# Would/Should this be considered "abusive"? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 15, 2005, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923 "2005-01-15T23:08:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![NicePete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ee7513/32.png) [@NicePete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NicePete)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/21 "2005-01-16T04:53:32Z")
> [@START](#): > > I should mention that this is not encouraged or forced but allowed…I’m sure if the boys said they didn’t want to have any naked ladies on the wall, Dad wouldn’t have a problem with it. > It’s just that if they want to look at porn their Dad isn’t going to tell them they can’t do it or shouldn’t do it. Yeah, it would be much healthier if the boys were made to feel that their natural urges were dirty and evil. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/22 "2005-01-16T04:59:09Z")
> [@trublmakr](#): > > Whether the kids like it or not is a non-issue. Sexualization of the home is child abuse. Research the laws, or take it from those of us that know the law intimately. Aside from his poorly informed opinons on the genesis of homosexuality, if Child Protective Services comes after a dad because he has a Playboy on the living room coffee table accessible by teenagers, then it’s time to disband that agency and fire the idiots that comprise it. I can understand if there’s hardcore porn and small children involved, but if some CPS eager beaver wants to slippery slope this this into “child abuse” when it involves Playboy and teenagers, the “abuse” in that scenario is by CPS and not the dad. ---
**Author:** ![START](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@START](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/START)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/23 "2005-01-16T05:04:44Z")
> [@AugestWest](#): > > Yeah, it would be much healthier if the boys were made to feel that their natural urges were dirty and evil. Is that an attack on me? ---
**Author:** ![Khampelf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Khampelf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khampelf)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/24 "2005-01-16T06:00:50Z")
> [@START](#): > > Is that an attack on me? No, I’m pretty sure that was sarcasm on **AugustWest** ’s part. This seems to be an area with no middle ground, you’re either a Prude, or a Perv. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/25 "2005-01-16T07:36:34Z")
Damn, I am an abusive parent and I never even knew it!! :eek: I’ve got three lads, and they’ve got all sorts of pics with all sorts of girls in various stages of undress on their walls. I figured it was none of my business. I was abusing them all the time eh? God-damned I’m stoopid. 😃 It _became_ my business when they put a calendar of teenage girls in bikinis on the back of the dunny door though. I told them that it made me feel insecure and inadequate to be faced with gorgeous nubile bodies every time I had to look at my rolls of middle-aged flab while squatting on the loo. They removed it. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![hathaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@hathaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hathaway)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/26 "2005-01-16T07:36:49Z")
I don’t think this is life-scarring abuse, but it is definitely screwy–particularly the father’s stated motivation. The two eldest children may be old enough to deal with it, but I wonder about the 13 year old, being told he ought to look at porn now so he won’t turn out gay. (If the father is stating these things clearly to the children, that is.) I would have been very uncomfortable at that age if my father announced he was leaving the Playboy out for us all to enjoy. Sexual arousal is not a family event. I don’t deny that my family members have sexuality, it’s just that I don’t wish to share that space with them. Nor do I feel it appropriate for them to offer to share that space with me. If the magazine was left out without any verbal explanation, I would be grossed out with the image of my dad buying a porno mag and what all goes along with that, but I would just ignore it and try to think happy thoughts to block out that image. (Who in their teens–or heck, even some as adults–thinks of their parents getting horny as sexually healthy behaviour? You know it is perfectly normal but you just don’t want to think about it!) Playboy is a magazine that is basically marketed towards men who are attracted to women, so I wonder what the father’s intended message is for his daughter. He doesn’t know she’s bisexual, plus, he has issues with homosexuality. . . ---
**Author:** ![START](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@START](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/START)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/27 "2005-01-16T09:03:25Z")
> [@The Sonoran Lizard King](#): > > No, I’m pretty sure that was sarcasm on **AugustWest** ’s part. > > This seems to be an area with no middle ground, you’re either a Prude, or a Perv. Prude or Perv…niether. I don’t care one way or another about those kids seeing porn…it’s their house. I say to them; knock yourselves out 😉 . ---
