I agree with just about everything you said. I’m sorry your family had to go through this traumatic invasion into your home. I suppose in this day and age, where there is so much child exploitation, the authorities were unable to ignore checking further into the matter, but it sounds like they went waaaay overboard and were unnecessarily invasive as well as overly judgemental about your family’s beliefs around religion. I know you and Jenna were just being “cheeky” by posting the pics. They certainly got a chuckle out of me, although I was a bit concerned about the reaction you would get from others.

What a complete nightmare!!
I agree with all you have said and am sorry you and your family had to go through any of this bullshit.

I’m a bit in two mind about this. But in the end I believe you are right and the police is wrong.

Where they are blatantly wrong is when they ask you if you want to raise your children to be atheists. As far as I know, the US, like any modern Western country, has freedom of religion, so it’s none of their business whether you raise your kids to be atheists, Christians, Muslims or whatever isms you can think of.

And of course Playboy is not pornography. But it is erotic photography. I would classify it as ‘adult material’ that does not belong in the world of children. If wouldn’t mind if they saw it anyway but it’s not the kind of thing a parents shows their children.

I don’t want to say you shouldn’t educate your children, including sexual education. It is vital that you do that. But that does not necessarily include showing them erotic photography. (actually I know one guy - my uncle - who read Playboy with his kids, and later it turned out he also abused them. But of course I don’t think everybody who shows Playboy to their kids is an abuser, of course.)

But the main reason why I do not like Playboy is because it gives all the wrong signals about women and sexuality. I wouldn’t like my children to grow up thinking that real women look like the ones in Playboy, and the pictures also suggests women are only there to please men and women’s most important goal in life is to look as fake as Playboy ladies.

Now that’s just my opinion, of course. Whether some guy from Holland likes Playboy or not should not matter to you at all. Too bad I couldn’t comment on Flickr, that’s why I am writing here.

Good for you to post the story. It is mainly the line about atheism that causes the police to make absolute fools out of themselves.

It’s outrageous but predictable. Some prude from a more backward area of the country obviously notified local authorities. Ultimately, this was the result of someone’s good intentions. Clearly the ultimate goal here was the protection of children, and that is laudable, there’s a lot they need to be protected from. Playboy Magazine seems pretty innocuous.

What is appalling is the nosing into your religious beliefs or what religious beliefs you choose to instill in your children.

Sorry this happened to you Brent.

You’re probably not going to want to hear this, but the police didn’t do anything wrong. The police probably thought your pictures looked like a lot of others used to pimp child porn. Given what they saw, they had reason to investigate. The next time they run across a picture like that, it may well be somebody pushing child porn. To you it seems laughable that someone might think you’re a child molester/distributer, but the police don’t know you.

Unfortunately there are a lot of guys (and some women) out there who will use erotica and porn to get children and adolescents to perform sex (alcohol, drugs, cash and purchased items are also popular for grooming).

The child protective agency was correct in getting involved also, but they crossed the line at asking about your family’s religious beliefs. It’s not their job to inject deities into your children’s beliefs.

I’m with Erik on the portrayal of women in Playboy. While I don’t think it’s at all inappropriate to be open about sexuality with children, I do think the images in Playboy (just like the images in Vogue or Cosmo) can have a strong influence on a young girl’s psyche / gender concept. That’s the thing that bothers me most about this, I think. I could possibly get behind the early exposure to women as they are portrayed in Playboy, but only if there was equal exposure to other ways in which can be sexual — and non sexual — individuals. Playboy is fake tits and airbrushing. Women are not.

Of course, the trick there is that that’s my opinion. They’re not my kids (now there’s an entirely different conversation — parenting regulated by the state). Having worked with DHHS before, I know from first-hand experience that abused children are frequently exposed to Playboy (and much worse). That, of course, is correlational data, not causational. While I think it’s good the system exists to catch such problems, I sincerely hope everyone immediately saw what fantastic parents you and Kirstin are.

This must’ve been hard and shocking for you all as a family. I hope you manage a lovely 4th nonetheless. *s*

“Are you raising your children to be atheist?”

That’s a lot of nerve. How does that have any bearing on anything?! Repulsive. Was ‘Denise’ just trying to fill out some form? “If you don’t please us we’ll take your kids” is terrifying threat, especially if it’s based on some bureaucrat’s personal definition of “proper.”

That ‘grooming’ stuff sounds pretty scary. I guess it’s good they’re watching for signs of trouble like that, though we do put up with a lot of nonsense ‘for the good of the children.’

UNBELIEVABLE!!!
I really believe it is the legalists in organized religion and life in general (READ STATE & FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) that make life so difficult for the rest of us. “You MUST do this and NOT do that in order to attain this level of christianity”. You must do this and not do that in order to maintain a legal life and household….
I myself profess a specific religion. I do not attend church regularly. I also do not hold to all the tennants my church holds dear. I do not like being ‘TOLD’ what to do in order to be a better person, husband, parent, friend or law abiding citizen; or christian for that matter….
To have to listen to people ‘in control’ tell you what their beliefs are and say you are doing ok, “BUT” - that is where my ideals of the law are shaken. Too much is able to be read into a situation by police, caseworkers or others whose ‘thoughts’ on the matter are then treated as the law. People in power allow those ‘thoughts’ to be used as evidence to show what you are doing is wrong. And threats such as you endured from those people in power are what is the issue here. People placing their beliefs, not the law, over yours. People in positions of power over you and me, using that power to tell us what we are doing is something they ‘feel’ is wrong. Whether you are really breaking the law or not. Those people’s beliefs are the dangerous ones - not yours, your wife’s, your children’s; or mine…
IMHO

Since you appear to be some big first amendment guy I will share my opinion with you. You of course will not support it because like most liberals you only support the first amendment when the statement supports your beliefs.

You and your idiot wife should never have been allowed to breed. By posting these pictures of your children plus all the information about your family you have put your children at risk from sexual predators.

Half the perverts in the country are probably playing with themselves while looking at the pictures of your children reading playboy. Since it’s obvious you have the Internet, you might try reading some news. How about that case going on in Vermont. Sick bastards are everywhere and now thanks to you morons they have all they need to fantasize about your little girls and a pretty good idea where you live.

Perhaps you should spend a little more time taking care of your family instead of posting about the virtues of Europe and how they are more tolerant of the sexualizeation of children. If it’s so great please move their so we have two less losers in this country.

Theresa told me about this and I just had to read your blog. Thank you for posting this story! It helps people become even more aware of the sort of control the government tries to wield over our families, and brings out the anonymously-posting cowards like “Joe Nobody” so we can laugh at his ignorance. I wonder, if I took a picture of my daughter looking at the statue of Venus de Milo, would “Joe” and the government watchdogs have problems with THAT?

A couple years ago I had the misfortune of running up against with the Virginia Dept. of Child Welfare (or whatever it is they call themselves.) Long story short, I did make some parenting mistakes, but these minor mistakes were blown way out of proportion because my ex was trying to cause trouble for me.

I met with two completely different case workers: one was horribly overzealous and on a power trip to “Get us.” She tried to twist my story out of context, and made comments that were borderline threats– apparently such comments are phrased because they can’t actually threaten you (which isn’t legal) but heavily imply things like “You must take a parenting lass or we’ll take your kids”. They danced around answering direct questions about what powers they actually have. The other case worker was very easygoing and wanted to find out the true story behind the report. In this case it had to do with giving alcohol to a minor. We were told that in such cases, the social workers have to be careful as to whether they are tramping upon someone’s cultural beliefs, ie, are we a family from Europe where all ages drink wine with their meals.

Well I thought this was rather hypocritical, isn’t it? As an American, born and raised, it’s NOT OK for my child to have consumed alcohol even though I may agree with the European cultures. But, if I had immigrated from France, for example, they would have just nodded and said “Alright then, continue being culturally diverse. Have a great day. Don’t forget your lapel pin.”

One minor caveat, I have to say I somewhat agree with a previous commenter. IMO, the women in the magazines don’t represent a healthy view of reality for adolescent girls who typically have self-esteem problems about their bodies at this age anyway. I guess it could be worse, there’s always Cosmo and Vogue….

“If it’s so great please move their”

THERE. If it’s so great please move THERE. I’d not normally point that out, but when you’re calling people losers, you open yourself up for critique.

You know, I’m not quite sure when someone minding their (see? that’s how you use it) own business became part of the “liberal agenda”.

