it's plenty strange, and there may be some merit to conservatism breeding perverts. but we lead the world in a lot of criminal activity and i find it hard to believe all of those are tied to conservative values, so i don't see any reason to single out sex crimes as being caused by conservatism. i think poverty and abuse and marginalization play a much larger role than the church you had to go to as a kid.
as to bathtime, i suppose there's some sense there. but i dunno... im having fun when i have sex with my gf, yet i doubt she'd be cool with me snapping a bunch of photos and taking them to walmart for the developing guy to peek at. which is why i say parents do weird things things they'd never consider appropriate to do elsewhere become ok when it comes to their kid.
I mean, if we're all so prudish about nudity, why don't you send me some naked pictures of you right now? Or are you not comfortable with that?
well ... no one is saying everything is tied to some conservatism ... the issue here is whether or not bathtime photos warrants suspicion on the parents ... in many parts of the world - that would be a no ...
if you think naked pictures of your gf while you're having sex is the same as bathtime pictures - i can see why we don't see eye to eye ... this applies to your last point too ...
it's plenty strange, and there may be some merit to conservatism breeding perverts. but we lead the world in a lot of criminal activity and i find it hard to believe all of those are tied to conservative values, so i don't see any reason to single out sex crimes as being caused by conservatism. i think poverty and abuse and marginalization play a much larger role than the church you had to go to as a kid.
as to bathtime, i suppose there's some sense there. but i dunno... im having fun when i have sex with my gf, yet i doubt she'd be cool with me snapping a bunch of photos and taking them to walmart for the developing guy to peek at. which is why i say parents do weird things things they'd never consider appropriate to do elsewhere become ok when it comes to their kid.
I mean, if we're all so prudish about nudity, why don't you send me some naked pictures of you right now? Or are you not comfortable with that?
well ... no one is saying everything is tied to some conservatism ... the issue here is whether or not bathtime photos warrants suspicion on the parents ... in many parts of the world - that would be a no ...
if you think naked pictures of your gf while you're having sex is the same as bathtime pictures - i can see why we don't see eye to eye ... this applies to your last point too ...
Ok, naked pictures of her in the bath then. Or you. Why are you not comfortable with that? It's just nudity.
And no, I don't think naked photos at bathtime necessarily warrants suspicion of the parents. But neither you nor I knows what the clerk knew at the time. Did s/he know it was the parents that took them? How much do they see of the photos? What else was in the set? Maybe the guy jumped the gun, but let's face it, the whole anti-nudity reason for this happening doesn't make sense.
Even the most prudish people I know are not going to turn you over to the police for violating their conservative snesibilities. This employee was not trying to play judge and jury on the morality of nudity. They clearly thought something was alarming, or else they'd not have sent it to the cops. A general aversion to nudity would not have had the same result... to flip my hypo on its head, do you really think this would have happened if it had been a 30 year old woman shown naked in the pictures? Of course not, because this wasn't some prudish crusade about nudity. It was an underpaid and probably not particularly educated kid that developed some photos, saw naked kids and said "I don't know what to make of this, I'm going to hand it off just to be safe." They thought they might be seeing something illegal, and gave it to someone that knew better (or should have, since, apparently, the police did not).
Maybe it was a poor judgment call, or a bit alarmist, but I see nothing in this story to indicate it all started because a hyper-religious walmart film developer decided somebody was taking sinful photos and should be punished.
Ok, naked pictures of her in the bath then. Or you. Why are you not comfortable with that? It's just nudity.
And no, I don't think naked photos at bathtime necessarily warrants suspicion of the parents. But neither you nor I knows what the clerk knew at the time. Did s/he know it was the parents that took them? How much do they see of the photos? What else was in the set? Maybe the guy jumped the gun, but let's face it, the whole anti-nudity reason for this happening doesn't make sense.
