# "The covers they didn't want you to see" - Banned album covers - Very interesting! **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 22, 2004, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-covers-they-didnt-want-you-to-see-banned-album-covers-very-interesting/246512 "2004-05-22T12:21:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![jfortun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2acd7d/32.png) [@jfortun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jfortun)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-covers-they-didnt-want-you-to-see-banned-album-covers-very-interesting/246512/61 "2004-05-27T19:13:56Z")
The Tin Machine II album cover is not the only Bowie artwork to cause a stir. The original cover for Diamond Dogs was immediately pulled off the shelves as the gatefold sleeve featured a half-dog half-Bowie creature complete with ample doggie tackle. The album was the rereleased with the bits airbrushed out. ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-covers-they-didnt-want-you-to-see-banned-album-covers-very-interesting/246512/62 "2004-05-27T23:30:06Z")
> [@Winston Bongo](#): > > And I’m thinking that perhaps you have no kids, or not much experience dealing with them, or you wouldn’t be so desensitized to the blatantly obvious overtones of child exploitation, which in this case is about as deliberate and in-your-face as it gets. Well, you’d be thinking somewhat wrongly, then. I certainly don’t have kids of my own (which, according to all I’ve talked to who do, radically changes your perspective on them, which I’m willing to grant), but I have _been_ a child, and I’ve known many in my life, both as a child myself and as an adult, so your claim that I don’t have much experience dealing with them is false. Insofar as the “blatantly obvious overtones of child exploitation” that you refer to: could you elaborate on this? I honestly don’t see it. Sure, it’s a picture of a preadolescent nude, but how is that exploitive, exactly (I sense a Great Debate forming here)? Perhaps you’re attempting to claim the image is an advertisement for the use of children as target practice? > [@](#): > > But then, I keep forgetting it’s supposed to be an indicator of hipness and enlightenment when one can look at any image deemed offensive by the majority and go, “Meh.” Really? Got any proof of that? **I** certainly didn’t say (nor do I believe) any such thing. Are you saying that the only valid disagreement with the majority should be accompanied by fireworks, or something? I don’t get your point here. > [@](#): > > I am tempted to echo Dr. Frasier Crane here and ask, “Dijon, what color is the sky in your world?” If you don’t see the image of a naked child with a symbolic bullet fired into her privates and the title “VIRGIN KILLER” across the top as being indicative of child exploitation, I’d like to know what you _would_ consider inappropriate. No, wait, on second thought I wouldn’t. I don’t mean to perceptive, but if you wouldn’t want to know what I considered inappropriate, you wouldn’t have asked. You did. Thus, this part of your post is self-contradictory, and therefore (IMHO) rather dishonest. Still, since you (sort of) asked: Had the child in the picture actually been shot in the twat (sorry, folks; but it rhymed) just to sell albums, I’d consider that inappropriate. Had she been kidnapped and forced to pose for the picture so that some 80s hair band could sell albums, I’d consider that inappropriate. Had some psycho-fundie-pseudo-christian used the image to promote their own particular hatred-based mentality, I’d consider that inappropriate. I don’t see any evidence that those things have happened. Could you provide some clarification on precisely what I should be outraged about? > [@](#): > > Riiiiiiiiight. Yeah, it’s all metaphorical. Rite of Passage. Agent of the Destruction of the Hoo-Ha. Zen and the Art of Bungee Jumping. Yup. And I’m sure the reason the girl is light-haired is a subtle reference to golden-haired goddesses of Greek mythology, symbolic of mankind’s struggle to come to terms with our desires/inability to master nature and open childproof medicine bottles. I don’t know why I didn’t see that before. :rolleyes: You’re being a bit disengenuous here. I didn’t SAY it was metaphorical; I said that it was my first impression that it was _meant_ to be. Your Greek/aspirin bottle thing could conceivably be part of it (although, I’ll admit that _ **I** _ find that a hell of a stretch.) You have failed to justify your disagreement so far. > [@](#): > > I see. Then, they’re not really talking about sex at all. They’re trying to communicate a much deeper meaning, yet because we in the audience are the “unwashed masses,” they are forced to resort to imagery that resembles child pornography. What a shame that we are so ignorant that artists such as the Scorpions must appeal to our baser instincts in order to get their important message across. Possibly. The image only resembles child pornography to people who don’t understand what the term means. > [@](#): > > So it’s perfectly okay to celebrate the deflowering of young girls, as long as we don’t advocate actually killing them? Now, that _can’t_ be what you meant. No, it ISN’T what I meant, and I believe you know that. The