Making Babies: An Open Family Book for Parents and Children Together
Submitter: I weeded this 1970s gem from a community college where I work. Thankfully, despite its picture book status, it was not cataloged in JUV with all the other picture books. My boss refused to weed anything where the information was still applicable, but I felt this one had to go. Now, for the era, I am sure this was a huge break-through compared to telling kids lies about storks and cabbage patches. And I like the concept of a book to help adults talk to their kids about these concerns at that curious age. However, all those naked children…just too hippy for me. And the cats and dogs…
Holly: I like the idea of this book. It gives a story to read to the child coupled with extra ideas of things to say or ways to present the concept to the child, meant for the adult. I also like the correct use of terminology. I’ve edited out the genitalia in the pictures here with little pink butterflies (Sorry. It’s not a personal statement; just a courtesy for our potentially less-comfortable readers). The book does, indeed, have lots of naked children! Mostly, this particular copy, which Submitter mailed to me, is old. It’s ratty, the binding is on its last legs, and the cover art is all scruffed up. While I doubt children would notice what the woman in the picture below is wearing, it definitely dates the book (and the book is for adults as much as for children, if it’s truly an “open family book” to be read “together” as the subtitle indicates. I’ll spare you the picture of the cat giving birth and the one of the dogs humping. You’re welcome. Perfectly natural, of course, but…quite graphic.
Oh you prudish Americans. 😉
I agree we Americans are too prude, but I think it’s a horrible idea to post naked pictures of children on the internet. Even if it’s suppose to be “educational”, Pedophiles are all over the internet and they seek that stuff out. We all know what naked bodies look like, we don’t need to see naked kids, and it’s a little concerning you’d consider it prude to censor nude toddlers. Just sayin’.
Another label placing error. King Babies would be a great title though.
WHEN, exactly, did the sight of a naked baby (or child) become so inflammatory? Do those “less comfortable” folks assume children come out fully clothed fresh from the womb?
Did ALB put the covers on the privates, or were they on the actual book?
ALB is responsible for the butterfly “covers”. Holly and I have no problem with naked babies or naked anything in a library collection. This was only for the sake of the Internet and keeping our keep our PG(ish) rating. Between ALB getting stuck in some porn filters and the creepy element that seems to show up whenever we have naked anything featured, we do err toward a more modest post.
That’s what I thought. The above comments confused me. I have not problem with the covers. I tend to err on the side of modesty myself. 🙂
Darnit, I want to see the naked babies! Curious about the rate of circumcision in these illustrations and how it reflects the averages of the time.
Blame the pedophiles; my sister didn’t even want to take photos of her babies naked (she’d lay a washcloth over the genitals for the usual bath shots) because she was afraid either some pedo would get ahold of the photos or she’d be accused of child pornography.
Comments are closed.