Maybe if people stopped minding other peoples’ business and started minding their own business, we’d not have to read ignorant comments by people who cannot grasp the concept of freedom.

But then, I’m more libertarian than liberal. I believe in freedom in all respects, not just those areas in which I agree with everyone else.

good read. i check your flickr photostream often and noticed the pictures.

glad you got some controversy from your art, but sorry it took a turn for the ugly. being a christian myself, and a fan of the separation of church and state, i also find it appalling that the social worker would ask about your intentions to promote atheism in your daughters. it’s not the arena for that kind of conversation.

i am certainly conservative in some respects, and would likely not show playboy to my children, though i hope not to impose the stigma against nudity that most of our society seems to convey. [something about female body image, as well ;-p ]

i enjoyed the read and enjoyed the discussions that spawned from the pictures originally. if nothing else, i think this will cause people to at least consider the situation and evaluate their existing/create an opinion on the topic.

oh, though i’d imagine it was the phrasing or association with the other (more concretely) fictional characters, i think the historic jesus is an important part of education. i mean, he is to the older jewish teachings as martin luther is to the corruption of the catholic church. maybe i’m just touchy because of my beliefs?

as other have said, sorry for the hassle you’ve been caused. wish you and your family the best.

@JoeNobody: You mean *this* story from Vermont?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jHjvw1NOFGPL0mQ-JPqYfuNZF1LgD91MM7IG0

…A Vermont man whose 12-year-old niece was found dead near his home carefully orchestrated events and e-mails to make it appear she had gone to see someone she met online, prosecutors said Thursday as they charged him with kidnapping…

Some guy fakes it to look like his niece was being stalked online when he himself was the abuser and there was no online stalker? That’s not a very compelling case to support your paranoid delusion. Yes there are wackjobs out there… but just posting a picture of your kid on flickr is not akin to leaving him or her unprotected in a den of sexual predators. Most children are preyed upon by people they know, not strangers. I’d worry far more about my kid sleeping over a friends house or being an altar boy or altar girl than I would worry about his or her picture being online.

Do yourself a favor and stop watching FOX news (or indeed any American news, it’s all sensationalist crap anyway.) And then maybe you won’t be so quick to insult people you don’t even know.

Wow.

I’m sorry to hear that your family had to go through this ordeal, but I guess in retrospect, I’m not surprised. I would be lying if I didn’t admit here that I’m glad it happened, in as much as it means that the government is in fact concerned about the well-being of our youth.

However, asking about your religious beliefs and making that part of the interviewing process was ludicrous. That should have nothing to do with it, as there are plenty of “God-fearing” child molesters in the world.

Do I think some of the photos you post on your flickr photostream are contorversial? Absolutely. Do I think you and your family deserved to be grilled to the extent that you were because of it? Not at all.

I agree with what was said by Erik and Lucy regarding the portrayal of women in Playboy, and I do consider Playboy to be a MILD form of pornography. I also agree with those who have said it is one thing to teach your children about sexuality, and something completely different to expose them to the media’s interpretation of it.

I personally feel that every photo you post of your children online, whether reading a Playboy or running through a sprinkler in their swimsuits, is potential bait for at least one sicko somewhere. That will never change, no matter how many investigations are done, because people will always post photos of their kids online, and the line between what is appropriate and what isn’t is incredibly skewed.

I hope this is the last of your ordeal. Have a safe and happy holiday weekend, Brent!

Thank you all for your comments and advise.

***I received a phone call from Denise today as we were packing the car for a day at the beach. She informed me that her office concluded that there are “no findings” of neglect or abuse in our case. Hooray!! Kirsten and I are very relieved that the right decision was made. Whew. :) ***

@Sue - Thank you. I hope we see you and AJ at the Maine Lighthouse Tour.

@Erik - I don’t know if the religion question is standard or not. It shouldn’t be. Our philosophies on the supernatural are not relevant to our ability to parent or love our children.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Playboy and wonder if you are basing your opinion on first-hand experience. The women in Playboy are real. In fact, I saw a handful of young ladies at the beach today (York, Maine) that could easily make the cut. Playboy selects one young woman each month to be the playmate. That’s twelve each year. They have the luxury of choosing the best. There is no reason to use an airbrush. I read an interesting interview in Picture Magazine this month of longtime Playboy photographer Arny Freytag. He was asked, “How much airbrushing or Photoshopping do you do?”. His reply is interesting.

We never did that, we did not retouch. We are responsible to make sure a girl looks perfect without retouching. The problem today is when a girl submits a picture to us, we don’t know what they look like because its probably Photoshopped to death.
We usually ask for in-camera flash snapshots; don’t touch the image. Because we don’t retouch like that. We only pick 12 centerfolds a year. so of all the people that submit to us, we find only 12 that are that good. Now, because Holly is picking them with Hef, the girls are much higher quality and you see a lot less clothing, so we’re not trying to hid anything. The retouching thing truly is a myth.

Now, you can choose to believe Arny or not, but you must admit the logic is a bit compelling. There are gorgeous women in the world with “perfect” bodies. We’re not talking about Barbie. Playmates are real women.

I’m not sure what you mean by “wrong signals about…sexuality.” Do you deny that women shouldn’t try to please men, and vice versa? Do you try to please your significant other? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being sexy and projecting that. Women have been sexually repressed for thousands of years. They should be allowed to express themselves any way they wish, including sexually. If you’re beautiful, use that to your advantage. If you’re smart, use that to your advantage. If you’re both, I’m jealous. :)

Sex education should include much more than biology and anatomy. Otherwise, it is incomplete. Sex is not just about STDs and babies. The more they know, the better informed will be their decisions.

Again, I appreciate your comment.

@Chuck - It’s actually a bit more complicated than that. I left out a lot of details for brevity and because my main point was about censorship and sexuality. The police were tipped off by detectives in other states who are conducting an investigation into a convicted sex offender who was one of my Flickr contacts. I don’t know a lot more about that, but what I do know I am not at liberty to discuss. I was warned that doing so could bring charges of interfering in an ongoing police investigation.

Let me state one more time for the record and so everybody is clear: I appreciate very much that the police visited us and conducted an investigation. I am likewise grateful that the Office of Child & Family Services conducted their investigation. I am upset about three things: they “asked” me to remove two of my photos and issued a thinly veiled threat for noncompliance, they stated that the picture itself is illegal and they said allowing our children to view Playboy is abuse. They child protective counselors also said I had less due process rights than if criminal charges were pressed and that a single judge makes the final decisions. None of those things are true. They either didn’t know what they were talking about (they told me emphatically that they are the “experts” and are the ones responsible for interpreting the statutes) or they were lying.

@Alan - Yes, I know. The police were hear for several hours and told us all the horror stories. I appreciate that they didn’t really know us. What they did know is what I wrote in the comments of that picture in which I explain very clearly my motivations for taking and posting the photo. They also had reviewed Skye and Kirsten’s photostreams. They read my blog, The Rhetoric. I think they knew the answers to most of the questions before they asked them. I think they were only asking to see if I’d be consistent. They also asked if I had stashes of children’s clothes, if I fantasize about little children, if I have child pornography, why I photograph Kirsten in the nude and if I take pictures of myself naked (that’s disgusting, I told them. :).

The police, as I mentioned, left our apartment with beaming smiles and handshakes and couldn’t seem to say enough times how terrific they thought our family was. It was as if they hadn’t visited a “normal” family in a very long time. I was more upset with the state legislature than the detectives who came over. I was glad they came over. They have reason to believe our daughters are in some danger and wanted to inform us of that. They suspected we might be involved, but those suspicions were removed quite early in the conversation.

@Lucy - “Playboy is fake tits and airbrushing.” Playboy is so much more than pictorials of nude and partially-nude women. But I understand your point. Our daughters see “real” men and women every day.

I agree that the “system” exists to catch real child predators. It was reassuring to see the amount of attention and resources devoted to insuring our daughters are safe, even if it was at time frustrating, infuriating and time-consuming.

I hope you have a wonderful Independence Day, too. I’m sure we’ll do something fun. We always do. :)

@Brian - Yes, I didn’t think the threat was very proper or cool. In fact, it really pissed me off. But I was in a corner. I’m passionate about my views and always willing to express them, but it’s not worth being labeled a child abuser or having them removed from our home. So I swallowed my pride and cooperated.

Much of what the police told us about child predators is extremely scary and horrifying. The world is a wonderful place filled with loads of terrific people. Unfortunately, there are those few who like to spoil things for the rest of us. Isn’t that how life has always worked?

