NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, after parents posted pictures of their kids reading playboy on Flicker, they got a visit from both the police and CPA.


When the police detectives showed up at our apartment last week in response to complaints received as a result of these pictures, I was horrified. The police here in Maine received a report from detectives in another state that I might be “grooming” my girls or baiting pedophiles. It would be funny if it weren’t so damn serious and scary. Kirsten and I are glad the government is concerned about the safety and welfare of our daughters. They searched my computers for child pornography and asked us questions for several hours until they were satisfied we weren’t the scary monsters they are used to dealing with. They left with smiles on their faces and told us we were “good people” and have a wonderful family. The pictures, they said, were borderline illegal and should be removed from Flickr.

Kirsten and I hoped that would be the end of it. Those hopes were dashed yesterday when two child protective caseworkers showed up from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child and Family Services. The police had made a mandatory report to their office and they were investigating, as required. After a long discussion with me and Kirsten the girls and Kirsten were interviewed individually. As the caseworkers were leaving they informed us that they felt the children were not at risk but that they would have to discuss with their supervisor whether or not allowing our daughters to look at Playboy would be considered “abuse”. They said that, although I didn’t have to remove the pictures, doing so would affect their decision favorably. It sounded very much like a threat.


link: http://therhetoric.net/2008/07/03/sex-education-and-censorship-in-america/

Yes, I know this is a blog article, and biased, no real source, ect, but really, why would anyone lie about this?
Presuming this is real, I think that the reaction was a bit ridiculous. The police were probably ok, if a bit weird, but it's better to make sure nothing else is going on. The follow up visit is completely unnecessary, especially the question about her religion. What exactly does that have to do with child abuse?

Well, one could argue that allowing children to look at pornography is bad parenting and that posting pictures of it online is an act of stupidity, but child abuse? Meh.

now i'm no expert on the contents of playboy, but isn't it unbelievably tame and boring?

also, would taking kids to an art gallery that featured nudes be actionable?

Religion comes up because everyone knows Christians won't hurt their children; just the godless atheists do. :p

Religion comes up because everyone knows Christians won't hurt their children; just the godless atheists do. :pHow dare you deny the existence of the immortal soul you godless heathens!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

*Starts clubbing in L.A., as for what kind of clubbing you guess.*;)

hmmmm

person posts provocative pictures online and is amazed when it provokes a response.

go figure.

Officer, the kids were only reading it for the articles honest.

now i'm no expert on the contents of playboy, but isn't it unbelievably tame and boring?Yeah. When I say "I'm only reading it for the articles," I'm not even joking anymore.

its a mens mag ffs not the latest issue of 40 plus >.>

er...anyway the unprofessional attitude shown by the authorities only further point out that we live in an age of witch hunts (http://youtube.com/watch?v=jaUkt59vY1Q&feature=related)

The follow-up visit is mandatory, they didn't single this family out for that kind of treatment. It proved unnecessary in this case, but I think it beats having CFS try to guess where the followup visits are necessary and where they aren't.

No actual abuse, but I can understand why this drew some people's attention.

Well, one could argue that allowing children to look at pornography is bad parenting and that posting pictures of it online is an act of stupidity, but child abuse? Meh.

Fuck that hypocrisy. I'm willing to bet 20 bucks right there that only a pathetic handful of people who visit these boards never looked at pornography before being of legal age.

I know I sure damn well did, and I didn't turn out to be a monster for it.

Another thing to remember is that:

Nudity is not pornography. Geeze. It's not like the parents were supplying their daughters with hardcore fetishist porn flicks to watch.

It is kind of provocative, yes. I wouldn't term it child abuse. Then again, I wouldn't term letting a kid read Hustler or watch 2 Girls 1 Cup or Cannibal Holocaust or Battle Royale to be child abuse. If the child doesn't want to watch it, the child won't watch it.

Fuck that hypocrisy. I'm willing to bet 20 bucks right there that only a pathetic handful of people who visit these boards never looked at pornography before being of legal age.Not relevant.
Nudity is not pornography. Geeze. It's not like the parents were supplying their daughters with hardcore fetishist porn flicks to watch.Playboy is pornography.

Playboy is pornography.

It's softcore compared to what I read when I was younger... and what I still read and for that matter, write. Sure it has nudity but it's only softcore. But that's pushing it.

What's so wrong at kids looking at pictures of nude people? I don't get it!

Well, one could argue that allowing children to look at pornography is bad parenting and that posting pictures of it online is an act of stupidity, but child abuse? Meh.

A lot of jurisdictions have 'offences against morality' clauses which are...intentionally vague. Watered down versions are also often included in the enabling legislation for child protection services.