Even the most prudish people I know are not going to turn you over to the police for violating their conservative snesibilities. This employee was not trying to play judge and jury on the morality of nudity. They clearly thought something was alarming, or else they'd not have sent it to the cops. A general aversion to nudity would not have had the same result... to flip my hypo on its head, do you really think this would have happened if it had been a 30 year old woman shown naked in the pictures? Of course not, because this wasn't some prudish crusade about nudity. It was an underpaid and probably not particularly educated kid that developed some photos, saw naked kids and said "I don't know what to make of this, I'm going to hand it off just to be safe." They thought they might be seeing something illegal, and gave it to someone that knew better (or should have, since, apparently, the police did not).
Maybe it was a poor judgment call, or a bit alarmist, but I see nothing in this story to indicate it all started because a hyper-religious walmart film developer decided somebody was taking sinful photos and should be punished.
will all due respect - your persistence with the naked pictures of myself remind me of another person on this board who likes to bait people with senseless arguments ...
i don't know if it was a picture of a 30 yr old woman if this employee would have reported it ... again - i don't agree with the initial submission so without truly knowing what motivated this employee - i wouldn't be surprised if he/she would submit them to police ...
what it boils down to is why would bathtime pictures of kids be enough of a reason to raise an alarm? ... you have some plausible reasons but at the same time so does some conservatism ... as much as toronto is not all of america - americans are diverse state to state, county to county, town to town ... you may think someone couldn't be that conservative - but it's out there ...
will all due respect - your persistence with the naked pictures of myself remind me of another person on this board who likes to bait people with senseless arguments ...
i don't know if it was a picture of a 30 yr old woman if this employee would have reported it ... again - i don't agree with the initial submission so without truly knowing what motivated this employee - i wouldn't be surprised if he/she would submit them to police ...
what it boils down to is why would bathtime pictures of kids be enough of a reason to raise an alarm? ... you have some plausible reasons but at the same time so does some conservatism ... as much as toronto is not all of america - americans are diverse state to state, county to county, town to town ... you may think someone couldn't be that conservative - but it's out there ...
I have no clue who you're referring to, but it's a legit question, not baiting with senseless arguments. You keep saying it's all about people being too prudish. But obviously you draw the line somewhere too... you don't want just anyone seeing you naked. So why is that ok and normal but it's weird and prudish and overly conservative to say that maybe we shouldn't let just anyone see our kids naked too? I presume you wouldn't do it because you don't know me and you don't want some pervert using your nudity for cheap thrills because it's violative... yet it is some sign of absurd moral prudishness for someone to say we should extend that same caution to our children, knowing that there are plenty of people out there that would use your child running around naked on a beach or playground for cheap thrills?
I'm curious, since you say you wouldn't be surprised if the employee submitted nude adult pictures to police... why do you think they would do so? Even if they're offended, they know it's not illegal. You think they'd do it just to prove a point or something?
I don't doubt there are places where people are so opposed to and offended by nudity that anything is wrong in their eyes (I've been to Islamic countries that make the states seem like romans of old), but it seems to me you have nothing but total speculation that that was the cause of this incident. Yet you don't present it that way, you present it as absolute fact that you know for certain prudish conservative cultural norms led this person to turn these photos over. When the much more likely and logical conclusion is that child pornography is illegal, the employee saw naked children, and made a judgment call. Maybe it was a bad one, but there's nothing in the story to remotely suggest the judgment call had anything to do with moral opposition to nudity in general or religious values. Nothing at all.
I say all this as a guy that actually does think this country is way too finicky about nudity and sexuality (see the Janet Jackson book flap at the super bowl for a good example, and the histrionics that followed). I don't doubt we're a conservative country with outdated sexual norms. I just don't think this particular story has anything to do with that.
I have no clue who you're referring to, but it's a legit question, not baiting with senseless arguments. You keep saying it's all about people being too prudish. But obviously you draw the line somewhere too... you don't want just anyone seeing you naked. So why is that ok and normal but it's weird and prudish and overly conservative to say that maybe we shouldn't let just anyone see our kids naked too? I presume you wouldn't do it because you don't know me and you don't want some pervert using your nudity for cheap thrills because it's violative... yet it is some sign of absurd moral prudishness for someone to say we should extend that same caution to our children, knowing that there are plenty of people out there that would use your child running around naked on a beach or playground for cheap thrills?