@Paul - I hear you, Man. While Jack, one of the child protective caseworkers, was talking to us about what constitutes abuse, I couldn’t help but wonder if what he was saying was his opinion or if it was codified in the statutes. He insisted that the statutes are clear and that they are black and white. I read the statutes after Jack and Denise left. Jack was wrong. So was Denise. It bothered me that they were injecting their sense of right and wrong into their professional advice.

@Joe Nobody - This is the world wide web and I suppose I should expect a few of you to be lurking around. I wonder if you’ve traveled outside the US. I suspect you have not. I also wonder if you think it’s requisite to hate every other country in order to love America. The list of things I prefer about other countries is very very long. That doesn’t mean I like the United States less. I love our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I love that those documents protect my right to express myself so long as I don’t infringe the rights of others. You sound jingoistic, and that disgusts me. Your attitude hurts our country. Putting your head in the sand while waving the Stars and Stripes doesn’t do a damn thing to make this country better.

I’m well aware of the risks to my daughters, thank you. They are minuscule compared to climbing on and jumping from boulders twice their height, which they did this afternoon. Perhaps I should lock them in their bedrooms so they won’t ever get hurt. Perhaps I shouldn’t have ever jumped out of an airplane or learned to fly one. Perhaps I should home school my children so they won’t get beat up or teased. Life is risky. I think I manage those risks quite well without surrendering to them.

Please limit future comments to the issues being discussed without resorting to personal attacks.

@Jennie - Cosmo, Vogue and Glamour are MUCH more sexual. Furthermore, they are marketed to women and are incredibly superficial (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Playboy is edited for and marketed to men. It contains the kinds or articles and pictures and jokes that the editors think it’s readers want. The few times Jenna has asked to look at my Playboys her perusals have been supervised. When she asks questions I give her straight answers.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with girls wanting to be as beautiful as Playboy Playmates. Many doors are opened to beautiful women. If they dream about being beautiful and smart and rich and famous then good for them. It’s better to aim for the stars and miss than to aim for a pile of shit and hit it. ;)

@Chad - LOL. Thanks. The think I think many people don’t understand about liberty is that there’s a trade-off. If you let people think, say and act how they please there is a slight risk you might disagree and even be offended from time to time. That’s the price of liberty. Disagreements and dialog are GOOD for us all.

@Chuck (second post) - Exactly! I have huge issues with requiring convicted sex offenders to register as such and then posting their location on the internet. It doesn’t make your kid safer because it doesn’t include all the people who haven’t been convicted. And, it’s usually the dad or uncle who is the perpetrator. Those lists can only give soccer moms a false sense of security which has the potential of putting the child in harm’s way. I’ll save my rant for another post. Suffice it to say, I agree that the risk to Jenna or Hayley by posting them on the internet, fully clothed, is extremely minimal. We meet their friend’s parents before allowing them to go to their houses. But there will ALWAYS be risks. That’s life!!! We live in a nice town and the girls go to nice schools. Most of the photos of them on my Flickr photostream are set to friends and family only. I refuse to live life always “checking my six” and teaching my girls that people are bad and are out to get them. That isn’t our reality. Be aware of risk, teach your children about risks, but don’t let fear keep you from living a full, active and wonderful life.

@Melenie - I agree with your assessment of “potential bait”. I brought that up with the detectives. Should I unplug my internet connection and go into hiding? I refuse to be afraid.

Besides, anybody who spends much time in my Flickr photostream will see that I’m an avid shooter and that I occasionally carry a concealed firearm. ;)

Happy 4th.

The detectives had a hard copy of this picture. Apparently they suspected something sinister and symbolic. Like, pedophiles dress like Catholic priests to announce their intentions to the world. Hahaha. I hadn’t thought of that. Seems like the most innocent activities have the potential for getting me into trouble. :)

Congrats on the “finding”, Brent. You’re dead on target, as usual. Kudos, too, for being able to laugh at this absolutely ridiculous abuse of power.

Hey Brent,

This is NFT from flickr. I just saw all this about an hour ago and I’m glad to see everything turned out ok. When I saw the new image on flickr, I was like “oh shit!” (why can’t we comment on the new pic’s page?)

I mentioned before, somewhere in your photostream, that I don’t really like Playboy’s photography much. That’s all a matter of taste/preference though. However, comparing pictures in Playboy, which are explicitly designed for arousal, to topless public beaches and mothers and children swimming nude is an odd comparison. I guess to be more to the point, what exactly are you trying to teach your daughters with Playboy? The only thing I can think of is to use those images as an example of what attractive women look like. Maybe there’s some other educational purpose that I haven’t thought of though. Anyway, just from what Arny said in that excerpt you posted, it is an unrealistic standard of perfection that extremely few women meet. Extremely rare and difficult to acheive….just like the celebacy of priests. How healthy can those insanely perfect (and probably impossible) standards be for a child?
I don’t mean this as criticism of your choices, but just to get thoughts going.

Again, I’m so glad everything worked out ok. I probably would have reacted offensively to the atheist question (”oh? do you really want to waste’s the state’s money on losing a Supreme Court case over this? Think very carefully about your next words, ma’am”). This might sound crazy, but I’d get the camcorder out if the cops showed up to my house like that. Ya never know if that recording will be needed later.

See ya on flickr,
Jason aka Napalm Filled Tires

Hiya. I’m just a random stumbler who found your story. I’m very sorry this happened to you, but I’m glad that it’s worked out all right. I must admit I don’t agree with choosing Playboy for a variety of reasons, but I certainly think that’s your decision to make and not the government’s. You seem to have done it for the right reasons, anyhow.

So good luck and I hope things continue to go well for you and your daughters :).

As a children’s pastor from an evangelical background, I find your situation quite intriguing. I wholeheartedly agree that many Christians from “back in the day” have turned sex into at best something secretive and at worst down right repulsive. I grew up in a home where we never talked about sex and by the time my dad talked about sex with me at age 14, I was already diving headfirst into hardcore pornography. I couldn’t talk about sex with my parents, so I found outlets on the internet to talk about and view it. This “outlet” eventually led me into to a non-consensual sexual encounter which scarred me for life. It’s important to talk to our kids about sex…and early. Your methods are unorthodox to be certain. I think the issue for Christians is not whether or not it’s ok to look at a nude human body, but that the context of that nude human body trumps the actual body. I fully support your methods and think that if it is the most healthy thing for your children, so be it. I think there are other equally healthy ways to go about such a task for someone who would be uncomfortable with such a method. The most important thing for parents to remember is that right now, if you talk to your kids after they turn 10-11 years old, you are going to be giving them information they already know…their info might not be totally correct, but they know!

This is amazing. Thank you for taking a stand in this regard. This relates to a lot of topics - the rise of the religious right, the notion in this country that our bodies and sexuality are inherently dirty and shameful (which unquestionably leads to unhealthy self-image). Thank goodness for people like you.

Its outrageous the way you and your family was treated.

However, I think you wanted to stir up some shit by posting those pictures on Flickr. You probably got much more than you bargained for.

I think you have every right to educate your kids on human sexuality and am appalled by the values in this country that still teach that the human body is something of which to be ashamed.

Accept that this country is fucked when it comes to values. Because of that, it would be wise for you to keep stuff like this to yourself. Should you have to? Of course not. But I don’t think the statement you are trying to make is worth your reputation or putting your family under this kind of stress.

(found your page via stumbleupon btw)

Hang in there. You are a sensible person in a world gone mad. The politically-correct god-bothering people who harrass you are wrong, not you.
Raising children to think independently is the greatest gift you could bestow on them. Personally I find Playboy exploitative and trite, but that is my personal opinion and I have no wish to foist it on you or anyone else. Take solace that all over the world there are people who think like you. This one is in Australia (where we are under threat from our own PC GBs).

Well done Brent, a good result and the only just one.

What you have written is so right and I agree with everything you have said.

I want to add a point that I think all posters have missed: no matter the rights and wrongs of looking at Playboy because of the nudity, or the way they portray women (I personally have no problem with it), for Jenna and Hayley to view it is an opportunity to educate and discuss those issues. What is perhaps more important is what your views are, and if they are honest and open, then such opportunities are worth their weight in gold for your children.

We know how good you and Kirstey are, and so too do the authorities now, so a good result. There never was any doubting your innocence.

