Would you buy your tween son a "Playboy"?

@ehBeth,

boomerang wrote:

She was a (small c) conservative girl

ehBeth wrote:

is it weird that my assumption has always been
that all of these girls are (small c) conservative?
not sure why, but that's always been my take on it

Conservatives (i.e., those people who do NOT deviate
from Constitutional principles) must be libertarians,
because by its stinginess of jurisdiction to government,
by its curtailment & strangulation of jurisdiction,
the Constitution is an instrument of Liberty to each citizen.
That includes each citizen's liberty to sell pictures of himself or herself,
regardless of anyone else's "ich" factor disapproval.

FOR THE RECORD:
I have no opinion qua the ideologies of the ladies of Playboy.

David

0 Replies

@chai2,

I'll see what I can remember.

There was no sexual contact between adults and kids. I don't remember any sexual contact between kids.

There was one kid with an erect penis and some article of clothing (a tank top?) hanging on it. I thought it was funny when I was a kid. (He's smiling in a "I'm being goofy" sort of way.)

The problem I have with the book is that the naked kids in it couldn't give consent for having being in all of these thousands of books that were sold. I read somewhere (can try to find it back) that some of them were really upset by the fact that pedophiles sought out the book. That makes sense.

They didn't really have this technology back then but I'd be more comfortable if it was photoshopped so that the kids were completely unrecognizable -- realistic-looking, but not anyone who could be recognized or tracked down. All birthmarks or identifying features removed, etc.

2 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Oh, come on...I'm not saying they're prostituting themselves- so don't put that on me.

FOR THE RECORD:
I wanna stand up in defense n support
of freedom of ladies of the evening.
I will not use the word: "prostitution"
because that implies disrespect & condemnation.

aidan wrote:

I'm just saying that what they have found of themselves to sell - an image- okay- is NOT what I want my son to look at and think that that might be all there is to value about that person.

But because that's what is presented as valuable about that person in magazines like Playboy, he might think that IS what is most valuable and/or interesting about her.

Qua some girls, but not others, that is true,
from some points of perspective, but not others.

aidan wrote:

Alot of guys do have those thoughts when looking at pictures of naked women in magazines.

Will u reveal your source of information, on this point??

aidan wrote:

Or maybe they don't....maybe they think ' hmmm, I'd love to have a discussion
about politics or religion or race relations or particle physics with her....'

YEAH!!! I 'd LOVE that, if she were up to it.
Intelligence is very attractive.
I have rejected at least 1 girl for being too dum, too shallow.
( Obviously, I 'd never say anything impolite to her. )

aidan wrote:

Come on!

OK.

aidan wrote:

It makes her two dimensional to men.

Maybe future issues of Playboy will be holografic.
I 1ce saw a life size hologram of William F. Buckley, Jr.

aidan wrote:

Yes, exactly - she becomes an image instead of a person who also might sing
or think or write or be a mother or take care of her aged parents.

U choose to imply that it is better
to leave her in a fully unrecognized, anonymous condition
being excluded from publication????
Is that what she wants?????
Some of them have alleged
that thay dreamed of being in Playboy
since and during childhood.

Incidentally, Rebecca: Playboy very ofen describes
their personal interests & hobbies at some length.
That 's what u wanted, right?????

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

FOR THE RECORD:
I wanna stand up in defense n support
of freedom of ladies of the evening.
I will not use the word: "prostitution"
because that implies disrespect & condemnation.

Okay, and for the record, if a woman wants to make her living having sex for money, that's none of my business and I don't have a word to say against it, if that's what she WANTS to do.

I was just saying that nothing I said, unless taken ridiculously and inaccurately literally, was slanderous toward girls who have their pictures taken and put in those magazines. When I said they were selling themselves and using their bodies as a commodity, I didn't mean they were ACTUALLY selling themselves as prostitutes. But even if they did that, I would still believe that is their choice.
If someone loves sex and wants to be a sex worker as a job and to make her livelihood that way - you know - what can I say. It's her right to do what she wants with her body and if people want to pay her for that - I guess it works out for both of them.

