Why is Nirvana's Nevermind Album Photo not classified as child porn?Watch
A baby being filmed for an album by a major record company, being distributed in mainstream stores. A photoshoot that was probably on record at the time as being attended by trusted professionals, and probably the parents of the child themselves.
However, it could very much be said that it is a form of abuse to display your naked child to strangers for money.
So, on that basis, I don't like the use of a naked child for that album cover.
It is not up to others to say that it is allowed because it's a metaphor. The final line is that the baby cannot consent to their naked form being seen by many strangers. So their naked image should NOT be used.
Would you think a Johnsons baby oil/no more tears shampoo or pampers commercial is porn?
There's nothing sexual about it.
There's a nice story for mum!
Sorry but I've been a Nirvana fan for years and I had to get in on the action