Oh my. I cannot believe this story. To think that the police actually questioned your religion?! That is infuriating! I probably would’ve said something stupid and gotten myself put in jail had that happened to me. Bravo to you and Kirsten for handling the situation respectfully, as I would not have been able to do so.

As for letting your kids read Playboy: I say go for it. They are YOUR children. No one anywhere has any right to tell you how to raise your children, as long as you are not causing them any harm or traumatizing them. As long as you are showing them a healthy view on sex and not gross pictures of orgies, then go for it. There is a very big difference between pornography and a picture of a naked woman. When I was about 13 or 14, my parents were very “taboo” about sex and I was terrified to talk to them about it. Well, kids will be kids, and when you are that age you think you know it all. I began having sex at a very early age and had the added stress of having to hide it from my parents. I would never want my children to grow up like that. It was terrible. And no amount of prude Christian parenting could have made me make better choices. In all seriousness, if my parents would have been open about sex with me, I think I would have made very different choices.

In that last paragraph of your article — I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE!! I think your girls are in good hands. You really sound like you have your head on straight.

Now if only more people across the world were that smart.

It is understandable that the police were called and investigated - as one commenter poi9nted out, next time, next case, it might not be so innocent and justified. It may well be some bastard grooming his step-daughter for sex. There’s nothing particularly wrong in what you did, although it sounds weird you posting pictures of your daughters pretending to read playboy on the internet. It just sounds… well

I however can’t believe the child protection caseworker asked if you were raising them to be atheists. I would have probably snapped and said something along the lines of “mind your own business you superstitious whore”. Or “and if I am what business is it of yours skank?”. But I’m just nice that way.

Please do not confuse “France” with “Europe”. Most americans do this and it pisses us other europeans off. France is a fine country (with an awful language, in my opinion) but it’s not europe. It’s really different to Germany or Italia or any other european country. If you just visited one, maybe two european countries, do not make a statement about europe, but about those countries. In fact, about the only thing which connects european countries is the landmass they’re on.
I mean, sure, europe is in general not as prude as america, but that there’s nude advertising at bus stops is not true for most of europe. It’s also not normal “in europe” to let juveniles drink wine, like a commenter said.
I know that I’m a bit overreacting here, but it gets on your nerves. just imagine everyone who was in texas would say that the whole USA is just like it

I must say that I was intrigued, disturbed, annoyed and fairly upset… by what happened to you. Playboy isn’t my thing, and neither is Playgirl, and when I thought that, I wondered… Do you share with your children the … sexuality … of both men and women? While Playboy does have the ability to be selective with who they show, thus “the best of the best” per se, what about guys with deep blue eyes, golden blonde hair, washboard abs, and uh… “packages” to boot. Men can be adored just as much as the women in Playboy, just go to NYC and look at all the ads for underwear. Sex sells.

So if it sells so well, why *are* we, as Americans so scared to discuss it with our children? My father *never* talked to me about it, and my mother preached about the diseases and hell I’d go to if I gave away ‘Gods precious gift meant for marriage’. I find the rest of the world fairly open minded, and the US so closed, so… puritanical. Across the border in Canada there’s bare breasted women in Toronto’s city parks, and the men aren’t oogling them or ‘pitching tents’… it’s “natural”.

Again, I’m agree with most of what’s been previously commented, and sorry to hear our government brought up religion, when there is –supposed to be– separation of church and state. (yeah, right…) Kudos to you, I hope your children grow up saying “I have always had the best parents in the whole world!”…

For whatever reason, I hope you and your wife show them both sides to human sexuality. The men and the women… Women do, well usually, like to see men, and as a man, you like to see women… so, while I’m no judge of a man’s finesse, perhaps they’d want to discuss it with you and your wife? Maybe you can get early insight into what they look for in guys, and can judge what kind of son-in-laws you can look forward to having over for a family Thanksgiving Dinner in the future, heh.

Cheers.

@Jason aka NFT - I personally don’t think the photos in Playboy are designed for sexual arousal. In fact, I think if a mature adult is aroused by them, that person needs to get laid. ;) I felt differently as an adolescent, but it takes much more than nudity to get me going these days.

I’m have mixed feelings about the arguments you and others make about the “unrealistic standard of perfection”. On the one hand, I don’t want my daughters to feel pressure to be “perfect” in any way. On the other hand, we live in a superficial world in which “beautiful” people have huge advantage. To hide them from beautiful people I’d have to disallow far more than Playboy Magazine. Desperate Housewives is not “real”. Neither is Harry Potter.

I see no difference between nudity in Playboy and nudity at the beach. There is no sex in Playboy, just nudity.

I disallowed commenting on my Flickr picture because I didn’t want a “split” discussion (here and there).

@Rainah - Welcome to The Rhetoric and thank you for your comment. I must clarify for you and others that I did not choose Playboy as an educational resource, Jenna (my daughter) did. Kirsten and I have never, and will never, have “the talk” with our children. Sex and sexuality are part of our normal dialog. I have a collection of Playboys that is growing (thank to Ebay). Once or twice she asked me if she could look at them. She flipped through the pages briefly and gave it back. Now she knows what’s in them. Frankly, I don’t see what the big deal is and certainly don’t think she was harmed or influenced by the experience. She’s never said she wants to be a Playmate when she grow up. ;) She knows I appreciate the pictures but subscribe primarily for the articles. I don’t think either of her sisters have ever asked or looked through any of my Playboys. They’d rather read Harry Potter or the Goosebumps series. Jenna is more curious, I suppose, and that’s a very good thing.

I’ve talked to the girls about reproductive anatomy and physiology as well as community standards regarding sex and nudity, puberty, hormones and arousal, and pedophilia and child predation. There is no curriculum or sex education program at our house. We simply answer their questions in a very frank, honest and open way.

@Derrick - I don’t have any first-hand experience with sexual abuse and admit to some level of naivety, but I think, as I’ve written, that sexual repression is a significant factor in unhealthy sexual behavior. This repression is alive and well today and not limited to Christians “back in the day”. I wish that were true.

Obviously, I couldn’t agree with you more about educating children at an early age. Children are extremely bright (that’s been my experience with my daughters, anyways). Skye can listen to a song a few times and tell you the lyrics a week later. I could never do that. It’s amazing, quite frankly. I think they can handle more than many parents, and the schools, give them. Explaining to them the purpose of a vagina or penis or about sexual reproduction could never hurt them, at any age. I wouldn’t expose them to (what I would consider) pornography, nor have I scarred them with endless stories of sexual predation, because those things could have negative effects.

@Chris - You’re right, I did want to “stir up some shit”. I also agree that it might have been too effective. I told the police and the caseworkers that my intention was to start a discussion. They said I had started a lively discussion at their offices. :) Oh well.

I don’t think the statement you are trying to make is worth your reputation or putting your family under this kind of stress.

I apologized to Kirsten but she wouldn’t have it. She appreciates that I’m willing to take a stand on issues about which I am passionate. She knows me and my motivations and was appalled that there was any suggestion of abuse. She does her best to keep me grounded and on balance. It’s a difficult task. I appreciate her advice and would pull the pictures in an instant if that was her wish. It is not.

Welcome to The Rhetoric, by the way. StumbleUpon is great!

@Gregg - Playboy provokes diverse and passionate opinions. The pictorials may be trite, but I’m not sure how they exploit women. Regardless, the articles are excellent. I appreciate very much your attitude about not “foisting” your opinion on anybody else. It’s healthy and necessary in a free society. When we give people liberty we should expect to be offended or disagree from time to time. That’s okay. In fact, I welcome it. The world would be a boring place, indeed, if there were nobody to argue with. ;)

Raising children to think independently is the greatest gift you could bestow on them.

Hear, hear.

@DaddyZangles - Thank you for your kind email and your friendship and support. I appreciate you immensely.

Of course I agree with everything you’ve said.

@Kristi - They asked Kirsten about her atheism during her lengthy private interview. I wasn’t asked. (In fact, in my interview I was asked only a single question, “How do you feel about all this?”.) I have no idea how I might have reacted, but it probably wouldn’t have been good.

Your story is refreshing and precisely the reason Kirsten and I have chosen to be open about sex (and everything else).

Thank you for your very kind and supportive comment.

@Healyhatman - I agree with your point about the authorities being justified in their investigation. As I’ve pointed out, I appreciate them making the time and using their resources to help keep my daughters safe. Most people who view the pictures on my Flickr photostream are regulars and “know me”. I figured the others could catch up in the comments. It was intended to be provocative. Did I succeed? :)

But I’m just nice that way.