**Author:** ![butter\_pie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aca169/32.png) [@butter\_pie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/butter_pie)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/28 "2005-01-16T09:15:52Z")
> [@AugestWest](#): > > I had a friend as a kid whose mother bought him a subscription to Playboy. This was in the 6th or 7th grade. He’s a very prominent Republican state legislator now (not in my state.) I don’t know what the significance of this is. My boyfriend when I graduated from high school was 22. His mom got him a subscription to Playboy when he was 13. She said she didn’t want any of it to be a mystery to him. He had a collection of _years_ worth of porn magazines by the time I met him, plus a colourful collection of videotapes. He worked in a card shop selling baseball cards, Magic:TG cards, Star Wars toys and Beanie Babies when I met him. We didn’t stay together long, but we’re still friends. Almost seven years later, he’s still working on writing that book he’s always going to finish, in and out of his nomadic mom’s place – where-ever in the country it might be – And he looks just like Jesus. I don’t know what the significance of this is, either. I think whether porn is appropriate for minors depends on the age and maturity level of the individual kid, particularly that they are old enough to understand things like Playboy are fantasy and that most women don’t look like that. And a softcore poster on the wall really isn’t much different from the Sports Illustrated swimsuit posters that plenty of my friends growing up had. Keeping it in the living room as a kind of “community porn” does seem a bit weird… but it makes me wonder more about the mental state of the parent and possible underlying motives than actual damage to the kids. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/29 "2005-01-16T15:16:30Z")
> [@trublmakr](#): > > Yes, it IS abuse to expose minors to pornography. Absolutely. Without a doubt. Balls. ---
**Author:** ![Alice\_The\_Goon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Alice\_The\_Goon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alice_The_Goon)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/30 "2005-01-16T15:42:52Z")
It doesn’t matter what anyone’s opinion is. When it comes to the law, opinions and “I think” doesn’t matter. Having pornography laying about the house in the presence of children is something that Child Protective Services says is the wrong thing to do. I’m not saying it’s _my_ opinion, I’m saying it’s the law. If you don’t agree, then research it and point me to a cite, please. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/31 "2005-01-16T15:54:17Z")
Legal issues aside, I think the parents are missing a golden opportunity here to teach their boys sensitivity and respect, not to mention avoidance of sexual harrassment lawsuits. There are other people in the house, not counting visitors. Therefore, out of respect for their mother and their sister, or any other person of any gender who could be expected to be disturbed by such images, such images should not be displayed in the open. Have a Playboy on your nightstand? Fine. It’s your personal space. Hang the pictures on the wall where seeing them is unavoidable while passing the room? In a workplace, that’s creating a hostile work environment. It’s not a matter of hiding it or making it dirty, it’s a matter of respecting others and keeping one’s sexuality a private matter between oneself and one’s privates. And any other consenting partner of appropriate and legal age. There really is a middle ground here, IMHO. But yes, legally, depending on the state you live in, this could be considered child abuse. We’ve had to have long talks at the WhyHouse about our attending clothing optional events with zero sexual activity with our kids, as technically seeing adult breasts could get them taken away from us. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/32 "2005-01-16T16:57:37Z")
> [@trublmakr](#): > > Having pornography laying about the house in the presence of children is something that Child Protective Services says is the wrong thing to do. Do you seriously see no difference between “CPS says it’s the wrong thing to do” and “it’s illegal child abuse”? Just for funsies, here’s Wisconsin’s statutes on the matter: > [@Wis.Stat. 948.11](#): > > Exposing a child to harmful material or harmful descriptions or narrations. > > (1) Definitions. In this section: > > (ag) “Harmful description or narrative account” means any explicit and detailed description or narrative account of sexual excitement, sexually explicit conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality that, taken as a whole, is harmful to children. > > (ar) “Harmful material” means: > > 1. Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body that depicts nudity, sexually explicit conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality and that is harmful to children; or > > 2. Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced or recording that contains any matter enumerated in subd. 1., or explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexually explicit conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality and that, taken as a whole, is harmful to children. > > (b) “Harmful to children” means that quality of any description, narrative account or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexually explicit conduct, sexual excitement, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality, when it: > > 1. Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of children; > > 2. Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for children; and > > 3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, scientific or educational value for children, when taken as a whole. For what the father is doing to rise to the level of illegal activity you’d have to prove that Playboy magazine is legally obscene to show to children and one would hope that even in John Ashcroft’s America we haven’t gotten to that point yet. [Link](http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=86160&infobase=stats.nfo&softpage=Browse_Frame_Pg) to searchable WI statutes ---
