Why isn't Nirvana's Nevermind album cover considered child porn?
September 25, 2016 9:14 AM Subscribe
An article commemorating the 25th anniversary of the album appeared on my FB home page; it made me think about what is and isn't treated as pornography and why in our excessively puritanical society.
On the album there is a photo of nude baby swimming in a pool. The baby's genitalia is clearly visible in the photo.
While researching about this online I have read various perspectives.
There's nothing overtly sexual in the photo, ergo, according to some, it cannot be child pornography. Others have said it is because it is a photo of a baby it cannot be child pornography. Yet if the photo was of an adult, or even a child or early teen, would the overtly sexual nature of the photo be the determining criteria as to whether it is pornographic or not? That is, if it isn't overtly sexual, is a nude photo of a child anywhere from age 1 to 17, or an adult, pornographic? At what age does nudity become inherently sexual and indecent, inappropriate for public consumption, and why?
There is nothing overtly sexual about being nude. Genitalia, breasts, female breasts in particular, are simply a part of human anatomy. Yet to be seen naked, even in the comfort of your own home, could land you with a public indecency charge. Likewise, if a teen sends a nude photo of his or herself in a text message, whether overtly sexual or not, they could be charged with distributing child pornography. TV censorship won't permit any full nudity, or even female breasts, to be broadcasted, regardless of whether it is overtly sexual or not, and certainly not of any young children. Breastfeeding in public, absolutely not sexual in nature, while legal in most states, was a subject of controversy.
How does this align with a nude baby on an album cover?
I'm not advocating one way or another, I'm simply interested in hearing the perspectives other people have :).
On the album there is a photo of nude baby swimming in a pool. The baby's genitalia is clearly visible in the photo.
While researching about this online I have read various perspectives.
There's nothing overtly sexual in the photo, ergo, according to some, it cannot be child pornography. Others have said it is because it is a photo of a baby it cannot be child pornography. Yet if the photo was of an adult, or even a child or early teen, would the overtly sexual nature of the photo be the determining criteria as to whether it is pornographic or not? That is, if it isn't overtly sexual, is a nude photo of a child anywhere from age 1 to 17, or an adult, pornographic? At what age does nudity become inherently sexual and indecent, inappropriate for public consumption, and why?
There is nothing overtly sexual about being nude. Genitalia, breasts, female breasts in particular, are simply a part of human anatomy. Yet to be seen naked, even in the comfort of your own home, could land you with a public indecency charge. Likewise, if a teen sends a nude photo of his or herself in a text message, whether overtly sexual or not, they could be charged with distributing child pornography. TV censorship won't permit any full nudity, or even female breasts, to be broadcasted, regardless of whether it is overtly sexual or not, and certainly not of any young children. Breastfeeding in public, absolutely not sexual in nature, while legal in most states, was a subject of controversy.
How does this align with a nude baby on an album cover?
I'm not advocating one way or another, I'm simply interested in hearing the perspectives other people have :).
This post was deleted for the following reason: Hey, this is more of a rant than a question, sorry. -- restless_nomad
« Older How to transfer WhatsApp chats off deactivated... | Sparkly nail polish: 2016 edition Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.