and
IANAL, but I believe the two of you are mistaken, and owning this book is not a crime. If you are correct, then the Library of Congress is in violation of federal law, and I would expect them to be fairly well versed on what books are illegal to possess.
There’s art and then there’s art. Pictures of children with fingers inserted does not qualify as either.
A book of nothing but baby butts… this defines the category “stupid art”.
As much as I resent agreeing with Stoid (I am going to burn my clothes then format my hard drive), I would tend to agree based upon a New Yorker article about an anthropologist who spent time with an misogynic Oceanic tribe in which young males would perform fellatio upon tribal elders, believing that the semen would make them more virile when they matured. This fellatio would definitely fall under the category of molestation in our society, yet the males seemed to grow up without any obvious mental trauma. Although the anthropologist might possibly have missed the effects of this fellatio as a child seeing as he was neither a psychiatrist nor psychologist, but his observations would seem to support Stoid (oh the agony).
{{{threemae}}} There, there…you’ll recover, I promise. Perhaps it will comfort you to know that lots of people around here agree with me at least occasionally, nearly everyone, actually. And I’ve never yet seen it held against them. Especially when they make it clear that they simply couldn’t help themselves and no matter how it looks…they don’t like it!
stoid
Hell, even me, and I’m one of her more “fervent opponents”. Go fig!
Please see 18 U.S.C. 2252A, section (a)(5):
Subsection (b) provides that a person who violates (a)(5) may be imprisoned for up to five years.
I presume, therefore, that your contention is that the book in question is not child pornography as defined by 18 U.S.C. 2256, section (8), not that the mere possession of child pornography is unlawful.
The Library of Congress is not a “person”.
That’s where you’re mistaken. His parents were Aviary of Congress and Gymnasium of Congress. And he likes to eat floppy french fries.
I do not see your point at all. Are you saying that I am a sick bastard because I find the described picture morally reprehensible? My personal set of values tells me that exploiting a child to sell a book is wrong, and I react by making my opinion known. Yet this reaction is making this country sick? That sounds very backward to me.
Again I disagree. Part of what shapes our society is drawing lines. We all have a civic duty to set minimal levels of our behavior that are acceptable in the community in which we live. Can I sit on my front porch and masturbate in the nude? No. It would be embracing my sexuality in an open way, but society says it is not acceptable. As society changes and evolves, the mood and moral compass may change as well, and the laws of this country will change to reflect that (a good example is prohibition and its repeal). In such a case it may at some point in the future become acceptable. But by today’s standards, the book is child pornagraphy.
All that, and I manage to throw in a typo on the last word, no extra charge.
Stoidela, mostly from reading any & all books, magazines & papers on the subject. The rest comes from personal experience & social discussion.
What defines art or pornography is ‘intent’. e.g. if you are in college to become a pediatrician you’ll be seeing many books with naked children in them but they aren’t considered pornography because the intent is to educate, which is what Show Me does.
KellyM, yes, the Library of Congress is not a person. I’m not exactly sure how that is relevant though. To acquire the book for the LC persumably it had to be shipped across state lines (as it was not printed in DC), and so any employee or patron of the LC who handled the book while knowing of its contents would be commiting a federal crime, if this book is child pornography. And the same for any other library that has Show Me in its possession (and apparently some do).
I suppose such a situation is possible, but I would expect the LC to avoid such situations by not including works deemed child pornography in their collection. I do not think that is a wild assumption, but feel free to disagree. Therefore, based upon the fact that it is in the LC’s collection, and patrons who browse it are not being lead away in handcuffs, I’m asserting that the federal government apparently does not consider the book to be child pornography.
So how do kids find out about “being able to touch themselves” which isn’t “wrong” in the first place? I can’t remember where I first came across the idea, but I know it wasn’t from my mom showing me a picture book.
Incidentally, I think the picture book is excellent (as an idea). It is probably far superior to all parents being nude and showing their children some sex acts, but it is also a no-nonsense approach to sexuality.
Sex ain’t bad. 
Couple points:
Saying "In some socities an act dosen’t cause harm, therefore it isnt “really” or “objectivley” harmful, simplely isnt relavent. We have to assume that children being raised in this societiy will continue to be raised in this society, and that they will in all probablity come to see the acts they were instructed to comit as being taboo and shameful. I don’t think anyone could suggest that it is accpetable to tell a child abuse victem 'Don’t let it get to you. It’s normal in (blank).
It is not a question of whether sex is “good” or bad". It is really a question of how and when sex and sexuality is “appropriate” or “inappropriate”. FOr example, it is my understanding that the reason the Very Open Families of he seventies (such as the one depicted in this book) tended to disappear was because very casual nudity in front of each other tended to lead to arosual; the incest taboo is cultural, not “natural” and if you have a 12 year old and a thirteen year old lounging around in the nude together all the time, chatting about thier sexuality they will arouse each other, they will know that they are mutually aroused, and things will tend to happen. You have to train yourself not to be aroused by your close family members, and one of the ways you do this is through nudity taboos and a more general aversion to explicit conversations across genders.
It seems to me naive to believe that sexual disfunction inevitably results for “uptightness” or being repressed or brain washed, or to believe that by simply doing what is natural things will all work out. All cultures have an idea of “appropriate” and “inappropriate” sexuality, although the specifics vary enourmously. The fact is that sex is a very powerful thing, and powerful things need to be brought under control so that they can be predicted and mutually understood.
Manda JO, if in fact nudity taboos are to eliminate incest, wouldn’t that imply a high rate of incest in cultures where nudity is the norm?
I find it hard to believe that that is the case.
I think incest taboos are supported more by the general aversion to those we grow up with. I think that most people probably aren’t as attracted to those friends they grew up with, family or no.
Manda Jo, just makes me wonder why incest is bad in the fisrt place, hahaha.
Viva sex!
Threemae wrote:
I don’t know how much those comparisons really tell us. For instance, in Kenneth Goode’s book about the Yanomamo of South America, he says that there wasn’t a single Yanomamo woman who hadn’t been raped, because it was regarded as pretty normal there. The women toughed it out, but I don’t think that means rape isn’t really so bad. It’s hard to tell who’s traumatized when everybody in a society suffered the same trauma, and the signs are sometimes more subtle. For instance, Goode says the Yanomamo men went nuts when he told them Western women actually move during intercourse–Yanomamo women just lie there like lumps, apparently. Sounds like they’re having loads of fun, no?
I’m also a little irritated at the way some posters here seem to be equating privacy with sexual repression. I mean, it might be normal for kids (and adults) to play with themselves, but is it normal to do it in front of a camera for millions to see? As far as I know, there is no culture in the world that lacks a sense of privacy about sex, and such a sense is probably innate. There may be individuals who have no modesty, but I think children are too young to make those decisions. Couldn’t such a book be illustrated with drawings or something?
Rather, people forcing other people to be private. No one claims that one can’t be private if one wants to.
What?!? You mean the children haven’t gotten old enough to register what YOU consider the appropriate level of modesty about being seen thusly. If they don’t care (and they don’t!) why the hell should you?
Modesty is a ** learned ** response, as evidenced by children and the cultures in the world where nudity is no big damn deal. Our desire to cover ourselves (apart from protection from the elements) is our nuture, not our nature.
stoid
They’re called the Puritans. They considered sex to be a matter for the public forum.
Yup, but if these photos are illegal, then so would drawings showing what the photos show. Couldn’t a pedophile just use the drawings?
jb