Here are the 'corrupting morals (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_V-gb:s_163//en#anchorbo-ga:l_V-gb:s_163)' provisions in the Canadian Criminal Code, as an example. Now obviously, porn is not outlawed in Canada, despite the way these provisions are worded (note the inclusion of 'phonograph record' btw...always makes me laugh...in fact, the whole thing reads like a 30s-era attempt to clamp down on hawkers and snake-oil salesmen).

However, many Canadians don't realise that there is also the following section:

s. 171 (Householder permitting sexual activity around, or between those under 18)...sexual activity has been held to include allowing children to view pornography.

There is obviously a difference between encouraging children to sit and watch pornography, and simply leaving your girly mags where they, being snoopy, might find them. It's (here) taken on a case by case basis, luckily.

Yeah. When I say "I'm only reading it for the articles," I'm not even joking anymore.

Maxim and that other one I can't recall are both more explicit than Playboy anymore.

Fuck that hypocrisy. I'm willing to bet 20 bucks right there that only a pathetic handful of people who visit these boards never looked at pornography before being of legal age. I think the issue is not looking at porn, but whether the parents were encouraging the children to look at porn.

Not relevant.

Yes it is, insofar as it proves that most people here were exposed to nudity and pornography at a very young age, and suffered no trauma for it.


Playboy is pornography.

Naked people in suggestive poses is not pornography. It's erotica, at worst. Pornography involves pictures/movies/literature that is sexually explicit.

The follow-up visit is mandatory, they didn't single this family out for that kind of treatment. It proved unnecessary in this case, but I think it beats having CFS try to guess where the followup visits are necessary and where they aren't.

No actual abuse, but I can understand why this drew some people's attention.

Pretty much. They have to come see you if someone reports too. So, the thing is PEOPLE quit reporting shit unless it's actual abuse or you suspect actual abuse.

Examples:

A> You hear the neighbor beating the crap out of her child with a leather strap, screaming, yelling, smacking, etc.
B> You see a woman in the grocery store parking lot slamming her child's hand in the car door repeatedly
C> Someone sees me tell my kid "no, you can't have a cookie" and they scream at me and I say "stop screaming, you can't have the cookie".

One of these things is NOT a good reason to call CPS.

Examples:

A> You hear the neighbor beating the crap out of her child with a leather strap, screaming, yelling, smacking, etc.
B> You see a woman in the grocery store parking lot slamming her child's hand in the car door repeatedly
C> Someone sees me tell my kid "no, you can't have a cookie" and they scream at me and I say "stop screaming, you can't have the cookie".

One of these things is NOT a good reason to call CPS.
Obviously the car door is an accident, and cannot possible be compared with deliberately cruel punishments such as physical abuse and cookie-denying.

Pretty much. They have to come see you if someone reports too. So, the thing is PEOPLE quit reporting shit unless it's actual abuse or you suspect actual abuse.

Examples:

A> You hear the neighbor beating the crap out of her child with a leather strap, screaming, yelling, smacking, etc.
B> You see a woman in the grocery store parking lot slamming her child's hand in the car door repeatedly
C> Someone sees me tell my kid "no, you can't have a cookie" and they scream at me and I say "stop screaming, you can't have the cookie".

One of these things is NOT a good reason to call CPS.

Some people would be surprised the amount of people who do report that one example, damn busybodies they have nothing better to do but to cause trouble and involve themselves with something they have no concern in seriously go and get a life or at least make an account on NSG ;). And I am only talking about those that will call their local CPS or equivalent due to the one example which should never be called on.

Now a bit more serious from me previous post, is a child seeing nudity really bad to call the CPS on to the parents? For example would a 4 year old be seeing it as something sexual or will the child just be seeing it as a nude person?

Now a bit more serious from me previous post, is a child seeing nudity really bad to call the CPS on to the parents? For example would a 4 year old be seeing it as something sexual or will the child just be seeing it as a nude person?

Even if it was a child old enough to see it as something sexual, it's still not submitting the child to a trauma to let him/her see nude people. There is nothing wrong with nudity.

Also, in the link the parents clearly state that they were discussing sexual education with their daughters. Those girls, about to enter puberty, will obviously be curious as to how a grown woman's body looks like.

I blame this on the prudes who think that nudity is wrong and dirty, and that children are too dumb to understand what they see and read. They're not. Those kids are bright enough, give them what credit is due.

Obviously the car door is an accident, and cannot possible be compared with deliberately cruel punishments such as physical abuse and cookie-denying.