point of the picture (in my opinion) WASN’T to “celebrate the deflowering of young girls”. The point of the picture was to use that image as a metaphorical representation (or pun, if you like) of the title of the album. > [@](#): > > Actually, you could do even better with a shot of, say, a naked five year old. Much more likely to be a virgin than a 12 year old, I would think. I disagree with you, but you make a valid point. Since I was not associated with the creation or (dare I say?) dissemination of the image in any way, I can only theorize on this. I’m betting, though, that the younger the model was, the less appealing it would be. As you yourself have demonstrated, youth+sex tends to bother many people. Thus, it seems logical to me that they would pick someone noticebly prebubescent (thus indicative of virginity), but not _too_ young (because that would increase the OOGY factor so prevalent in the populace). Choosing someone just on the cusp of hormonal overdrive was perfect: just old enough to be interesting, but just young enough to be off-limits. It sets up a conflict, and conflicts are attention-getting. > [@](#): > > What, you mean that {using a five year old} wouldn’t be appropriate? Whyever not? I don’t think a five year old would have been inappropriate; I just don’t think it would have worked as well. But a five year old in the same image would STILL not be porn. > [@](#): > > Yes, I’m sure it was very successful. Shocking, controversial, etc. And it would be even more so if they’d have gone with a hard core child porn shot. So why not do so? Maybe because there are other considerations to think of than just the “success” potential of the image? > > Or maybe the fact that they would have been thrown in jail was the only thing stopping them. No, a “hard core child porn shot” would NOT have been more successful for the very reason that you state. You know that. > [@](#): > > Sorry, Dijon, but I’m a callin’ “Bullshit!” on your whole post. 😃 Some of your arguments may hold water in _other_ cases, but we ain’t talking about Nabokov here . . . You can call all you like. I never claimed we were talkin’ Nabokov…but since you brought him up, I _do_ think this cover was intended to tap into the same social conflict. Youth+sex is a powerful attention-getter, regardless of whether you approve of it. Lots of people don’t. That’s why they pay attention to it. The cover’s job is to attract attention. I think your posts have demonstrated that it has done a very good job. Again: I don’t find the image particularly conducive to buying an album, but I didn’t find it offensive. I also think you’re reading into it things that aren’t there. Just my four cents (I’m runnin’ a tab ;)). ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2004, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-covers-they-didnt-want-you-to-see-banned-album-covers-very-interesting/246512/63 "2004-05-28T04:51:31Z")
About _Virgin Killer_ – it’s important to remember that the album was released in 1976, when the general public’s attitude towards nudity and so-called child exploitation was vastly different than today. Heck, child pornography wasn’t made illegal in America until 1978 or so! And the Germans, like all Europeans, have always had a much more lenient attitude towards nudity, even today. As for the legality of that cover…well, you can still order it through [amazon.com](http://amazon.com) or any other major vendor. They don’t display the cover itself anymore, though. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Winston\_Bongo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a9adbd/32.png) [@Winston\_Bongo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winston_Bongo)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2004, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-covers-they-didnt-want-you-to-see-banned-album-covers-very-interesting/246512/64 "2004-05-28T07:22:06Z")
Various responses to **Dijon Warlock** ’s various responses . . . > [@](#): > > Well, you’d be thinking somewhat wrongly, then. I certainly don’t have kids of my own (which, according to all I’ve talked to who do, radically changes your perspective on them, which I’m willing to grant), but I have been a child, and I’ve known many in my life, both as a child myself and as an adult, so your claim that I don’t have much experience dealing with them is false. And in that case, you have even less of an excuse for defending this kind of thing. > [@](#): > > Insofar as the “blatantly obvious overtones of child exploitation” that you refer to: could you elaborate on this? I honestly don’t see it. Sure, it’s a picture of a preadolescent nude, but how is that exploitive, exactly (I sense a Great Debate forming here)? Perhaps you’re attempting to claim the image is an advertisement for the use of children as target practice? Give me a break. I feel like John Cleese trying to explain to the pet shop guy that the parrot is not “just resting.” Okay, we’ll try this one more time. You know as well as I do that this is not just “a picture of a preadolescent nude.” The previously mentioned Blind Faith album cover might fit that description, but not this one. Why? A little thing called “context.” And in context, the girl in the picture is not only nude but: 1. Attention is deliberately drawn to her genitalia, which is covered just enough, probably, to get by the “child porn” legalities. 