Haha. ROFL. Me, too.

@buildranch - My apologies. I certainly didn’t intend to offend. I’ve been to Italy, Germany, and England and love them all. But you’re correct, my comments were primarily about France. As you’ve pointed out, the rest of western Europe has some catching up to do. ;)

If you’ve spent any time in the US or are otherwise cognizant of American culture you know we are so very far behind Europe and their secular progressive attitudes. I remember a mannequin at a posh store in Italy who had very erect and protruding nipples. I have a picture of them around here somewhere. ;) You would not find that here, even at Victoria’s Secret. Things are improving slowly, but you must surely admit we’re in a game of catchup.

@Tony E - If Kirsten had Playgirl I doubt I’d object to her allowing the girls to peruse them under supervision. I’m not familiar with Playgirl’s content. It is “just about sex” the way many incorrectly perceive Playboy?

Obviously I agree with your assessment of America’s puritanical perversions of sexuality.

Skye always has what she calls “boyfriends”. She and Jenna each have quite severe “crushes” from time to time. It’s very cute. We’ve asked them what the attractions are, but I’ve forgotten their responses. At this age they are still so very innocent (that’s a good thing). Hayley doesn’t ever want to have kids because she knows it hurts (when Kirsten was in labor with Hayley she didn’t get drugs in time and experienced the full brunt of pain associated with delivery). Jenna dreams of a large traditional wedding (I’m strongly against marriage, but that’s another discussion for another time). I think Skye just wants to be loved and adored (she will be hurt more than most because she loves more than most). They don’t think of boys as “guys” yet. Boys are just classmates and friends. One boy kissed Skye at school. It embarrassed her so much she stopped talking to the kid and the relationship instantly fizzled. The girls are quite normal and have lots of friends.

Wow, what an ordeal. I’m glad everything worked out for you. I can’t believe they called your religion into question in any form.

And, yeah, after reading the laws, doesn’t look like you even broke any to me…

Society sucks!!

Jesus is real. He is a huge ancient historical figure. Everybody who has a brain and is not crazy knows this. Even the most prominent atheists know that Jesus of Nazareth existed. What is up for question was whether he was also God. His existence as a man has never been questioned, however.

Way to stick up for what you believe in. For an agent of the government to even ask about your religious affiliation is a violation of your rights. Don’t take their crap.

Truly I sympathize with you as you are doing what a minority of parents try to accomplish, and that is to try to instill a reasonable intellect in your children.

I wonder to myself what I would do in similar situations. I have never been unnerved by nudity, I am an atheist, the things that bother me are the seeming lack of tolerance for ordinary things, and the puritanical ugliness that arises out of ignorance. I do not yet have children, but I would like to someday, and I wonder about the other influences more often than I worry about myself.

I think that your approach to the human body is excellent, and that your children sound well rounded and prepared for a world that wants to assault them from every possible angle with over-sexualized ideals. Unlike so many others they now have the mental ammunition that they will need to make good decisions about there own sexuality when the time comes.

I am sorry that you have had to go through all of the trouble that you have experienced, but that too has given your children a valuable experience with public policy, and American Attitudes that they wouldn’t have gotten watching TV, or reading an American Girl book!

Good luck with everything.

While the morality of allowing your child to read playboy is debatable (though clean the models pose nude specifically for the purpose of arousal, regardless of how respectful they are treated), the legality of this is quite clear. The magazine states “18 and older” on the cover of any issue, the reason that marker is there is because only people 18 years of age and older are permitted to view the pages of that magazine.

So wether you’re right or wrong about the morals behind this issue, the fact remains that it is illegal.

Just like it’s perfectly legal to be drunk in a bar, but it is illegal to find your way home (DUI for driving and public intoxication for walking) and illegal to sleep at the bar.

That having been said, you’re right that religion has nothing to do with the issue. However, religion is not the issue here.

About fifteen years ago some good friends of mine, then five year old daughter was playing in the lawn sprinkler on a summer day. I guess being a five year old, she didn’t like her wet, clingy clothes so she took them off and went back to playing in the sprinkler. Her mom peeks out to check on her, goes and grabs her camera and snaps off a few shots of this adorable, naked, five year old dancing around in the falling water. Being pre-digital camera days, the film sat in the camera several months before she had them developed and had forgotten about the aforementioned photos. When they got the film back they didn’t notice anything was missing until two weeks later when a police detective came knocking at their door. The child’s father answered and was told that he was under investigation for child pornography. Since he had know idea about the photos he was pretty much in shock. The detective talked to the parents and child for an hour and decided that it was just an innocent mistake and they were not child pornographers after all. Child protection services did a follow up and came to the same conclusion. Both the police and child protection showed them the photos but that was the only time they saw the photo since both said they had to keep them in case something like this came up in the future. I’m all about protecting kids from the perverts out there but sometimes the authorities can get over zealous. I guess with paranoid, fear mongers types like Joe Normal running the show we are all guilty until proven innocent.
When she was a child, another friend of mine, liked to sneak peeks of her dad’s Playboys. She thought the women looked glamorous and decided that she wanted to be in Playboy some day. She grew up, became a model and was on the cover of the December 2002 issue. She has also appeared in Vogue, Vanity Fair, GQ, Elle and walked the Paris runway for Jean Paul Gaultier and Moschino. She is a spokesperson for MAC cosmetics and starting in September will be the new face of Wonderbra. She is also honest, loyal to her friends and about as grounded a person that you would ever know. She loves her glamorous life and I don’t think looking at Playboy, when she was young, hurt her at all.

And I’m sorry to post twice like this, but I was reading through the comments and had a question for you.

You stated that you don’t believe the nude photos of women in Playboy are designed to arouse. I’m curious as to what you think they are designed for and truly hope that you don’t think it’s for artistry. You’ve heard of the Playboy Mansion, I’m sure; and the many things that go on there. You’ve also heard of Hugh Heffner, a hero among men, and the sort of things that interest him.

“pornography” means depiction of nakedness. it does not imply “smut” or any other qualitative interpretation. pick up a dictionary.

My kids are 28 and 30 and were raised openly and honestly about sex and sexuality. I’m still not a grandmother!

“girlatheist”, ever wonder if they’re sterile?

@Brian. The Romans were pretty good record keepers but there has never been found any mention of Jesus during the Roman occupation of Israel. In fact there is no know record of him until his followers wrote it down years later.Personally, I think he may have existed, as a man, but his existence is debatable.

I think that a more pertinent question would be “are you raising your children to be porn stars?” rather than “are you raising your children to be atheists?”
For me, and many other Americans, freedom of religion means freedom from religion.

However, as a woman and as a feminist I tend to resent Playboy, not for its erotic content, but for its photoshopping. Women who are already beautiful are deemed not quite beautiful enough and must have ALL their flaws removed. As a teenage girl, relatively well-educated about sex and the body (in the last sex-ed class at my HS pre-abstinence only) I still believed that, to be a sexual woman and a beautiful one, you have to look like a Playmate. To have had someone like my father (the shining knight of my existence, the guy that my boyfriend will always be second to) tell me that Playboy is an appreciation of human body would just blow my self-esteem all to hell.

Hey Brent,
Long time no see. Sorry to hear about what happened to you and your family - must have just awful, been incredibly stressful. I guess, in a way, I’m glad that the police are doing their job and investigating any possible instances of child abuse, but still… not a very comforting thought for you when you know you’re innocent.

I agree with you regarding puritanical attitudes in the US. A lot of it has to do with the fact that this country is so deeply religious. Very sad. Look at the damage of abstinence-only programs. Instead of teaching kids openly about sexuality, so that they will have a healthy and informed outlook on their future sexual lives, we make it into something to be ashamed of, something we shouldn’t talk about, etc.

However, I strongly disagree with you on the issue of your girls reading Playboy. You might say those girls are real, but they do not represent what most women look like, and personally I think that encouraging your girls to see nude women on display as normal and healthy sends a very wrong message about who women are and how they should be. We have such sick role models these days. They are one of the reasons young women suffer from bulimia, anorexia, and possess a negative self-image and a lack of self-esteem. We are teaching girls to think that for women to be successful and desirable, they have to look like the women in magazines, including Playboy. In addition, we are teaching girls that it’s perfectly acceptable for women to pose nude for men to ogle, like pieces of meat on display. I find this attitude deeply offensive, and it has nothing to do with the country you’re in… sexism is universal. Playboy (which, by the way, I would never “ban” - I don’t believe in banning things, but in educating people as to why something would be best eliminated) is just a symptom of this attitude, not the cause. Just my two cents.

