This same controversy erupted with the publication of Maurice Sendak's In the Night Kitchen. That was more than 35 years ago.

The more "cultural conservatives" change, the more they stay the same.

In Europe, shampoo commercials show bare breasts. That would also never happen in America.

Uggggggg. Why are Americans so hung up on nudity?

Well, nothing worse than children book in schools here that have pigs getting their heads chopped off with a chainsaw, mothers suiciding and two boyfriends kissing (I'm not homophobe but um, it's aimed to 6 years old. They're still at the "Where do babies come from" stage.)

What I find so hypocritical is the fact that we portray an insane prudeness over benign things like this, but we as a country are the single biggest market for pornography *and* we are the biggest *producers* of that pornography.

*Sheesh*
[My interest in moving to Canada only continues to grow.]

I'm glad the publisher requested the changes. I wouldn't want my young boys to see the naked paining. Girls, I'm not as concerned. Boys tend to be affected in negative ways by nudity...

Probably because a lot of Americans aren't terribly attractive without their clothes.

@TWinter: "Americans" aren't hung up on nudity. It's a small, vocal minority of Puritan prudes that have been making the rest of us miserable since the 1600s.

Prudes.

@Ben Popken: *packs bags* see ya!

@Ben Popken: And as we all learned in Eurotrip,

"Jenny, this is Europe. They have orange juice ads with lesbians and dildos."

Seriously, the time people notice this is when other people point it out.

What I love is that the article doesn't even say that there are any angry parents -- just that the publishers are afraid there might be. And the sad thing is, they're probably right.

Any parents who take their children to an actual museum would be exposing them to much more explicit artwork, but I suppose for the vocal minority it's more important to protect a child from imaginary breasts than it is to attend to his cultural education.

I have a replica of Rodin's Age of Bronze on a small table in my entryway. On Halloween, a young girl spied the sculpture during Trick or Treat and quickly exclaimed, "He's got a naked man in there!"

I'm sure her parents were horrified.

@rustyni: "You know America was founded by prudes. Prudes who left Europe, because they hated all the kinky, steamy European sex that was going on. And now I, uh, Cooper Harris, will return to the land of my perverted forefathers and claim my birthright, which is a series of erotic and sexually challenging adventures." Again, wisdom from Eurotrip.

Pathetic. America has become a joke of religious nutjobs, fear of free speech, and oppression. The rest of the world advances, and we put religious morons like GW in office to regress us even further into the 1400's.

Simple solution - Don't buy the book if you don't think it is appropriate for your children. Everybody is happy.

I'm all for protecting kids from porn, and it sure sounds like this isn't porn at all.

Simple nudity - I'm not against that either, but "They have orange juice ads with lesbians and dildos" sounds a little over the top, or am I missing sarcasm?

Now, since nudity is as common and unremarkable in Europe, then I doubt the items in the book were that important. (I have not seen the book so I can be wrong) Just more of the same old same old. Why not a little bit of touch up to sell them in a different market? I doubt the US is only place that has such things done.

Well, I'm sure all this controversy would just go away quickly if the publisher pointed out to the "concerned parents" that at least the depictions of naughty bits are not depictions of GAY naughty bits!

(Whatever that means; I'm not a conservative whackjob so I can't really comprehend what passes for their thought process).

@HalOfBorg: Maybe you haven't seen the book, but you did see the picture at the top of the article, right? That's from the book.

No one would have noticed at all if the publisher hadn't raised the issue.

How about putting a parental advisory on the cover? I bet they'd sell twice as many copies of the book that way.

@SCUDDER I'm surprised the next thing that happened wasn't this scenario: Little girl tells parents, parents dial 911 to complain, police arrive at your door, you explain that it was a statue, police feel stupid for coming out for that so they think of something to search your house for, you refuse, police become belligerent, SWAT is called in, News vans arrive and report on a siege on the home of a man who was exposing himself to trick or treaters and it all ends up with you tased or shot. This is our America. This is what we face everyday. You KNOW this is totally conceivable.

@alfista: Unfortunately there are plenty of religious nutjobs and other whackos here in the USA that insist they know how to raise your family better than you do, and that if these books are allowed here in the US then your children will undoubtedly see those filthy pictures because you're such a lousy parent. So in the name of God, to protect your children, they must prevent that book from ever going on sale in the USA unless it's properly censored.

Oh I forgot to add - Reactions from neighbors include these gems: "Well, if he didn't do nothing wrong, why didn't he just let the police in...he must have had something to hide." People in comments sections of Blogs that report the story post similar reactions...all blaming the innocent SCUDDER. You see, in America, we LOVE the DADDY OPPRESSORS we love the big tough right wing...it's a strong solid wing that PROTECTS us and who knows what danger lurks when you are npt under the shelter of that wing.