2. This attention is drawn with a representation of shattered glass that directs the viewer to make the analogy between a gunshot and sexual violation. And . . . 3. In case anyone _still_ misses the point, placed over the girl’s head are the words “VIRGIN KILLER.” Please tell me what more you would need before you considered this image exploitive. Maybe “VIRGIN KILLER” isn’t direct enough. Maybe they should have called it “WE HEREBY ADVOCATE THE SEXUAL VIOLATION OF THE BELOW UNDERAGED YOUTH AND ENCOURAGE MOLESTERS THE WORLD OVER THE STICK IT TO THEM VIRGINS! LOVE, THE SCORPIONS.” Like I said: the parrot is dead, Dijon. Most of us can see it. > [@](#): > > I don’t mean to perceptive, but if you wouldn’t want to know what I considered inappropriate, you wouldn’t have asked. You did. Thus, this part of your post is self-contradictory, and therefore (IMHO) rather dishonest. Yes, I was being smarmy with the “on second thought, I wouldn’t” part. > [@](#): > > Still, since you (sort of) asked: Had the child in the picture actually been shot in the twat (sorry, folks; but it rhymed) just to sell albums, I’d consider that inappropriate. Had she been kidnapped and forced to pose for the picture so that some 80s hair band could sell albums, I’d consider that inappropriate. Had some psycho-fundie-pseudo-christian used the image to promote their own particular hatred-based mentality, I’d consider that inappropriate. I don’t see any evidence that those things have happened. Could you provide some clarification on precisely what I should be outraged about? Yes, and I have done so at least twice now. And I find it quite amazing that you would require actual kidnapping or forcible acts to take place before you would consider a sexual picture of a child to be inappropriate. I would imagine a whole helluva lot of child exploitation is created in ways other than putting a gun to a kid’s head. The reason there are child protection laws is in part because children are easily manipulated, by definition incapable of giving consent in sexual matters, and not fully responsible for their actions. Otherwise, offenders could easily say, “Hey, nobody forced her to do it! She did it of her own free will!” Which seems to be close to what you’re implying here. Sexual exploitation can and does occur regardless of whether or not the child understands and/or agrees to what is happening. And I don’t even know what you’re talking about with the “psycho-fundie-pseudo-christian” line. At least you agree that “hatred-based mentality” is inappropriate. And yet, oddly, you see none of that in the misogynist, young-girls-as-toys-for-our-penises mentality expressed by this cover image. > [@](#): > > I didn’t SAY it was metaphorical; I said that it was my first impression that it was meant to be. Your Greek/aspirin bottle thing could conceivably be part of it (although, I’ll admit that _I_ find that a hell of a stretch.) You have failed to justify your disagreement so far. Again, I think I’ve provided more than enough explanation to justify my agreement. You just keep insisting the parrot ain’t dead. > [@](#): > > The image only resembles child pornography to people who don’t understand what the term means. And here you overlook my use of the word _resembles_. I acknowledge that the picture is probably not legally CP, or else it wouldn’t be so accessible and we wouldn’t be talking about it. That it certainly _resembles_ CP is obvious, because that resemblance is precisely what the intended shock value is based upon. > [@](#): > > The point of the picture (in my opinion) WASN’T to “celebrate the deflowering of young girls”. The point of the picture was to use that image as a metaphorical representation (or pun, if you like) of the title of the album. And the title of the album was VIRGIN KILLER, which in turn contributed meaning to the image. Both the title and the picture together, in context, create the image of exploitation. > [@](#): > > Since I was not associated with the creation or (dare I say?) dissemination of the image in any way, I can only theorize on this. I’m betting, though, that the younger the model was, the less appealing it would be. As you yourself have demonstrated, youth+sex tends to bother many people. Thus, it seems logical to me that they would pick someone noticebly prebubescent (thus indicative of virginity), but not too young (because that would increase the OOGY factor so prevalent in the populace). Choosing someone just on the cusp of hormonal overdrive was perfect: just old enough to be interesting, but just young enough to be off-limits. It sets up a conflict, and conflicts are attention-getting. Okay, I agree with you there. The only difference is you seem to think such a motivation is perfectly justified, whereas I think it’s revolting. “Hmm, we won’t be able to get away with this unless she’s _just young enough_ to be off-limits . . . that way we can still appeal to the pedos without making it too obvious.” And yes, “many people” in the populace do react from “the OOGY factor” when it comes to kids and sex. It’s called not being a pervert, I believe. > [@](#): > > I don’t think a five year old would have been inappropriate; I