Judging by the description of the one photo, that book is child pornography. The mere possession of it constitutes a crime in all American jurisdictions. The “educational value” test does not apply to child porn; the child porn exemption to free speech is not under the Miller standard for obscenity and has no exemptions for artistic or educational value. Any photograph of actual sexual contact with a minor is, unequivocally, child pornography and is flatly outlawed.
Fair enough and point taken. I lost track of whose hands were where in the sentence, but if the man is clasping his knees then…
But you’re right; I misread the sentence. Mea culpa!
Veb
After consulting available Illuminati, I’m moving this thread to Great Debates. The topic is deep enough, and the discussion involved enough, that it warrants the move.
Besides, even David B.–the old softy–agreed!
TVeblen
Moderator
or the most of you that are branding this porn.
This country is sick, and it isn’t sick because we publish books like “Show Me” - it’s sick because we * react* this way to books like “Show Me”.
Study up on incest and child molestation some time, and you will discover something interesting: much of the time the feelings of horror and shame do not occur until the child gets a load of how others are reacting. (And please, don’t read this sentence and hold it up screaming: Stoid advocates having sex with children! Because I do not, and you will be deliberately missing my point.)
If this stupid, uptight, morally spastic country could just chill the fuck out a little and relax, accept ourselves and learn to embrace our sexuality in a healthy and open way, as opposed to this whiplash-inducing, schizophrenic, love-hate insanity we have going on now, maybe we’d produce fewer sick fucks than we do now.
Sheesh.
stoid
PS: Pardon the language. Sometimes it’s just the only language my poor little frustrated brain can come up with. I won’t make it a habit.
I’m a huge fan of the 1st Amendment, but I don’t think it applies to something like this.
The human body is a beautiful thing, even moreso, the body of a child free of the scars of life and the marks of aging. This includes sexual parts, and it’s perfectly okay, IMHO, to legally publish and sell (in mainstream stores) photos of the naked child form, provided the kids are doing natural acts that do not appeal solely to a pruient interest.
Kids may get aroused and play with themselves naturally, but it sounds like these kids clearly had to be coerced and aroused by external sources. That, I think, is why child pornography receives the minimal (i.e., none) amount of 1st Amendment protection. Manipulating the sexual behavior of children can be incredibly scarring. If these photos were shot with perfect lighting and shadowing, there is no way they could have just been waiting for the kid to get aroused or touch themselves. They were forced into it.
Second, a close-up of a prepubescent vagina or a boy’s erect, albiet covered, penis, doesn’t appeal to any artistic or educational interest in this setting. If it were for a medical purpose, the photographer would not have gone out of his way to make it look good. In fact, I find the amount of time that must have gone into making such things LOOK like art to be disgusting.
It’s porn, of the worst kind. I’m not sure how I feel about selling it for profit because, from the way I see it, that constitutes a federal crime. But, hey, if this thing was in a commercial book store, you’d have a pretty good defense for selling it yourself.
Fenris, have you checked to see what other things the buyer of the book has bid on? I’d be curious … and a little worried.
seeing as how this was a family photographed, and probably an openly sexual family of the seventies family at that, how can you stand by your obviously fundamentalist (not religious, just absolute) statements?
Again, this was several months back, but it was a woman who ran a bookstore who bought it. I don’t remember her name anymore but I remember commenting to my friend that her check said something like (fake name here–>) Jane Jetson: Bookseller. I didn’t check any other individual auction, but she did have a lot of positive responses by her name.
Fenris
Damned VB code. Ignore the unintended winky-face.
Fenris
china’s was messed up back then 
Show Me! May very well be at your local library, you all should check on that.It was in ours, I saw it but didn’t open it, in California.
The US government puts out a book about any & all aspects of pornography (one version has pics, the other doesn’t) which clarifies anything. I forgot it’s name but I think that it’s the REPORT ON PORNOGRAPHY & OBSCENITY. Huge book. Covers any aspect you can imagine. In the 80’s I asked for this book at our library & they found it & then bought it.
Show Me! is not child pornography. If it was, it would never be allowed on ebay.com
#1) Ebay isn’t an arbiter of standards that I recognize. They may also not be aware of the content of the book. Up until recently, they allowed bootleg cds and videos to be sold. When it came to their attention (or was brought to their attention) they stopped allowing the sale of the bootlegs (although many slip by).
#2) Child-porn or not isn’t necessarily an either-or proposition. There isn’t some precise moment when something goes from art to child-porn. I think it’s more like a big, grey area. Show Me is beautifully photographed and a photo-shoot takes hours per picture. The kids in that book were aroused and posed. Not one of the picutures looked (or really could have been) spontanious. I know that adult models, to maintain arousal for the long periods that it takes to get a picture (or a movie) set up have what’s known as “fluffers” (ie someone who helps the actor maintain their arousal.) I don’t know if those pre-teen boys did or didn’t have “fluffers” but it seems likely. If so, those kids were molested by any standard that I can think of.
