If you let the penis visible, there is still not that much remarkable. The picture was mainly about a baby swimming toward a bill used as a bait.

There is at least one picture of me (not on social media, admittedly), as a toddler, buck naked in a pool with another toddler. It was (and still is) and innocent picture even with the visible genitalia. So no, it's not automatically "depravity" to show nude people, even kids.

Don't be mistaken, I'm not for child exploration, stuff like kids beauty pageant, or over-exposed young people are downright creepy, but I'm reacting at the idea of making any representation of kids taboo.

> If you Photoshop the penis out, there would be nothing remarkable about the cover.

Says you.

> Decades later, Nirvana is still a topic of discussion because of it (and still earning royalties), ...

I think the album's popularity and the royalties aren't solely attributable to the cover :)

> We don't need to exploit children as a form of creative expression...

There is no pornography, no sexual abuse, in fact there's nothing sexual about it at all, and the parents were paid for the photo. Please help me understand how it constitutes exploitation.