just don’t think it would have worked as well. But a five year old in the same image would STILL not be porn. So the legal definition of child porn is the one and only thing you rely on to determine whether an image is inappropriate? You have no personal beef with any such content just so long as the federal government says it’s okay? And if CP were one day legalized, you would then defend it on that basis? If you would not, you are acknowledging that such material can be inappropriate _despite_ its legal status. Which is exactly my point. Maybe your hypothetical picture of the 5 year old child would not technically qualify as CP. But neither do hundreds of the ever-popular “child model” or child nudist websites that you and me and the FBI and all our dogs _know damn well_ are catered toward pedophiles. Such images remain inappropriate and exploitative, whether or not they can fit through legal loopholes. > [@](#): > > You can call all you like. I never claimed we were talkin’ Nabokov…but since you brought him up, I do think this cover was intended to tap into the same social conflict. Youth+sex is a powerful attention-getter, regardless of whether you approve of it. Lots of people don’t. That’s why they pay attention to it. The cover’s job is to attract attention. I think your posts have demonstrated that it has done a very good job. And I reiterate: I agree that it does its job. It succeeds very well in communicating a certain point of view regarding children and sex. I just find that point of view utterly repulsive, and you don’t. > [@](#): > > Again: I don’t find the image particularly conducive to buying an album, but I didn’t find it offensive. I also think you’re reading into it things that aren’t there. Yes, Dijon, you’re exactly right. And those modeling sites aren’t geared toward pedophiles, and it’s perfectly normal for Michael Jackson to sleep with young boys, and the parrot is just pining for the fjords. Yup. Of course, I’m probably wasting my breath (er . . . finger motions?) here. Out of curiosity I looked up your past threads, and I find it both interesting and disturbing that some of them – [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=41049) and [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=84276) in particular – contain your quasi-defense of pedophilia, and even your claim that it is not necessarily wrong for a child as young as 5 to have sex with an adult. Of course, I must refrain from commenting further on my opinions of pedophilia apologists, as I would quickly be sent to the Pit without my supper. But those threads certainly shed an interesting light on your views expressed here. ---
**Author:** ![Beauty\_Personified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e480ec/32.png) [@Beauty\_Personified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beauty_Personified)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-covers-they-didnt-want-you-to-see-banned-album-covers-very-interesting/246512/65 "2004-05-29T02:08:17Z")
Does anyone know what the age of consent for girls was in Germany in 1976 - when The Scorpions’ _Virgin Killer_ album was originally released? The last time I checked, the current age of consent for girls in Germany is 16 (14 for boys). And, apparently, the laws in this area change quite often in Germany. Looking at the original album cover, I’d say the girl looks about 14. She could be younger or older, but it’s all in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone develops at the same rate - mentally, physically or sexually. And we know nothing about the fictional girl on the album cover. IMO, she doesn’t look frightened or nervous. One could even say she’s being seductive in her pose and gaze. Now, while I agree that the term “killer” has violent connotations, the word has been used for a long time in much more innocent ways. _"I beat my friend in a game of HORSE (the basketball game), and he never got one point. I_ killed _him!"_ Of course, losing one’s virginity is, or should, be considered a much more serious subject. However, most people, no matter what age, eventually do lose their virginity. One of the things I find most interesting about this debate is the fact that I gave the moniker “virgin killer” to a girl I knew in school. (I even combined a few short poems about her into one longer song under that title.) Obviously, this girl never literally killed any virgins, and I doubt she ever forcibly took anyone’s virginity from them. I just realized something else. “_Lose_ your viginity.” “_Took_ her/his virginity.” Two other words (besides “killer”) with generally negative connotations. Used in connection with a subject like sex - which still has a lot of negative stigma attached to it - it’s easy to see why a term like “virgin killer” comes off somewhat questionable. (And, BTW, I don’t see a bullet hole at the epicenter of the cracked glass of the album cover. I do concede that the epicenter is placed strategically over the girl’s pubic area. However, considering the context of the the album’s title - which I don’t feel is condoning actual murder _or_ forcible sex - it makes sense.) Anyhoo… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-covers-they-didnt-want-you-to-see-banned-album-covers-very-interesting/246512.md?page=3)