Whhhoaaaaaa, NOT my daughter but the guy who wrote this article....

Sex Education and Censorship in America

He and his wife let their daughter read Playboy magazine and he posted pictures of her reading Playboy on Flickr.

Next thing you know, KNOCK KNOCK, Feds. Then child services.

I dunno, it all seems a bit, wrong.....

Funny you should bring this up now. I don't know if you have been listening to the radio at all today but every half hour we have been hit with a news story that they want to start teaching Sex and Relationship classes to kids as young as 4. I know you are a parent, would you like your kids to take part in this?


I for one would not.

Sounds like an episode of South Park that starts out with milking a dog.

I wouldn't want them taking an actual class at that age as they don't need to know all the ins and outs at that age. That said, it depends what they teach them in the classes, if it's about the birds and the bee's in a kiddie friendly way and not buttsecks for instance, then I might be in favour but I'd want to know exactly what the class involved.

On the other hand, I seriously believe you have to have a healthy view of sex. By this I don't mean talking to your kids about dildos, positions ect, but being honest and unembarrassed when the subject comes up.

I was brought up in a really uptight, religious household when it came to things like sex and was told that strumming the pink bishop was a sin ect.

I'm totally open and honest with my kids and hope that they'll be balanced and healthy when they get older.

I agree with ya that kids know, or think they know far too much about sex at too early an age. At 4 years-old, IMO, they just need to know the bare basics if and when they ask, not be sat down in a class necessarily.

I seriously disagree with this guy letting his daughter look at playboy though, it's a wank mag for gods sake!

I disagree too. I dropped some comments over there stating why, too. We'll see if he keeps or deletes them.

I don't know why he lets her read them, they aren't educational at all.
Yea, so they have articles, big f**king whoop.
He is exposing her to porn, and granted, I don't think of that as abuse, but it's definitely not necessary.

Well the articles really are good, believe it or not.

And calling playboy "porn" is a gigantic stretch of the word.

His stance is basically that it is nudity and not porn. However, clearly the models are posed nude not for artisitic purposes but for arousal.

One more thing, if you want to educate your children about sex, there are many books out there.
My mother got me one when I was 5 and asked where babies came from.
I still have it, the drawings are adorable, hide nothing, and it tells the truth.

When the child gets older*, and needs to know about STDs and avoiding pregnancy, bring them to their regular physician and take the situation into your own hands. Make sure they get all the facts from a reputable source.

Because we all know kids don't believe their parents.

*The age of the child varies from parent to parent. But I would say for you to start bringing it up when they are around age 11. Because I lost my virginity to a grown man married with children, without a condom, while someone watched, and I was EXTREMELY young. My parents didn't talk to me about pregnancy and STDs. They only took care of the "where do babies come from?" part.

/babbling

But that's the point. I consider it porn if it's made to arouse people. It's not very good porn though, it's never gotten me aroused.

Maybe it's just been too long since I read Playboy, but I could hardly call it porn OR wank material. Unless things have changed since I last perused an issue, inner labia were rarer than a good decision by George Bush, and quite often female genitalia were obscured altogether. Coupled with the overzealous airbrushing, the effect was not unlike being at the "Real Doll" website.

I'm not advocating showing Playboy to children, but I would not be near as upset to find one of my sons with a Playboy under his bed as I would if he were going to www.fillinyourfavoritepornsite.com

Of course, at 4 years old, she shouldn't be exposed to any questionable material.

HAHAHAhahahahah

That made me lol Iate :D

I don't think the article mentions her age but judging by the picture on there she looks around 8-10.

Still not an age you want to encourage your daughter to look through Playboy :)

Jus' sayin'.
xD

They show vajay-jays more now.

If the ladies were only painted instead of photographed, it would be considered Fine Art and any attempt to call it porn would be denounced as barbaric and uneducated.

I understand where you're coming from but people don't hang the pictures from Playboy on their walls (maybe some people do).

Also, a painting requires a hell of a lot of skill whatever the subject is, taking photographs of naked ladies doesn't require the same level of talent, time, or skill.

The difference for me is that Playboy magazine is used primarily as an aid to arousal, I don't think anyone would deny that and a 8-10 yo girl has no business looking at material like that, IMO

Yeah, but most people don't beat off to paintings whereas the opposite is true for playboy.

I wouldn't let my daughter (or son, if I had one) look at Playboy, but for entirely different reasons. I'm a feminist in a housewife's body, and I wouldn't want her to think that I was "endorsing" the whole Playboy Bunny idea. The objectification of women, etc. I understand eventually she's going to see it, and I'll gladly talk with her about it when she does, but I wouldn't hand it to her and say "Here, this is natural and beautiful, take a look." It's not natural and beautiful- it's airbrushing and silicone.

I agree with most everything else he said, even if I don't agree with the inspiration for the article.

Somehow, I've never looked at a Playboy. I'm a bit curious now.

Hawt. Let me know if you need a third.

You've always gotta lower the tone eh, poop

Chinook, let me know if ya need a fourth.

What?!