**Author:** ![LucyInDisguise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucyindisguise/32/18064_2.png) [@LucyInDisguise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LucyInDisguise)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/33 "2005-01-16T17:07:41Z")
> [@trublmakr](#): > > It doesn’t matter what anyone’s opinion is. When it comes to the law, opinions and “I think” doesn’t matter. Having pornography laying about the house in the presence of children is something that Child Protective Services says is the wrong thing to do. I’m not saying it’s _my_ opinion, I’m saying it’s the law. If you don’t agree, then research it and point me to a cite, please. Just 'cause it’s the _law_ don’t make it _right_ … :rolleyes: I’ve never figured out the Puritan Morals thing in this country (USA). It’s perfectly okay to allow children to watch the \*Terminator \* blast away killing cops and innocent people … but it’s _wrong_ to let them see a naked human being ?!?!?! :dubious: Some of our lawmakers and “Moral Leaders” need to visit some of those small, ‘backwards’ European countries where just the opposite is the norm (i.e., naked = Okay – Gratuitous Violence discouraged …) and compare stats! BTW – not that it matters to some people – and I can’t cite the court cases, but it has been proven \*in court \* that _Playboy_ in not pornographic. ---
**Author:** ![Alice\_The\_Goon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Alice\_The\_Goon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alice_The_Goon)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/34 "2005-01-16T17:32:22Z")
Here in Arizona, “sexual misuse of a child” is defined as exposure of a child to sexual stimulation inappropriate for the child’s age and role in the family. Having pornography distributed in the home in plain sight fits that description, according to my supervisor in the Guardian Ad Litem program. It wouldn’t necessarily make the parents subject to prosecution, but it would definitely make them subject to investigation. Laws do vary from state to state. The OP did not specify what state he’s in, so I used AZ statutes. ---
**Author:** ![whiterabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/cab0a1/32.png) [@whiterabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whiterabbit)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/35 "2005-01-16T18:03:52Z")
I’m wondering how a 13-year-old somehow shouldn’t be “sexually stimulated,” seeing as they tend to be pretty horny with or without benefit of porn. I do think having the stuff in the living room is a bit skeevy, but I don’t think it’s really abusive if it’s just sort of there. If it’s a choice of naked people or blowing people up, I’ll take naked anytime. Especially for my kids, if I had any. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/36 "2005-01-16T19:20:20Z")
> [@trublmakr](#): > > The OP did not specify what state he’s in, so I used AZ statutes. Then maybe you should say that _first_. ---
**Author:** ![Indygrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@Indygrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indygrrl)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/37 "2005-01-16T19:28:35Z")
I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. Playboy has never been hardcore porn as far as I know, in fact, if it’s regular Playboy, they don’t even do crotch shots. So, boys having access to nekkid pics of women, no biggie, IMO. If dad was hiding them under his bed, the boys would find them there too. Now, if he was buying them Hustler, that might be a little different. But, tasteful nudity, in itself, does no harm, IMO. And it’s certainly not abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/38 "2005-01-16T22:54:51Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > > [@trublmakr](#): > > > > The OP did not specify what state he’s in, so I used AZ statutes. > > Then maybe you should say that first. > [@trublmakr](#): > > **Here in Arizona** , “sexual misuse of a child” is defined as exposure of a child to sexual stimulation inappropriate for the child’s age and role in the family. Having pornography distributed in the home in plain sight fits that description, according to my supervisor in the Guardian Ad Litem program. > It wouldn’t necessarily make the parents subject to prosecution, but it would definitely make them subject to investigation. > Laws do vary from state to state. **The OP did not specify what state he’s in, so I used AZ statutes.** Bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/39 "2005-01-16T23:08:35Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > Bolding mine. That was **trublmakr** ’s fourth post to this thread. In none of the first three did **trublmakr** specify a state: > [@trublmakr](#): > > I strongly disagree with this statement. I’m a guardian ad litem, which is an advocate for children that are in the court system due to being abused or neglected. Yes, it IS abuse to expose minors to pornography. Absolutely. Without a doubt. > [@trublmakr](#): > > Whether the kids like it or not is a non-issue. Sexualization of the home is child abuse. Research the laws, or take it from those of us that know the law intimately. > [@trublmakr](#): > > It doesn’t matter what anyone’s opinion is. When it comes to the law, opinions and “I think” doesn’t matter. Having pornography laying about the house in the presence of children is something that Child Protective Services says is the wrong thing to do. I’m not saying it’s my opinion, I’m saying it’s the law. If you don’t agree, then research it and point me to a cite, please. At which point I provided a cite which contradicted **trublmakr** ’s flat-out assertion, which led to the specification that **trublmakr** was going by Arizona’s laws. When discussing laws which vary by jurisdiction, it is generally a good idea to state up front that one is discussing the laws of a specific jurisdiction rather than making blanket statements which are demonstrably false. Anything else? ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923/40 "2005-01-16T23:34:01Z")
Never mind then. I stand corrected. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-should-this-be-considered-abusive/284923.md?page=3)