Talk:Show Me!

Untitled

"It contains copious nude photographs, including children as young as ten touching the naked bodies of other people"

Although it doesn't state it, this statement implies something close to child porn. At the same time the Amazon review states that the photos in the book portray adults and children engaging in normal sensual and sexual behavior *appropriate to each age*. This needs to be correctly stated; the ambiguity is dangerous and wrong. Mozzerati 12:06, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

In Bibliographic details a link to 1. 1974: Zeig mal. Ein Bilderbuch für Kinder und Eltern Foreword by Helmut Kentler. Wuppertal is missing and 2. 1975: Show Me!: A Picture Book of Sex for Children and Parents St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-72275-3 is a wrong ISBN

POV

The article, especially the reviews section, needs more balance. Right now the article seems to exist to mount a defense of the book. The 1975 reception was definitely more heated than one slightly negative review and even if there are sexologists today who have a, shall we say, enlightened view of the material, that needs to be shown in context so we know if this is a majority or minority view.

I know that a number of libraries had individual local controversies about adding the book to their holdings, and this would be helpful material as well. --Dhartung | Talk 11:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Reviews section isn't so imbalanced as much as the con-side argument isn't well written. The clarity of the pro-side argument is providing the feel of bias.

Most offensive (to non-bias Wiki) is the line: "The 13 year-old daugther... SUMMED IT UP BEST:" "Summed it up best:" is ALWAYS an opinionated statement, and doesn't belong. Change to "Summed it up this way:"

It's also the ODD argument that's in contrast with two reviewers. The bias results from that it seems to tear at parents who are dutied with filtration of what their kids see, as if one would wish parents not filter kids perception at all.

The emphasis on "They're" is already apparent. Added bold emphasis is simply showing support for the quote. This should be removed if the quote is staying. Change to read, "... it's parents I'm worried about. [The parents] aren't ready yet". This would reduce the ambiguity without showing support for the quote.

--Cflare | Talk 8:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"The book is also analyzed in an article on "Picturing Sex Education" (Discourse Volume 27, Number 4 / December 2006)". Discourse is a journal that is only published triannually and hence doesn't have a fourth issue. I've tried to locate the article so that it can be cited correctly but was unable to find it at all. I think this point requires further clarification (who authored the article, confirmation of its publication details) or should be deleted. It doesn't appear to be a deceptive entry but needs clarification so that it could actually be of use to someone who wished to read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.124.250 (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last Link

Is the last link on the page a real review, or simply a pornographic website? 99.237.53.218 (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no, that really is the text of the book. I can see why you'd be confused though.—Chowbok ☠ 03:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links removed

I have removed two of the external links [1]. The entire text of the book? Copyright violation. All photos from the book? Copyright violation. Linking readers to a page that starts with peadophilic apologetics, without any sort of warning even? Not okay for so many reasons. (For those who don't know, boy lover is an in-group term for a paedophile that is sexually attracted to young boys). 86.178.167.166 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links restored

I have restored the two external links. The first link does NOT include the entire text of the book. It lists merely the English-language Prologue and captions to the photographs. The Russian-language version of Show Me!, the second link, is an abridged version, much shorter than the English-language one. (There were apparently many different editions worldwide.)

There are no copyright violations, at least in the USA. Show Me! has been abandoned by its USA publisher, St. Martin's Press, since 1982. I challenge anyone to get an official statement from St. Martin's Press that they are still claiming and enforcing copyright.

The anonymous individual who deleted these links asserts in a summary and conclusory fashion that the first link is a "paedophilic apologetic," yet s(he) cites no specific evidence from the text for this conclusion, merely stating that anything a so-called "boy lover" posts must be untrue and an "apologetic." However, this link accurately lists the English-language Prologue and captions to the photographs, so it is useful for the reader of this Wikipedia article.

Mark1958 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Link

I would like to second the concern about the penultimate external link. The site is dedicated to posting images of nude young boys. It does list the English translations, but the nature of the site is exploitative and immoral. From the page author's own introduction to his translation of the text of the book: "I'm not "just" a boylover, I happen to love kids. " The definition of "boylover" from www.en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boylover: "boylover (plural boylovers) 1. A male-oriented pedophile. " The relevance of the translation on the page is overshadowed by the damaging nature of the site itself. The link is inappropriate and as such I have removed it.

GwenFM (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the deleted link. That site is not "dedicated to posting images of nude young boys." And even if it were, so what? Isn't the nude body the work of Our Lord and beautiful in His sight? I guarantee you that there is and never was any "child pornography" on that long-established website, and if there were the authorities would take it down ASAP. GwenFM makes a summary and conclusory judgment that that website is "exploitative and immoral" merely because one sentence of the author's introduction states that he is a so-called "boylover." So what? The author is NOT advocating or promoting any illegal behavior or enticing anyone to commit any sort of a crime. In fact, I would have no objection to my own children reading that review.

If GwenFM would not like *her own* children to read that review, then I suggest she exercise control over their Internet-access. However, GwenFM, don't force your own views of "morality" on the rest of us by censoring what we may read here.

Mark1958 (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

This is a very well-written and researched article, but it seems to be entirely original research. 128.148.194.11 (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]