@FuturShoc: We as Americans are not great consumers of pornography in spite of being prudes, no, we are great consumers of pornography because we are prudes.

@Antediluvian: I have no problem with that. MAYBE - just maybe - airbrush it a tiny bit, but OK for any book by my standards.

I'm not saying I'd airbrush it, but I can see why some people might want it.

And any art book show more and better.

The problem is you have to have standards, or you end up with anything at all, and just browse a few hardcore webpages and imagine kids seeing that every day.

The hard part is creating standards that WORK, and then applying them with COMMON SENSE, instead of "Zero tolerance" crap.

@TWinter: Because we are told to be by a very vocal minority who currently run this country with a iron fist. And I am not talking about any one party, but the entire of DC. Both sides, the religious right and the communist left are extreme in their views against any form of sexuality feeling it immoral. Basically we live in a new Victorian era, and it will take a major upheaval to change that.

@IphtashuFitz: actually, it's a nice thing to preserve a child's innocence until they're at least old enough to even comprehend sex. even in europe and alot of R rated movies, a penis is almost never shown (which is on the statue)...probably because it's more socially acceptable for a female to be nude instead of a male, but thats another rant.

i don't know what age the author geared this book for but personally, before buying a children's book, i'd skim through it before buying it and then decide if i want my child to have it, instead of yelling at the author.

You are kidding me right? In fifth grade there was a sex-ed book on the shelf, and it was always a source of hilarity. It had illustrations. Not of people, mind you. Of robots. Yeah... Being raised in a censorship-free house and access to the internet, It always made me laugh my ass off. They weren't even humanoid! They were square things with vague imitations of genitalia. They had the little dome-shaped heads, and a tesla-coil shaped... *cough*.
It was written, published, sold in America, AND ten times worse than this.
Apparently, in the last fifteen years, our country has lost it's *snicker* tesla-coil and ball bearings.

I dont blame the publishers for being skiddish of the puritain patrol in here in the US.

I think the pics in question are harmless.

It's been like this for a while. Violence in mainstream media is acceptable in the US, where sex and nudity isn't. In Europe, it's the exact opposite. If you ask me, the only reason Canada hasn't followed it's sensible European cousins' examples is because our media is so drowned out by that of the US.

Really, what's worse? Showing children violence without the outcome of what that violence does (blood, gore, horrific pain), or nudity (part of life)? Not showing children the outcome of actions is (IMHO) child abuse. Of course, these are the same religious prudes keeping abstinence-only sex ed in schools, so I guess it's typical.

And by the way "Walk Hard - The Dewey Cox Story" had the best joke of the use of full frontal male genitalia in a long time.

@Ghede: There was a book in my elementary school library explaining *ALL* the facts of life with illustrations of anatomy. It never hurt me, but of course I was also raised in a house where you called it a penis or vagina, and no one snickered.

*Monty Python's*

Full frontal nudity??!?!!!?

@IrisMR: Sorry, but despite your denial, you are a homophobe if you think a 6 year-old seeing two men giving each other a kiss (not a big, sloppy one, mind you) will traumatize them. Or worse.

Kids understand love and family and they only need a very superficial understanding of relationships; older kids learn that adults sometimes have their own time together and occasionally they can make a baby.

My partner and I have a number of kids in our life and they understand that we love each other like their mommy and daddy love one another. They don't need to know that daddy likes to stick his penis in mommy's vagina and that most of the time they're hoping NOT to make a baby as a result. They don't need to know that other people do different things with their genitalia.

A few months ago I was back visiting my family and we were sitting around in my Grandma's living room talking. My niece and nephew were getting a little rambunctious so my mom suggested playing a variation on 20 Questions where people take turns guessing who somebody is thinking of. After various folks like Clifford the Big Red Dog, Curious George, Brad Pitt (courtesy of my 6 year old niece) were guessed, it became my 4 year old nephew's turn. We all asked him questions and after establishing that it was a real person who was a male, somebody asked if he was a member of our family. He quickly said "yes" and then looked over at my mom for a moment for reassurance and then repeated, "yes" while nodding his head. When it was finally revealed that the person in question was my partner, he looked at my mom again and said, "Uncle X is in our family, right?" to which my mom replied something like, "Yes, honey. Uncle Y is my son just like your daddy is my son. Your daddy loves your mommy so she's my daughter and your Uncle Y loves Uncle X so he's my other son."

He just nodded and said "Oh, OK" and started playing with his Thomas trains.

He didn't need any more information and his curiosity was sated. And my 6 year-old niece just smiled, looked at me, and rolled her eyes slightly as if to say, "How funny that he even questioned that Uncle X is part of our family!"