Quote:

Qua some girls, but not others, that is true,
from some points of perspective, but not others.

That's why I used the word: 'might'.

Quote:

Will u reveal your source of information, on this point??

Well, Krumple just reinforced that impression that I'd had that men look at naked women and think about sex sometimes. Is that not true?

Quote:

Maybe future issues of Playboy will be holografic.
I 1ce saw a life size hologram of William F. Buckley, Jr.

This reminds me of a page on a calendar of funny sayings this girl I work with has- it says: 'I'm not your type - I'm not inflatable.'

Quote:

Incidentally, Rebecca: Playboy very ofen describes
their personal interests & hobbies at some length.
That 's what u wanted, right?????

Yeah, I remember reading those things about the girls who liked rabbits and whose favorite color was red and blah, blah, blah...

I don't want anything David, except to be able to say that I wouldn't give my son a copy of Playboy without being called a prude and told I'm not there for my kids to talk to and that I'm calling models prostitutes and that I want to ban pornography- because none of that is true. I just don't want to HAVE to give my son a copy of Playboy. Is that alright?

1 Reply

@sozobe,

The first book with photos by McBride was published by a children book publishing house connected to the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland.

My prof and his deputy wrote (translated) the German version for older children (teens)in 1987. I remember that we discussed it controversially when McBride visited our class at university.

That above mentioned book was published until 1995 (5th edition). Because of the media and public discussion about it (though it had been used in schools all the time!), McBride ordered to stop selling it.

As an aside: when I just looked up some information, I noticed that book collectors pay 190 Euros and more ... for the 3rd edition. I think that I still have the first somewhere .... Wink

0 Replies

@chai2,

I do carry on quite a lot, but it's all in good fun.

I didn't actually have you in mind when i wrote that, you know.

0 Replies

@aidan,

DAVID wrote:

FOR THE RECORD:
I wanna stand up in defense n support
of freedom of ladies of the evening.
I will not use the word: "prostitution"
because that implies disrespect & condemnation.

aidan wrote:

Okay, and for the record, if a woman wants to make her living having sex for money,
that's none of my business and I don't have a word to say against it,
if that's what she WANTS to do.

Note my support of the 13th Amendment.

aidan wrote:

I was just saying that nothing I said, unless taken ridiculously and inaccurately literally, was slanderous toward girls who have their pictures taken and put in those magazines. When I said they were selling themselves and using their bodies as a commodity, I didn't mean they were ACTUALLY selling themselves as prostitutes.

Let us observe that ladies of the evening don't actually SELL themselves, as much as render a service.
U can't keep her; u gotta give her back.
Even the concept of a r e n t a l, is a stretch.

aidan wrote:

But even if they did that, I would still believe that is their choice.
If someone loves sex and wants to be a sex worker as a job
and to make her livelihood that way - you know - what can I say.

Its vague in my memory.
I 'm trying to remember the wife of which Emperor of Rome
was reputed to sneak away to its brothels at night
to render erotic services to Roman citizens.

aidan wrote:

It's her right to do what she wants with her body and if people want to pay her
for that - I guess it works out for both of them.

DAVID wrote:

Qua some girls, but not others, that is true,
from some points of perspective, but not others.

aidan wrote:

That's why I used the word: 'might'.

Quote:

Will u reveal your source of information, on this point??

aidan wrote:

Well, Krumple just reinforced that impression that I'd had that men look at naked women
and think about sex sometimes. Is that not true?

NO. It is true.

DAVID wrote:

Maybe future issues of Playboy will be holografic.
I 1ce saw a life size hologram of William F. Buckley, Jr.

aidan wrote:

This reminds me of a page on a calendar of funny sayings this girl
I work with has- it says: 'I'm not your type - I'm not inflatable.'

I 'm reminded of litigation against an automotive mechanic
who put his air pressure hose too close to the rectum
of another mechanic on-the-job, inflicting severe personal injuries.

