One of the photos involving the boys appeared in a full-page ad in the New York Times (2/17/99) and was scheduled to appear on a huge billboard in Manhattan's Times Square. The same photo also appeared, along with the other photo of the boys, in a two-page spread in Martha Stewart Living (3/99) and, along with the photo of the girls, in a two-page spread in The New York Times Magazine (2/21/99).
Calvin Klein yanked the kiddie underwear ad campaign the day after launching it, because of the public outcry that erupted.
Had the new kiddie underwear ads been morally innocent and modestly displayed, there would have been no criticism, no matter what company name they bore. Because the manner of display and content of the ad photos raised questions, many quickly resolved any doubts against Calvin Klein; and they were right to do so.
A second factor is that these are clear definition, full-page ads. Displaying adult underwear ads in such a format often transforms what would otherwise be unobtrusive and at least tolerable ads into appeals to lust or assaults on decency. Large, clear definition ads mean more bare flesh and greater sensual appeal. But here, it is kiddie flesh that grabs the attention.
A third factor, in my view, is that these ads are not morally innocent. A classic example of moral innocence would be a loving mom shooting a roll of film of her two small boys, clad only in their briefs, while the played spontaneously with each other on the family couch. Sex was the last thing on her mind, but when the photos are developed a friend points out that in one photo a bulge in one boy's briefs looks like his penis pushing out and in another photo the other boy's finger is positioned where his penis would be. The two laugh and the photos go into the family album, along with the others, where they belong. This is innocence.
But with CK ads, we are not talking about mom or about photos destined for a family album. We are talking about professionals who have purposefully chosen two of many photos to appear in full-page ads which clearly show details of underwear bulges and body part positions. CK defenders imply or assert that only dirty old men would see something sexual in the prominent bulge in one boy's briefs and the position of the other boy's clearly visible finger. But it is not just men who have noticed such things.
"Law enforcement investigations have verified that pedophiles almost always collect child pornography or child erotica...Child erotica is a broader and more encompassing term than child pornography. It can be defined as any material, relating to children, that serves a sexual purpose for a given individual...If pederasts can get aroused by looking at unobtrusive and bland boy's underwear ads in old Sears or J.C. Penney catalogues, then I assume they can get far more aroused by looking at full-page boy's underwear ads purposefully designed to grab attention. I also assume that if a "typical guy" leafing through The New York Times Magazine would be "stopped cold" by a full-page ad depicting two 18-year-old girls, clad only in underpants and bras, dancing on a couch, then a "typical pedophile" attracted to small girls would be "stopped cold" by a full-page ad depicting two small girls, clad only in underwear, dancing on a couch.For investigative purposes, child erotica can be divided into the categories below...
Child erotica must be viewed in the context in which it is found. Although many people might have some similar items in their home, it is only the pedophile who collects such material for sexual purposes as part of his seduction of and fantasies about children. Many people have a mail-order catalogue in their home, but only a pedophile has albums full of children's underwear ads he clipped and saved from past catalogues...."
- Pictures, Photographs and videotapes of children. Examples include children found in the following: Photography, art and sex education books
- Candid shots
- Advertisements
Further proof that pedophiles are attracted to children dressed only in underwear is provided by the child porn case, United States v. Knox, 32 F.3d 773 (3rd Cir. 1994), where we find the following description of the materials at issue:
"The tapes contained numerous vignettes of...preteen females...striking provocative poses for the camera. The children were obviously being directed by someone off-camera. All of the children wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, underwear or other abbreviated attire while they were being filmed. The government conceded that no child in the films was nude, and that the genitalia and pubic areas of the young girls were always concealed by an article of clothing. The photographer would zoom in on the children's pubic and genital area and display a close-up view for an extended period...In some sequences the child subjects were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age."The Calvin Klein ad photos differ from the video tape depictions in the Knox case in that the CK photos don't zoom in on the genitals or pubic area. Presumably, the CK photos also differ because the CK subjects were not "dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age." But Mario Testino, the photographer who shot the CK ads, is quoted in the New York Post (2/17/99) as saying: "I wanted to portray the children with their own taste. Perhaps a bit more mature...rather than sexy."
Looking at the Calvin Klein kiddie underwear ad photos, I continue to wonder what Mr. Testino meant when he said that he portrayed these tykes "a bit more mature?" Is it the way they are dancing or gyrating? Or is it the fact that in each of the two photos of the boys, the "semi-defined genitals" (in the words of one CK defender) of one boy can be seen?
And, in my view, while the photos may not be child porn, they are neither morally innocent nor harmless.