The magazines produced by various nudist resorts feature pics of people of all ages, from babies and small children, through to people in their eighties and nineties. So the photography of the children is no more sexualised that that of anyone else, but it's come under fire from some groups trying to protect the kids, because the pics may fall into the hands of paedophiles.
Geffen originally discussed altering the album cover, but decided to go with it when Cobain made it clear that if they wanted the penis hidden, he wanted a sticker placed over the boy's member saying "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."
the younger the child the less it seems to be an issue is actually one of my general points - why should a shot that just happens to have the genitalia of a baby in it be any more agreeable than shots of children at 3, 7, 11, and onwards? If the shots are not sexual in nature, and aren't intended to evoke an erotic response, but still need to be hidden away for fear of the paedophiles, where's the cut-off point? And why aren't the babies considered to need equal protection to the six-year olds?
The problem is that once any reaction becomes knee-jerk, we lose control of it and other things get lost at the same time. Cases need to be decided on their own merits, not on arbitrary gut responses.
And if Spencer had been your kid, and you hadn't wanted the pic used, I know you would have made the decision with at least some consideration and thought, rather than an automatic "no!"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-08 06:06 am (UTC)The magazines produced by various nudist resorts feature pics of people of all ages, from babies and small children, through to people in their eighties and nineties. So the photography of the children is no more sexualised that that of anyone else, but it's come under fire from some groups trying to protect the kids, because the pics may fall into the hands of paedophiles.
Geffen originally discussed altering the album cover, but decided to go with it when Cobain made it clear that if they wanted the penis hidden, he wanted a sticker placed over the boy's member saying "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."
the younger the child the less it seems to be an issue is actually one of my general points - why should a shot that just happens to have the genitalia of a baby in it be any more agreeable than shots of children at 3, 7, 11, and onwards? If the shots are not sexual in nature, and aren't intended to evoke an erotic response, but still need to be hidden away for fear of the paedophiles, where's the cut-off point? And why aren't the babies considered to need equal protection to the six-year olds?
The problem is that once any reaction becomes knee-jerk, we lose control of it and other things get lost at the same time. Cases need to be decided on their own merits, not on arbitrary gut responses.
And if Spencer had been your kid, and you hadn't wanted the pic used, I know you would have made the decision with at least some consideration and thought, rather than an automatic "no!"