journal, which printed a shot of Virginia along with the review. It being a nude of her at about age three or four, they censored out the “obscene” parts ( :rolleyes: ). She evidently was upset, and wrote them a letter. I found an image of what purported to be it on someone’s website. The entire text in scrawly child-writing was “Dear Sir: I do not like the way you crossed me out. I will be six on Friday. Virginia Mann” and her address. I cheered. According to the article I read, their response to her was something along the lines of “Children of quality do not allow their parents to photograph them naked.” Not enough rolling eyes in the world for that remark. There was a recent online gallery of Sally’s latest exhibition entitled “Deep South” that she took with her antique camera with all these old imperfect lenses. It was absolutely stunning.
[/rambling semi-hijack]
And in many areas, like where I live, the film places not only won’t develop those pictures, but they’ll call the police as well. C’mon, that really is ridiculous. Following that thinking, my parents, and probably most parents, are deviants for having pornographic images.
I remember an article with a picture of a girl, naked and bald at seven, straddling a chair. The chair itself is draped with a sheet, and no genitals can be seen. The sheet looks like wings. Her father had taken it, calling it, “Portrait of Ana.”
Ana at that time had bone cancer (I THINK), and was undergoing chemo, and her dad saw her sitting there as he was helping her get dressed, and he said that she reminded him instantly of an angel. He took the picture…(or maybe he painted it, I don’t remember), and it won an award. It was very touching.
Ana survived, and when the article was written, was a very healthy 11 year old. She would just giggle at the picture and said, “Ugh, Daddy! I’m naked and bald-I’m so ugly!”