[…] Playboy Magazine. Their allegations that taking the photos and posting them online is an act ohttp://therhetoric.net/2008/07/03/sex-education-and-censorship-in-america/2008-09 UCF Men’s Basketball Summer Preview UCF Golden KnightsThe UCF men’s basketball team will […]

I would like to lens Derrick’s comment and state that I was about the age of eleven when I found hardcore pornography. My parents were mortified, over-reacted, and suffice to say I dislike them today for their choices.

Regardless, despite their ‘banning’ me from the internet, I cobbled together a piecemeal internet connection, a free dial-up ISP account (can’t believe those existed back then), and continued watching and learning. They would always go on about ‘but they’re acting’ and ‘but that’s not _really_ sex’. And I knew that. I had been acting since I was six — I could tell the difference.

But my Parents did not trust me, much as the rest of the nation when it comes to people of that age. I resented being called a child as it was merely a shielded way of saying ‘you can’t understand this’. But I did, and when I did, no one believed it.

I watched Showtime back when the Red Shoe Diaries were on. I became an atheist. I masturbated vigorously many times a day — I had a powerful puberty in the first place. At one point, my cousin even offered a sexual advance and I spied secretly on my sister.

So where did this path lead me?

Exactly where people said it wouldn’t. Where it couldn’t. Where I couldn’t and wouldn’t and shouldn’t. Where my parents said was impossible, where their religion said I was incapable. Where the government has deemed me mentally improbable.

I have abstained from drugs and alcohol and have been in a loving relationship with my fiancee, whom I met in High School, for over four years now. I am going into the Gaming Industry as a certified professional just as soon as I can secure my GPA. I run plenty of Dungeons and Dragons and GURPS games when I can, have a series of close relationships with interesting people — a transsexual being the most recent addition to the people I enjoy the company of. I suffer from ADHD and Auditory Processing, and chronic depression.

I couldn’t be happier. And all this, without anyone teaching me a damn thing. With everyone thinking that teaching me -anything- would be so horrifically wrong. When my parents wouldn’t talk to me directly, so there’s no way in hell that I would check out their ‘recommended picture books’.

If anything, I am proof positive that there are somethings which you cannot repress. Some things that you can’t bar people from doing, and learning, and doing _even better_ than people say is possible. That being scared is no reason to bar someone from a necessity of life.

And I would like to take a few seconds to respond to Brian:

Why are we talking about your religion? I do not see the contextual relationship. In fact, I move to state that you are potentially baiting and will implore others to not indulge your fantasy.

What you take as a certainty others take as an impossibility. And don’t say ‘His existence […] has never been questioned.’

I am questioning his existence, here, even though I know many, many, many, many other have brought this up. The man, Jesus, I agree lived. The religious figure, Jesus, I do not. The man, Jesus, I do believe preached. The religious text of Jesus, I do not believe he preached.

It is all a matter of perspective. So let us keep that in mind and move forward with the discussion rather than backwards into subjects not entirely relevant to the current topic.

I agree totally with everything you have said. im going to be a father eventually, and i plan to do the same things you outlined here, and have planned it for a while. i don’t want nonsense in the house. no Santa, Jesus, or Easter bunny. i plan on raising an educated, curious, inquisitive child. and that is not going to be the result of mindless sheltering. the only negative that could possibly be gotten out of this whole event, is if the girls become over self conscious, and try to look like all the playboy girls. i just hope you have a little talk with them about that, which I’m sure you have ;) keep up the good parenting, fight for a better world! I’m the last man on earth who wants to see another generation of mindless children praising the man in the sky. and yes, I’m an atheist. good luck with your legal struggles! =]

I stumbled upon this page through, well, “stumble upon”. I’m glad someone took the time to bring your thoughts on this subject to a wider audience.

I have had a very conflicting life experience with sexuality. Two of the examples that have really influenced my opinions are:

My Mom was raped consistently by her stepfather for 5 years (ages 6-11). Not surprisingly, she became a very “anti-sex” type of person, became a verbally abusive alcoholic, and died an early and extremely painful death. The rape inflicted upon my Mom destroyed her life, and if I ever happen upon her stepfather I honestly can’t say that I would be able to hold myself back from inflicting debilitating harm to him.

In that respect, I completely agree with you that it’s a good thing the government is looking out for children who are at risk. And thank god we can finally talk openly about these problems!

Unfortunately, my Mom’s experience left me with a weird view on sex. Though she never explicitly said so, I learned from my Mom that sex was painful, shameful, and terrifying.

Fortunately, I found sexuality to be a more positive aspect of life. But I was so anti-porn, even I can now call my past self completely irrational. Which leads me to my second major experience.

For years I was livid every time I found (yes, I looked) so much as a picture of a pretty woman on my husband’s computer. For a time I became convinced he was a pervert just like my mother’s stepfather. I even went to the mental health center in tears and told them my husband was a potential pedophile. Looking back, I can see how ridiculous I was being. But I was scared. I saw what happened to my beloved Mom and I had never been told that sexuality comes in many forms and most of them are perfectly healthy and natural.

My sexual freak out caused immense harm to my husband. He became depressed, couldn’t become sexually aroused, we started fighting all the time. I ended up moving out… moving away to a different country. And that’s how I learned to let go of my Mom’s bias. It took getting out of my bubble, and a few sexual flings, for me to realize that men are not inherently perverts and sexuality can be a very positive and healthy experience.

I returned to my husband, who graciously welcomed me with open arms, told him about my experience (he wasn’t very happy about the sexual flings I had, until he realized I came to a new understanding about sexuality). He now enjoys porn like most guys do, and his sexuality has blossomed into something we both enjoy with passion. I realize now that it’s healthy to be sexual. I realize now that sexuality does not equal perversion. I even realize now that I, myself, enjoy the beauty of human sexuality through whatever media, even porn. I’ve come a long way.

Now that I’m nearing the end of this post I realize that this has little to do with the original content. Sorry about that. I haven’t reflected upon this for some time, your article conjured up these thoughts and I guess I feel the need to express them.

“To have had someone like my father ….. tell me that Playboy is an appreciation of (the) human body would just blow my self-esteem all to hell.”

My father DID tell me that that and it DID damage my self esteem, to believe as a teenager that women are “supposed” to look like that and to feel that you never will, is incredibly painful and has long lasting repercussions.
It wasn’t just the images in the magazine that made me think that, it was also my fathers support of the content, he always said he just appreciated the women as women. But what does that even mean when you’ve never met them, when all you have are those ridiculous stats to go on? Without some other context, it’s nudity for nudity’s sake, complete and utter fantasy, they serve no purpose, they don’t bring anything to the table. As a developing young woman, my self-image was crushed, I knew that boys looked at those images, my own father looked at those images and I would never look like that.
Women are people too, we are more than “art”, we are more than sex, we are more than commodities, we are more than everything that the media sells us as, and I find it deeply offensive that people see the commericalisation of the female form as something to support.
By all means educate your daughters, I applaud that, but you need to ensure that the message you send is the right one, one that hopefully encourages respect for oneself and about being comfortable with who you are.

Fleur

Are you shitting me? I’m entirely blown away that the police and case workers would come to your home because of *playboy.* Playboy is, as you stated, NOT pornography. It’s adult entertainment, period. Are we living in a moral police state? I would’ve raised a shitstorm. My father didn’t mind me reading his playboys at a probably too-young age. I initially came for the boobs, but ended up reading them like any other magazine. I am now an adult who has a very healthy sex drive, and sees the naked body as a beautiful thing, not a sex object. I genuinely think the casual nature of playboy’s nudity, combined with other open sexualities in my childhood made me the honorable young man I am today. Oh yeah, I was raised an atheist to all things imaginary, too. Man, my parents were *terrible,* huh?

One question Denise asked me during our interview was this: “What is your hope for your relationship (with Brent)?” I had to ask her to repeat the question because it seemed so odd. I told her my “hope” was that it continued on as it was now. I guess that final question finally convinced her that we had a happy home life. ;-)

Most people have never picked up a Playboy, and they automatically put it in the same category as magazines such as Hustler and Penthouse. Not so!!! I used to be under the same preconceived misconception when Brent first purchased a Playboy magazine. However after looking through several of them I realized how naive I’d been. The pictorials are not only tastefully done, but this section is a very small part of the magazine. They are of real women, and included are short biographies of each one. People seem to think the photos are solely designed to “arouse.” I think that’s laughable. Men appreciate the female body. Get over it. I appreciate the male body and enjoy looking at it. That doesn’t mean it arouses sexual feelings in me.