DAVID wrote:

Incidentally, Rebecca: Playboy very ofen describes
their personal interests & hobbies at some length.
That 's what u wanted, right?????

aidan wrote:

Yeah, I remember reading those things about the girls who liked rabbits
and whose favorite color was red and blah, blah, blah...

Do thay satisfy your criteria ??

aidan wrote:

I don't want anything David, except to be able to say that I wouldn't give my son a copy of Playboy without being called a prude and told I'm not there for my kids to talk to and that I'm calling models prostitutes and that I want to ban pornography- because none of that is true. I just don't want to HAVE to give my son a copy of Playboy. Is that alright?

Yes. I doubt that it is legally enforcible.
Let him get his own, like we all did.

I 'd not have felt comfortable in discussing personal issues of sex
with either of my parents. I never did that.

Even, when I was 13 (and for a few decades thereafter)
when I was obsessed with a young lady descended of the Austrian Aristocracy, named Joyce,
I was impelled to keep it to myself, back then. In retrospect: I shud have consulted a mental health care professional.

O -- wait: I DID that a few times, over the decades.
The last time, it WORKED. (The last time was after Joyce rejected me the last time. )

David

0 Replies

May I observe, David and Aidan, that you both would not buy your son that Playboy issue? Just what are you arguing about?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

May I observe, David and Aidan, that you both would not buy your son that Playboy issue?

Lemme clear something up:
if I had a son and he hit me up for cash
to finance his purchase of an issue of Playboy,
I 'd not reject his application.

I might condition it on his letting me read it when he was finished with it.

Thomas wrote:

Just what are you arguing about?

Well, the details of the argument remain open to vu.

Is something unclear ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Is something unclear ?

No, you cleared it up nicely.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

I'll see what I can remember.

There was no sexual contact between adults and kids. I don't remember any sexual contact between kids.

There was one kid with an erect penis and some article of clothing (a tank top?) hanging on it. I thought it was funny when I was a kid. (He's smiling in a "I'm being goofy" sort of way.)

The problem I have with the book is that the naked kids in it couldn't give consent for having being in all of these thousands of books that were sold. I read somewhere (can try to find it back) that some of them were really upset by the fact that pedophiles sought out the book. That makes sense.

They didn't really have this technology back then but I'd be more comfortable if it was photoshopped so that the kids were completely unrecognizable -- realistic-looking, but not anyone who could be recognized or tracked down. All birthmarks or identifying features removed, etc.

Ah, so you saw the book too. excellent.
some questions...how old where you when you saw this book?
Since it was made in the 70's, did you think it looked "old fashioned"?

My friend and I saw this book right after it must of come out. It was on display on a table at Walden Books.

I'm going to try to describe the feeling I had, beyond ick, and shock. The only way to do this is to flip back and forth in time at least a couple of decades.

Looking back, I couldn't recognize this feeling for what it was, but I was also feeling outrage that these little kids pictures were just up there for all the world to see, on whose say so? The parents? I don't think it was the parents right to allow that. I really don't. So, 10, 20, 30 years later someone could say "you were one of those naked kids with an erection, in that book" Nevermind how someone could find out, stranger things have happened.

Flipping forward, there was a book I read about twin boys (this is a true story). When they went to get circumcised, the job was botched so badly for one of them, it was decided to raise that one as a girl. You know that old practice.
Anyway, the parents maybe weren't that informed, educated, whatever and put their trust in this really messed up psychologist, I don't know, maybe he actually was a psychiatrist. This guy had both the kids doing some really yucky sex play with each other. I can't remember why. Anyway, today I can see that I feel the same outrage. The boy treated like a girl was really screwed up, is now living as a man, but has problems.

You know, catching a snapshot of a baby on a bear skin rug is one thing, but I think someone who says taking these types of pictures of children is "educational" and "totally innocent" has a screw loose. These pictures have this grainy, pool quality aspect to them, they are not done with the background of a home, but with this stark white backdrop. So these kids, where ever they were at the time were put in an artficial situation, posing for the camera with their genitals literally hanging out.