The fact is, kids are engaging in posed sexual activity for a book. Kids are engaging in posed sexual activity ajacent to adults in a way that sexualizes them for the benefit of the adult (the picture I described of the little girl masturbating while in a submissive position (squatting near his feet, her back to his genitals) to an older male, for example). In other words, kids were aroused and posed and sexualized so an adult could make a profit. That’s certainly exploitation. (Note that the picture Yosemitebabe found was one I recognized and wasn’t one I had a problem with. However, only about half of the pictures in the book were that…innocuous. Don’t judge the book by that one picture alone. I do agree with Handy that you should take a look for yourself if it’s available in your local library if you don’t trust my descriptions of some of the more explicit pictures)
I also found there to be disturbing undertones throughout the whole book: At no point anywhere in the book did anyone say “Don’t allow yourself to be touched in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable” or “If someone does touch you in a bad way, tell your parents or a teacher or a policeman.”. I belive that you shouldn’t have a discussion of sexuality with little kids without warning kids of the dangers. You don’t want to traumatize them or make them live in fear, but at the same time, a “if someone touches you and you don’t like it, you should always tell me” warning seems a requirement. This didn’t have it at all.
This guy,has, on the above page, the total text of the book. No pictures. I think it’s ok to post the above link, but if you follow the link to his homepage do so with the warning that he obviously likes looking at pictures of little boys and has a number of other links to…similar sites.
Fenris
the fact that a pedo likes the book doesn’t mean the book was made for a pedo.
I’m glad to have read the text. It puts the book in context. And the context is: * we are learning about sex * . Not just the fact that babies are born from it, but the rest of it, too, the parts that most parents freak out about.
I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. See my previous post.
stoid
“Study up on incest and child molestation some time, and you will discover something interesting:
much of the time the feelings of horror and shame do not occur until the child gets a load of how
others are reacting.”
Not at all. The shame & horror comes during the acts themselves, when the children feel the horror of being molested & if you read up on child molestation you’d know that it messes up a kid’s head more than almost anything else that happens to them.
It sounds to me like you are suggesting child molestation is okay.
Stoid or handy-
do either of you have cites? I know I’ve heard what Stoid is saying, but I have read no hard evidence.
jb
If I get the energy, I’ll see what I can find.
Most of what I know comes from real-world reading, so whipping out a Net cite isn’t qucik and easy.
But this is a topic of some interest to me, since my family had plenty of incest and child molestation of all kinds going on in it, so I have looked into these things in great depth, more than just a passing interest, more than just an assumption. I’ve read several books on the subject.
How about you, Handy? (Fascinating the way you just jumped right in and did exactly what I told you not to, proving that you have no interest in addressing what I’m actually saying. Or did you only read far enough to go into reaction and judgment?)
stoid
It seems to me that if the photos described were of adults instead of children, they’d be considered pornographic. It’s only logical to deduce that even if it’s children in the photos, it’s still pornography. Not only is is pornography, it is child pornography.
Please, don’t argue that it’s okay because it’s art. That’s a cop-out argument. I can’t kill a random person on the street, call it performance art, and not have to deal with the fact that it’s murder and it’s illegal.
I disagree, but the whole “What is and isn’t pornographic?” is a debate in and of itself (and has already been dealt with). Simple nudity, and even mild, “undirected” arousal doesn’t seem to constitute pornography. Show Me! seems to have more of a “medical/psychological” feel to it.
Think of it this way… we keep a Medical Dictionary in the house. One of the topics is how a woman can examine her breasts (to check for lumps/malformations/possible cancers, etc.) It comes with pictures of a woman “fondling” her breast (she rotates her hand around her nipple). Would you consider this pornographic?
Kids get boners at the slightest provocation. Heck, sometimes with no provocation. I remember lying in bed at night and suddenly my penis would be hard. I found this vastly amusing at the time (I was maybe 8).
While I don’t think the whole “girl with finger inserted in vagina” thing was prudent, I don’t find it pornographic. Just because a photo involves “genitals being manipulated”, it doesn’t constitute porn.
You guys do know the book is for children to read, right? It’s not for adults. e.g. some text from the book:
"01 [boy] Boy, am I glad! I finally got it straight. [girl] Me too.
02 [boy] See, horses have udders, and then bees come from flowers…or something like that.
03 [girl] No, that’s not RIGHT, I don’t believe it."
I gotta say, Handy, I’m not following you here at all. I read the whole text, and I stand by my feelings regarding this book. What are you trying to point out here? (By the way, for the record, I think it is very poorly done. I understand perfectly what they mean to do, I just think they did it badly. Doesn’t make it Porno for Pedos. Well, actually, it probably * does *, but that was not the intent.)
Also, I notice you have not responded to my question about your interest and knowledge of this subject. You made a rather forceful assertion above, and I’m wondering where it came from. Personal experience? An article on the net? An episode of Dateline? A psych class? A friend’s experience? Or just an assumption?
stoid
I think handy is arguing your side in that last post, previous post notwithstanding.
jb