Some of the best and most thought-provoking articles (on a variety of topics) I’ve read are from Playboy. There is more sex talk in magazines such as Maxim, Cosmo, and many others. You will also see many more pictures of scantily clothed women (and sometimes men) in them. Our society will always have an idea of what an ideal woman or man ought to look like. And it has changed over the years. Yes, it is unrealistic for most people to achieve that “perfect body”. But Playboy is certainly not alone in selling this body type. Anywhere you look…fashion magazines, runway models, department stores…we are bombarded with it. There is also an ideal male body. There are certain features that attract me on a man. And although my head may turn when I see a fit, well-toned shirtless guy walking down the beach, it doesn’t mean I’m not attracted to a different body type.

Consider a well-known successful athlete, say Lance Armstrong. People such as this are a small percentage of the population. We all admire, and perhaps envy him for his fantastic abilities and success. Is it possible for all of us to achieve what he has? No. Does that mean we shouldn’t try if we have the desire? Of course not! What about a renowned artist, comedian, or scientist? Some people have natural abilities or gifts, and others have to work hard for the same results. Still others will never be able to reach that level of excellence. I highly doubt the models pictured in Playboy (and other magazines and television) got where they were by sitting around watching tv and eating potato chips and ice cream. I imagine most of them worked hard to achieve their figure. I have to say I admire them for that.

As Brent mentioned, we certainly did not pick up Playboy to “educate” the girls. Jenna simply was curious and asked to look through it. I see nothing inappropriate about her seeing pictures of naked women, just as we may see nude paintings, statues, and yes, even photographs in museums. It infuriates me that our puritanical society has put a stigma and shame on the beautiful human body. Sexual repression only creates sexual perversions. When our daughters are faced with anything in life, they never face it alone. We are always there to explain, discuss, answer questions, and ask them questions about what they think and how they feel. Jenna is not under the impression, nor is she concerned, that the body type in Playboy (and ALL the other hundreds of magazines in circulation) is what she ought to have. After looking through a couple of the magazines she lost interest.

@Brian - Obviously I was referring to Jesus as a god, not a man. Saint Nicholas was real, too. Jesus was not, as you suggest, a “huge figure” in his day. His popularity soared after his death. There is, as has been stated, doubt about his existence. On what evidence do you base your assertions?

@Jen - Thank you.

Attitudes that they wouldn’t have gotten watching TV, or reading an American Girl book!

I like that. And I agree. Our daughters watch very little television but they are very much little girls. I am trying to slow down, as much as possible, their maturity so they can enjoy just being kids. That might not come across in my blog. :(

@donteatpoop - I pulled the latest issue off the shelf to verify your assertion. Guess what??? You’re wrong. There is no such warning. Even if there were, it only applies to the selling of “adult content” to minors, not in allowing them to view it. The law is clear and I’ve provided the link to the appropriate statute above. Please review.

@Mack - Great story. Again, I appreciate that the police and child protective services conducted their investigation.

And, you’re absolutely correct, viewing pictures in Playboy is unlikely to cause any harm, especially under supervision and in the context of a loving and open family relationship.

@donteatpoop - With all due respect, your comment and logic are absurd. I’m sure sex goes on at the Playboy Mansion, but so does eating and working and sleeping and exercising and … In fact, all those things go on at my house, and hopefully at yours.

Do men masturbate to Car & Driver Magazine? Perhaps. Do some men masturbate to the images in Playboy Magazine? Most certainly. Then again, some boys masturbate to the lingerie section of the Sears Catalog. I think Playboy prints nudes of beautiful women because that’s what the readers like to look at, not because that’s what gets them off. The pictures in Hustler and Penthouse are intended to arouse. Do some research. There is a HUGE difference!!!

@sdf - From Answers.com:

Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

There are several definitions of the term pornography. Perhaps what you need is a more comprehensive dictionary. I personally don’t characterize Playboy Magazine as pornography. As I’ve stated, many people do. It’s not as black and white as you suggest. I don’t think Playboy’s primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. I also would bet that those who disagree with my assessment probably aren’t basing their opinion on first-hand knowledge.

In this month’s issue (July 2008) there is an article by Bill Maher about religion and his new movie, fiction by Denis Johnson, twenty questions to Lewis Black and an extensive interview of Dr. Drew Pinsky. There’s always The Forum, news, letters, jokes, movie reviews, fashion advice, gadget reviews and drink recipes. Would you say, judging the whole, that the primary purpose of the magazine is to cause sexual arousal? I think that is an absurd and indefensible position.

@Nevada -

I think that a more pertinent question would be “are you raising your children to be porn stars?” rather than “are you raising your children to be atheists?”

LOL. You’re right. What makes you think Playboy Photoshops the models? I’m not denying it, I’m just wondering on what evidence you base your statement.

Should I not take my daughters to the symphony because they’ll probably never be as good as the musicians on stage? Should I not take them to the museum because they’ll probably never produce painting equal to Picaso or Michelangelo? This reasoning doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps you disagree that Playboy playmates are ideal or perfect. Perhaps you think (unfairly) that they’re superficial. Guess what? We are superficial beings. Open a copy of National Geographic Magazine and, in addition to human nudity, you’ll find animals of every type going through enormous efforts to attract a mate. You might not like our carnal base nature, but that’s the way it is. I don’t care if my daughters are playmates or librarians. One is not better than another. All I want for them is happiness.

Should I attempt to limit my girls’ exposure of the world to it’s averages?

@Kerry - Hi!!! I’ve been thinking of joining the Skeptics for the festivities tonight. Will you be there?

I think you’re oversimplifying the causes of eating disorders and issues many have with their image. The fact is that women who look like the women in the magazines have far greater opportunity, all else being equal, than other women. Like it or not.

It is perfectly acceptable to me that women pose nude for men to ogle if that’s what they want to do. Why does that offend you? Shouldn’t women be able to choose to do with themselves whatever they like? Do you think we should have evolved beyond sexual reproduction by now? As long as we are sexual beings we will be attracted to other sexual beings. That’s life, literally. Why should we deny that or pretend we’re “better” than that? You seem to be suggesting that sex and nudity and our carnal desires are baseless. Perhaps I misinterpreted your comment.

@Firgof - Thank you for your comments. There’s nothing wrong with a strong sexual appetite and something horribly wrong about making people feel guilty and shameful for those desires. That pressure, as I’ve stated, IS the problem and exacerbates the problems of child predation and unhealthy sexual activities.

@Evan - Thank you and good luck. Parenting is immensely pleasurable and rewarding. Indescribably so.

Jenna never said to me that she’d like to be a playmate or look like one. She has always been much more concerned about her looks than her sisters. What am I supposed to say, “you’ll never be that beautiful”? Give me a break. When I was a kid I wanted to be an attorney. It didn’t work out. Few things to turn out the way we envisioned them as children. The arguments about the ill effects of Playboy and popular media on little girls is based on little more than “gut feelings”. Children aren’t that stupid. At least mine aren’t. They know the difference between fiction and non-fiction. They understand that some people are rich, beautiful, smart and that others are not. I don’t think I need to sit them down and patronizingly tell them that they can’t be all they want to become or that being beautiful is a silly goal. It beauty more superficial than wealth? Are the smart women the happiest? Do they attract the best mates? It’s absurd. My daughters are beautiful and intelligent. If they weren’t, I’d love ‘em just the same.

@Claire - Wow! Thank you. Your comment nearly brought tears to my eyes.

I realize now that it’s healthy to be sexual. I realize now that sexuality does not equal perversion. I even realize now that I, myself, enjoy the beauty of human sexuality through whatever media, even porn.

Refreshing! I’m thrilled to hear you made it through the mire of sexually repressive attitudes. And so sorry about your mother. I have never experienced sexual abuse or known anyone close to me who has and who was willing to share their experience. I suppose the detectives were right that I am a wee bit naive on the subject. I read the news constantly, but that doesn’t quite cut it, does it?

@Fleur - Based on your comment I’d say you’re scapegoating Playboy when the fault is clearly your father’s.

Women are much more than their bodies, but they are their bodies, too. And that should be appreciated.

Sex sells, for better or worse. It always will. It’s a futile fight.