I actually physically intervened. She pressed assault charges on me. She, who was slamming her child's hand in the door at least 10 times by the time I got there, said I assaulted her. :rolleyes:

I actually physically intervened. She pressed assault charges on me. She, who was slamming her child's hand in the door at least 10 times by the time I got there, said I assaulted her. :rolleyes:

Well, obviously, since you were the crazy, nosey woman who gratuitously attacked her savagely over what was simply an inoffensive slip up that caused her child no real harm. Not even a scratch.

[/sarcasm]

Well, obviously, since you were the crazy, nosey woman who gratuitously attacked her savagely over what was simply an inoffensive slip up that caused her child no real harm. Not even a scratch.

[/sarcasm]

Pretty much. People need to learn to mind their own business. Besides, many children suffered far worse in their childhood and came out nearly unscathed.

Even if it was a child old enough to see it as something sexual, it's still not submitting the child to a trauma to let him/her see nude people. There is nothing wrong with nudity.

Also, in the link the parents clearly state that they were discussing sexual education with their daughters. Those girls, about to enter puberty, will obviously be curious as to how a grown woman's body looks like.

I blame this on the prudes who think that nudity is wrong and dirty, and that children are too dumb to understand what they see and read. They're not. Those kids are bright enough, give them what credit is due.

Yes I have the same feeling and blame it on the layabouts who think they need to intervene because a kid isn't screaming their lungs out because their parents said they won't get a biscuit, however, if the kid was having his head smashed against a brick wall then that would be a different matter.

I actually physically intervened. She pressed assault charges on me. She, who was slamming her child's hand in the door at least 10 times by the time I got there, said I assaulted her. :rolleyes:

Holy shit! Wouldn't she have to admit to the police when she explained the incident that she was abusing the kid, or have it come out when you were asked to explain your actions? The damage to the kid's hand would be pretty obvious if a cop looked at it...

Holy shit! Wouldn't she have to admit to the police when she explained the incident that she was abusing the kid, or have it come out when you were asked to explain your actions? The damage to the kid's hand would be pretty obvious if a cop looked at it...

Apparently her maiming of her child and my "assault" of her were treated as separate incidents. I had to go to court, I explained what happened, along with police report and the judge told me that I shouldn't do that anymore and should wait for the police.

Statutory rape laws are nonsense. Parents showing their kids reading porn is not=whoring their children. When the state takes responsibility for children's health it pretends it raises its' citizens (schools do to a degree) and parents are just making people for the state to rule.
America's gov. acts as an overparent though the head of the nation is not the head of its' families and isn't elder, superior, or for any reason deserving more respect or authority from/over families. Fuck the police. They frame their thinking to treat strangers as criminals and so harass innocents to serve an inept punishment-system keeping rapists and killers in rotation to leave room for smokers. If you're questioning a cop's authority or don't like his presence you must be up to no good. You couldn't be someone going about innocent business whose bothered by being stopped and interrogated by a guy who's liable to shoot you.
The only props I know to give them is killing serial/mass killers within 10 minutes of calls but that's irregular and the swat teams instead of basic police.

Pretty much. They have to come see you if someone reports too. So, the thing is PEOPLE quit reporting shit unless it's actual abuse or you suspect actual abuse.

Agreed here. This incident, I guess, is on the line for me. I wouldn't have reported it, but if someone was legitimately concerned that the parents were baiting pedophiles by putting these pictures online, I don't think I could fault them for making a report.

Apparently her maiming of her child and my "assault" of her were treated as separate incidents. I had to go to court, I explained what happened, along with police report and the judge told me that I shouldn't do that anymore and should wait for the police.

And yet if you didn't intervene a lot of people would be criticising you for standing back and allowing it to happen. Sometimes you just can't win.

Personally I think that children won't be harmed by looking at Playboy/Playgirl magazines' pictures, but they DO need a parent present to explain to them that it's normal for people to NOT look like that, since those people have been chosen for the photos because of how they look, not because everyone was like that.

But then again, I'm European, so nudity isn't that big an issue to begin with. *shrug*

Hmn... Kids looking at nude art Like a painting. I see nothing wrong with that because, there never gonna meet the person that posed nude. And it's just art, the person might not even be real!! It might be a person tht the artist made up.

Kids looking at playboy... Uhh, well those people are real... Like it's kinda degrating to the kids... I can't explain it... Like because there real people, and are alive, kids will look up at them as roll models, thinking it's ok to pose nude and let thousands of other people see there body naked...

And I can see it being child abuse. Not a kid reading playboy, no I don't think that can be abuse... But a child being FORCED to pose for playboy, I can see that being sexual abuse...

Like because there real people, and are alive, kids will look up at them as roll models, thinking it's ok to pose nude and let thousands of other people see there body naked...

Hence the need of a parent to accompany them and explain those people were specially selected, not because everyone was like them.