Don't underestimate children. They are smart and comprehend some things that adults have ignored or have developed prejudices against. And if they don't understand, that's what Parental Guidance is for. A trusted and loved authority figure can gently introduce concepts and answer questions such as "why is that statue not wearing underwear to cover his pee-pee?"

It's only the prudes and haters of the world that try to insert evil or wickedness into things they don't understand. (Or are possibly denying within themselves.)

I ran an event this past weekend where 200 people rode the subway in their underwear. I'd say a good 98% of the other riders laughed, but I did get some flack from the other 2% about how "awful" and "uncomfortable" it made them feel. Good thing I didn't take my pants off and show my tiny children's-book-sized wang.

Reminds me of the movie Demolition Man, all babies are created in lab test tubes. Is this the future of America? High-Tech, safe, and sexless? I'm waiting for the three sea shells.

@tinmanx: Excellent sea shell reference.

It's our way. Watching someone do drugs and get their heads shot up with bullets? A+ television. See a nipple and its LAWSUIT time.

Jesus, America, this is NOT PORNOGRAPHY.

Clearly the publisher has never read Everybody Poops or Breasts, both fabulous books for teaching children.

Both with nudity!

@HalOfBorg:

Because censorship of any kind is wrong.

Yes, that means I disagree with all of the anti-anti-semitic and anti-hate-speech laws in Europe as well. I can at least UNDERSTAND those, though, since they don't want a repeat of last time.

I can't understand why we're so hung up on this BS in the USA.

@tinmanx:
Wasn't there a Sylvester Stalone movie with Westley snipes in it like that? Where in order to have sex, you both wore a helmet with good feelings coming from it?

@no.no.notorious:

Don't understand what you're talking about in the first paragraph there.

"Innocence" is why so many children are snatched up by strangers at the mall - parents don't want to 'scare' them by telling them about all the bad people in the world.

@HalOfBorg:

One man's "standards" are another man's censorship.

Schools should be a little careful of what they show the children, and parents can do what they like... but they shouldn't be allowed to dictate 'appropriate free speech' to anyone else.

@Rey: You're an idiot, and you are what I call an alarmist. You're not tolerant, you're overtolerant, over pc, and absolutely inhuman. Whenever you see something that MIGHT be interpreted as intolerance, even though it is stated by the person they are NOT homophobic, you go ahead and claim it is intolerance so you can jack off to it and write a gigantic rant of self righteousness that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

That pushed out of the way, I didn't say it would TRAUMATIZE them. Imagine the kid that doesn't even know the birds and bees. Sees two guys necking each other in a book where the guy hugs and kisses the other guy that was utterly sad for losing his lunch box as if it was the world to him. Now change the guy for a girl.

Is that any better? No. It is not. First, to a grown up that strikes me as a massive overreacting from a guy. Second, the kid doesn't even know the basic of life and probably hasn't even caught mom and dad (Or dad and dad or mom and mom, since you are absolutely stuck up on the idea that I need to write every politically correct options) having sex by mistake. Or giving themselves a long and sexy kiss. Now he opens that book and sees that. For a lunchbox. When the best he sees usually is probably just a peck on a cheek in small cartoons.

WOW.

It should be OK as long as there's not a Target logo painted around the statue's crotch.

@Rey:
Wow, what a huge, self-affirming, long-winded diatribe of the obvious! How did homosexuality get in this conversation?

Listen, I don't wear my blue eyes as a badge of honor. Why would you your sexuality? Both conditions are equally pertinent to this issue, that is, not at all!

Children shouldn't even be allowed to take a bath without a bathing suit. What if they saw their own genitals!?! Just think of the harm!

I hit the submit a bit too fast.

Anyway, now picture the parent. Dad or mom. He's watching TV. Then the kid comes in and goes "Dad (mom, shemomdad, whatever), what are they doing? Why are two guys kissing over a lunchbox?"

Now dad pauses for a minute. That kid is 6 years old. He might know the birds and bees nonsense but nothing else. The kid doesn't even know what puberty is, what libido is, what sexual orientation is. You know, you gotta start slow. Explain that to make a baby you need a mommy or a daddy (IT'S A FACT OF LIFE, NOT AN HOMOPHOBIC COMMENT. Let's not get into sperm donation, for sake, he's 6.). Then you have to explain the variants that are probably not even necessary to be known at that age since the kid is still clueless on what sex he prefers.

Is that necessary. No. I think not. Let the kids be kids. No need to add up politically correct material in every darn book. To make a baby you need, BY NATURE'S WAY, a mom and a dad. And you don't have to show mom and dad having sexy time, okay?