@Brandon St. Germaine - I love your passion. My experience with Playboy is very similar to yours. When I purchased my first issue, as an adult, it was out of curiosity. I came for the boobs and stayed for the amazing writing.

The police didn’t come because of Playboy, they came because a convicted sexual predator who was one of my Flickr contacts was making plans to come to Maine. They wanted me to be aware of the threat and to investigate whether I was involved in the plot. I’m grateful for their investigation, advice and information. I’m bothered they didn’t leave it at that.

@Kirsten - I love you, Babe. Sorry I’ve put you through this. You’re a troopah! Excellent comment. Thank you. I liked this bit.

Some people have natural abilities or gifts, and others have to work hard for the same results. Still others will never be able to reach that level of excellence. I highly doubt the models pictured in Playboy (and other magazines and television) got where they were by sitting around watching tv and eating potato chips and ice cream. I imagine most of them worked hard to achieve their figure. I have to say I admire them for that.

And this.

Sexual repression only creates sexual perversions.

And this.

When our daughters are faced with anything in life, they never face it alone. We are always there to explain, discuss, answer questions, and ask them questions about what they think and how they feel.

I know I sound like a Playboy evangelical. I do enjoy it very much. I love the progressive editorial content and the positive effect it has had on women over the last half century. Anybody care to recall what America was like for women in 1953 when Hugh Hefner published Playboy against intense public outcries? Do you know how he alone fought the US government who refused to deliver such filth to the mailboxes of Playboy’s subscribers? Is Pamela Anderson or Jennifer McCarthy shackled to Hugh Hefner’s bed? Playboy pushed the topic of feminism and sexuality into America’s consciousness at a period in our history when women were expected to serve their husbands and shut their mouths. Has the country spiraled into moral depravity and decay as a result of the horrible pictures in Playboy Magazine?

I would like to say how sorry I feel for you . . . I would LIKE to say that but since you posted pictures of children reading Playboy on the ‘net, it seems to me you are either monumentally naive or you were looking for some kind of controversy, so from me you will get zero sympathy.

I am old enough (41) to remember when sex was not being peddled on every tv show, billboard, and magazine. The reason that abstinence worked then (and it did) but doesn’t work now is that there used to be a general society-wide disapproval of exposing children to adult material. Now we have people posting pics of kids reading porn, trying to pass it off as a social statement (or worse, as art) and then moaning about their “rights” when someone dares to criticize.

Abstinence works if society is on board, but if parents and educators try to instill abstinence in teens, while every song, movie, book, magazine, and tv show glorifies premarital, consequence-free sex, then it’s not going to work. IOW abstinence education fails because it is consistently undermined by our culture: we say one thing and do another. But to blame abstinence only education for its own failure is like blaming antibiotics when they fail to stop an infection. It is a gross misunderstanding of the issue to think that AOE CAUSES teen pregnancy, the only problem with AOE is that it is inadequate to the task in the face of the sexual onslaught in our media. An onslaught that the author of this page is part of by trying to normalize sexually explicit material and to expose children to the same. As much as you might not like to think so, you sir are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Children are NOT little adults. They lack the emotional and mental capabilities to make rational judgments. Treat them like adults and the will grow up to be spoiled, self-absorbed REAL adults–the kind who would post pics of their kids reading Playboy.

And to those who think that porn is no big deal, or even “beautiful”, I have known several workers in the sex industry, and I think that they would be able to set you straight about how “wonderful” their lives are.

And just to head off the ubiquitous finger waving, I am a registered Libertarian, atheist, and father of 3 well-adjusted children.

So there.

wow. what a ride.

I’ve got to echo the concerns of the readers who don’t think Playboy is a realistic standard for girls to aspire to. It’s not that they shouldn’t be looking at Playboy, though. It’s that there’s so much else they should be looking at in addition.
The key problem with Playboy is that the standard it presents is so prevalent in our culture and media. There are so few examples of different body types in a sexualized context, saying “looking like this can be sexy.” Going to the beach wouldn’t count, even a nude beach, because that’s not a sexualized context.
Likewise, there’s nothing wrong with girls hearing the viewpoint that they should want to please men, but if it’s the only thing they hear, maybe pleasing themselves becomes less important to their self-esteem. Feminist theory has this great concept called “the male gaze,” which you might be familiar with, which basically means that things in our culture are so often designed for the viewing pleasure of men. It’s a sense of being watched and judged, and this cultural standard is so all-pervasive that even actresses in “chick flicks” are made up, lit, and shot according to this standard, often more so than their male counterparts. And since it is all-pervasive, it means that as a parent, you have to look twice as hard to find alternatives. You can’t just assume that since your children haven’t brought up wanting to look like that, they haven’t internalized that desire to some extent. Cultural standards are insidious that way. The problem isn’t that they’re looking at Playboy; it’s that there’s so little out there for them to compare it to.

I totally agree with the “no fictional believing” thing you have. That’s really smart, no fictional characters, just fact for the kids. It’s kinda like talking down to them, like they’re dumb, anyway. I wish every parent was like that.

(hoping bbc code works here)

[quote]@donteatpoop - With all due respect, your comment and logic are absurd. I’m sure sex goes on at the Playboy Mansion, but so does eating and working and sleeping and exercising and … In fact, all those things go on at my house, and hopefully at yours. [/quote]

My logic is absurd, but you don’t think that playboy is designed to arouse? How amuzing.

Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying; there’s nothing wrong with Playboy, and there’s nothing wrong with nudity. But my “absurd logic” is based in reality, unlike your ideals. If a man tells you he’s going to the Playboy mansion, what do you think the part is that has him excited? Steaks? I doubt it. The reason I brought the mansion and Hugh up in the first place was to reinforce a fact that you are denying; the pictures of women in Playboy are designed to arouse. Plain and simple. I’m not sure if it’s possible to be more clear than that.

There are plenty of solid articles in Playboy, I’m not arguing that. The first time I bothered reading the articles I was impressed with the content. The photo sections are, as you mentioned, tasteful. They are not suitable for my children, but that’s a personal preference. As long as you are teaching your child about right and wrong you’re doing fine.

But to deny that the pictures are specifically made to arouse, and that you don’t seem to recognize that the air-brushing does not distort how beauty is percieved and may have long term effects on your child’s psyche, is what is truly absurd.

[quote]The pictures in Hustler and Penthouse are intended to arouse. Do some research. There is a HUGE difference!!![/quote]

The explicitness of sexuality in Hustler, Penthouse, and countless others does not discount Playboys intent to arouse. You’re comparing a stripper to a hooker and denying that the former intends to arouse just because she doesn’t go all the way.

Evil, I respect your opinion, because clearly you have thought about this, but I believe you are wrong.

While all of the sexually saturated surroundings, (+10 points for alliteration,) that we are exposed to today does not help abstinence only education, it is not the reason it doesn’t work. Human beings are inherently sexual beings, and we humans are the most sexually charged during our teenage years.

Your claims of abstinence education working when you were a teen are either false, or a result of sentimentality.

Teens WILL have sex, and it’s up to the parents to make sure that the teenagers approach it informed, which is impossible if they are only told: “if you have sex, you WILL catch AIDS and you WILL die.”

Nudity is not even inherently sexual, which is all Playboy contains. It is only viewed as sexual here in America because of outdated and foolish conservations.

It is worrisome that anyone would think that *Playboy* presents a ‘healthy’ or ‘normal’ view of human sexuality.

Not only does it contribute to a cultural environment in which plastic surgery is the only real route to ‘feminine beauty’, it also implicitly suggests that people are much less private and much more overtly sexual than they actually are.

Not only are these things certain to confuse your daughters, they *will* be terribly damaging to their self-esteem.

Unfortunately, you are subconsciously telling your daughters that they must be ‘pretty’ in order to be ‘true’ women.

For someone so bent on getting rid of ‘fiction’ and presenting ‘facts’, you are doing a pretty good job of inflicting your own skewed male fantasy world on your children.

I’d call that hypocrisy, wouldn’t you?

I can see both sides of this; though I completely agree with your standpoint I can see why the police would want to investigate.

What disturbs me most in this saga is the person(s) who alerted the authorities. Flickr has very strict rules and is not a forum that anyone serious about grooming a child for nefarious means would advertise on anyway. It takes a warped mind to read that into a family picture on a family site.

The religious question in the second police visit also worries me and makes me glad to be Eurpoean. Raising a child without a religious backing does not mean raising them without a moral grounding.