I have another question to present to y'all: Is Playgirl worse than Playboy, because Playgirl features nude males with erections?

I have another question to present to y'all: Is Playgirl worse than Playboy, because Playgirl features nude males with erections?

Probably, since that is an overt sexual aspect that isn't present (or at least, all that visible) in much of Playboy.

I dont remember though, its been a long time since I seen a Playboy.

Naked people in suggestive poses is not pornography. It's erotica, at worst.

Perhaps it is just me, but giving children 'erotica' sounds just as creepy and bad as giving them 'pornography'.

Like because there real people, and are alive, kids will look up at them as roll models, thinking it's ok to pose nude and let thousands of other people see there body naked...

There is nothing wrong with posing nude. I'd do it if I ever was asked, for something like an art class or something.


And I can see it being child abuse. Not a kid reading playboy, no I don't think that can be abuse... But a child being FORCED to pose for playboy, I can see that being sexual abuse...
A child cannot be forced to pose for playboy, playboy takes adult models, because to do otherwise is against the law.

Read the link before you start derailing. This particular event had nothing to do about kids posing, but is about kids having READ a playboy issue or two.


I have another question to present to y'all: Is Playgirl worse than Playboy, because Playgirl features nude males with erections?
I would not say worse, but it certainly is different. One would certainly have to have "the talk" about how men's bodies work and what it means for a man to have an erection.

A magazine showing nude men without erections is exactly the same thing, though.

Perhaps it is just me, but giving children 'erotica' sounds just as creepy and bad as giving them 'pornography'.
Notice how, when you read the link, the daughters are the ones who actually asked to be allowed to read the magazine.

Also notice, will you, how it is explained this was used as an opportunity to discuss sexual education.Go ahead and try to help your kid understand how making love works without pictures.

When I was 11 or 12, my mother gave me a book explaining sexuality, complete with pictures that included but were not limited to: an erect penis, a vulvae, naked men and women of varying ages, and a caption of a man laying down on a woman which represented the sexual act (even though you could see no graphic detail of the penetration, it was explained very clearly what that entailed).

All of this was very healthy, edifying, and made me learn a whole damn lot about what this stuff was all about.

So no, showing naked pictures, or even mildly suggestive pictures to childen when you're going about teaching them about sexuality is neither creepy, nor harmful.

So no, showing naked pictures, or even mildly suggestive pictures to childen when you're going about teaching them about sexuality is neither creepy, nor harmful.

I should think so, because at school we got as much in sex ed. at around age 13, and before that (around age 11) we had human biology in biology class, and it included reproductive biology. I mean, it's part of the human animal, so why shouldn't children learn about it?

But again, note the need of a sensible adult presence. The gym teachers who also did the health classes (which included but were not restricted to sex ed.) were very sensible people who explained things as they were, explained that different people develope differently and that it's entirely normal for all of us to be different from one another.

The only way I can think Playboy and Playgirl magazines could be harmful to children was if they were led to believe that all men and women should look like the models, and that not having as big breasts or penis as the models is something to be ashamed of.

Oh, and now that I remember it, one of the "picture books" I learned to read from, was a human biology book with photos from inside the body, electronic microscope scans of single cells, explanations of human workings, etc. It wasn't a kids' book either, but more of a general guidebook into a human body. The really good part was that I could take the book to my parents and ask them to explain/read a part that I hadn't completely understood, and have them explain it to me.

So, having learned about human bodies from the inside out, so to speak, nudity is like the last issue to me, when it comes to people. It's just skin, you know.

Those hopes were dashed yesterday when two child protective caseworkers showed up from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child and Family Services.
Regardless of the state, those people are fucking nuts. Need to watch out for them.

So, having learned about human bodies from the inside out, so to speak, nudity is like the last issue to me, when it comes to people. It's just skin, you know.
Soft, silky, delicious, visually and tactilely pleasing skin, yes.

Playboy child abuse.........What the Hell...

There's something seriously wrong when you think Playboy is Child Abuse...

So no, showing naked pictures, or even mildly suggestive pictures to childen when you're going about teaching them about sexuality is neither creepy, nor harmful.

I don't think there is either, I just don't think that erotica and porn are entirely the same things as sex education material. Curiosity about porn is also natural and should be talked about, I just would find it a little odd if a parent was using Playboy as a sex ed teaching aid.

now i'm no expert on the contents of playboy, but isn't it unbelievably tame and boring?

also, would taking kids to an art gallery that featured nudes be actionable?

Extremely good point, albeit most people think there is a distinct line between pornography and art (though I tend to, at times, disagree as most artists tend to be somewhat perverted)

You mean Child Services got power hungry, over reacted and probably overstepped their bounds? Is this bizzaro world?