The baby featured on the album cover of Nirvana's Nevermind is now twenty years old. A few years ago he, at age seventeen, recreated the photo–however, unlike before, his genitalia was covered by trunks.

When the album was released, the cover sparked controversy because his, um, penis was flagrantly displayed. Some stores wouldn't carry the album because of it, while others covered the image. Do you think the photo was in bad taste, or at all too blunt? Would you let your baby boy pose for a photo like that?

The cover was harmless and supposed to be funny. For decades you could turn on TV and see a naked baby's bare ass on a soap commercial. what's the difference here besides the "penis"? LOL

I don't think it was kiddie porn cause baby nudity isn't really as taboo or sexual in nature. Bad taste? Eh, maybe, but nothing to throw a stink over. However, I wouldn't let my kid pose for something like that. lol In today's day and age, they might arrest me for it anyway.

It's a naked baby with a penis. We all have one or the other...I don't think it's a big deal.

That album cover with the naked baby swimming underwater was so natural and appropriate that I can't believe it was an issue for the little pp that was showing.

It it ridiculous the overreaction that some ppl have to the most innocent nudity of children. I have a pic of my grandson being held by his father with his genitals showing.

In some cultures (as I have seen in National Geographic) the father will purposely display an infant son with his genitals showing as those cultures value males.

I have a pic of my cousin sitting naked on a step in Mississippi full frontal. IDK who took it but it was common practice to take pics of naked children in those days.

How about that beautiful Blind Faith album with the 11-year-old girl top free and showing her budding breasts. Of course the '70s were much more accepting of the nude human body.

(However, on a personal note, I wish they had shot this most recent one with the boy naked.)

I personally wasn't offended by the cover, but no I wouldn't let my son pose for a picture like that.

I wouldn't go so far to call it pornographic - or child porn - but IMO it was a little tacky. And no if I had a son, I wouldn't let him be exploited that way.

I have a feeling that boy is now hung like a donkey.
As for the cover, I have no problem with it...but wouldn't allow my baby boy to take the same pose.

JM130ELM wrote:

I wouldn't go so far to call it pornographic - or child porn - but IMO it was a little tacky. And no if I had a son, I wouldn't let him be exploited that way.

"Tacky" is exactly what I would call it. I wouldn't let my baby pose like that either.

What amaze's me is how people are so distracted by a naked baby that they miss the whole of what the cover was saying. Anyone care to guess?

And if I may, a little 101 word meanings:

por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-n¼g“r…-f¶) n. 1. Pictures, writing, or other material that is sexually explicit and sometimes equates sex with power and violence.

sex·u·al (sµk“sh›-…l) adj. 1. Of, relating to, involving, or characteristic of sex, sexuality, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions. 2. Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.

Pornography is not a photograph of a naked human body, at any age, unless it indicated sexual activity as in an erection, get it?