I don't think it was the parents right to do this.

2 Replies

Antonio is only six years old so it will be a while before this subject comes up. I’m sure I’ll know how to handle it when the time comes but I hope when that time does come he knows he can come to us with any type of question and not feel embarrassed about it.

That’s how we plan on raising him, with an open line of communication.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Who's arguing? I thought David and I were talking...via this forum.

David - did you think we were arguing?

If so, I missed it.

Mostly I just laughed about your holographic (or holografic) joke.

1 Reply

@chai2,

This is what I said back a ways:

sozobe wrote:

It had photos of naked adults too.

My parents got it for me when I was a kid.

Yep.

I didn't think it was particularly weird -- I didn't think it was particularly awesome either, just neutral.

My friends found it very interesting though. I was kind of sex ed central.

So, I saw it when I was a kid myself, in the 70's. Not sure how old I was when my parents first got it -- young enough that I don't remember. 7? That's a guess.

Then it stayed on the shelf indefinitely -- it was there when I left for college, not sure what happened to it after that.

I spent far less time looking at it than my friends did.

0 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Who's arguing? I thought David and I were talking...via this forum.

David - did you think we were arguing?

If so, I missed it.

Mostly I just laughed about your holographic (or holografic) joke.

I was arguing; "argument is the piecing together of evidentiary fact,
in combination with the ordinary rules of logic and rhetoric."

It is the purpose of argument to shed light,
whereas quarrels shed heat.

We were not quarrelling.

David

0 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

Anyway, the parents maybe weren't that informed, educated, whatever and put their trust in this really messed up psychologist, I don't know, maybe he actually was a psychiatrist.

Maybe. Or maybe, you're just a prude. Judge not, lest you be judged. It's a good default policy in either direction. (Which isn't to say I always follow it myself. I know.)

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas, you would have had to read this book.

The doctors name was John Money, the person who had his penis destroyed I just found out commited suicide.

John Money has done a lot of weird stuff, by anyone's standards, and seems to believe that being a pedophile is about love, not sex.

He had the 2 boys engage is sex play at age 7. I do remember from the book both the boys were resistant to that, but Money felt it necessary.

He had more than 1 screw loose, and the book Show Me! reminded me of it.

You haven't, to my knowledge read or seen either book. It would probably be helpful if you had.

1 Reply

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

Thomas, you would have had to read this book.

OK, my mistake, I thought you were still talking about "Show me!". I have read and looked at "Show me!" as a child. It was all over the place in my neighborhood; to parents, it was one of the standard books for teaching their children about sex. Boomerang's earlier post suggests it was all over the place in Germany, having been published by the Evangelical-Lutheran church, endorsed by all kinds of organizations, and awarded with all kinds of literary prices there.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

ok, now I understand where you're coming from.

However, I did get the same feeling looking at, and reading both books.

I could not say that the children in show me in their future would not have been upset they were photographed that way, when they could not understand the ramifications later.

In brief, I could see how this book would be more attractive to pedophiles than I would feel comfortable with.
I also looked up pictures by Will McBride, the photographer of show me, and there's a lot of his work that gives off that pedo vibe to me.

1 Reply

I'll say again that I think context means a lot in regards to that book.

For a kid, with no knowledge of sex, it was probably very educational; to adults it seemed obscene.

In my opinion, sex education for most children is woefully inadequate. I haven't seen this particular book but I certainly think it has its place. Withholding health information from kids is a bad idea and sex is a health issue. There are times when you simply have to overcome your discomfort or embarrassment or hang ups or whatever and answer the damn questions. I think this is what DrewDad was getting at.

Parents can have a really hard time discussing sex with their kids. It really has to be an ongoing conversation, based on trust and honesty. Parents who rely on "the talk" are doing it wrong -- and a lot of parents don't even get that far. A book can be a great way to open up that conversation.

2 Replies

Would you buy your tween son a "Playboy"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know