...
I say all this as a guy that actually does think this country is way too finicky about nudity and sexuality (see the Janet Jackson book flap at the super bowl for a good example, and the histrionics that followed). I don't doubt we're a conservative country with outdated sexual norms. I just don't think this particular story has anything to do with that.
#1 I'm sorry, but there is no logical comparison between a picture of little kids naked in a bath tub and naked adults. I mean, are you seriously making this argument??? Obviously nudity is different for adults.
You can't be so worried about pervs out there... it's not like you'd post such pictures on Facebook, but it's pretty normal for families to have pictures of their kids naked, and keep them in the family photo albums... it's just funny!! There's nothing sexual about it.
This is not to say I'm not concerned about pedophile perverts, and the seemingly increasing number of them. In fact, I think there is a connection between sexual perversion and our fear of the natural self in this country. I think by setting up social norms that say there's something sexual about a naked toddler, or that there's something sexual about breastfeeding for chrissake, and that it's horribly inappropriate for such things to ever be seen in public, when really - it's NOTHING - I think this fucks with peoples' minds. So I think instead of becoming freaked out about innocent pictures of children playing, and reporting it to the authorities, we should figure out what has gotten us to the point where there are so many perverts?
Getting back to my family in Norway... where, again, they have zero issue with naked children. They sent us a calendar with pictures of my cousins running around naked because they thought it was funny, and it was! But in America, this would be thought of as insane. Meanwhile, my relatives in Norway could not be happier or saner! I'm friends with a lot my cousins on Facebook (yes, the same cousins who many years ago were naked in our family calendar), and they NEVER bitch about anything. Whereas many of my American friends find things to bitch about quite often in their FB statuses, haha.
This is what you will see in the middle of Norway's capital, Oslo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigeland_Sculpture_Park
A sculpture of naked men, women, and children twisted together to form a monolith. And there's nothing remotely sexual about it, unless you've been mindfucked.
Perverts are far more common here in the U.S. than in Norway, trust me on that.
Led Zeppelin's album Houses of the Holy was banned for several years in southern U.S. states due to the naked children on the cover. Are Led Zep pervs?
One more little story... When I was 10 years old, I spent about 6 weeks of the summer in Norway. The first day we went to the beach, I was shocked to see a woman sunbathing topless. My aunt noticed my surprise and said "Oh, that's normal here... you'll get used it to." Or something like that. She's right. It is normal, and it's something we all should be used to.
so ... by this logic - anyone can report anyone to the authorities ... just based on a "bad feeling" ...
it seems we agree on the response by the authorities - where your precautionary principle falters is that if everyone who had a bad feeling reported it - authorities would be inundated with cases that they might not actually get to the ones that are more critical ... it's sort of like calling 911 for a cold ...
there has to be some criteria - bathtime pictures amongst a bunch of vacation photos should not trigger that response unless you are like the OP said some sex-paranoid conservative who thinks nudity is a bad thing ... nothing in the article points to these pictures being anything than the innocent kind we all have seen or have ...
First of all, we haven't seen the pictures and the article was only from the parents' perspective, right?
Secondly, most people DO have common sense and don't call 911 for a cold, so my precautionary principle doesn't falter here at all.
You didn't answer my question, though, about which would be worse - non-abuse being reported or abuse not being reported. Think of that girl they just finally found after 18 years. What if the women who thought the little girls were suspicious hadn't reported it?
I would like to know at what age we should start being suspicious about naked photos of children.
Should we not be suspicious about naked photos of 15-year-olds? 12-year-olds? 10-year-olds? 7-year-olds? 5-year-olds? 5-year-olds who appear to be 7-year-olds? If the answer is so obvious, what is it?
And I ask this as someone who is totally anti-conservatism and who personally believes that everyone should be able to run around naked in public at all times. But, as soulsinging has pointed out, that's not the issue. The issue is what "should" raise a suspicion of child abuse. Once again - it's about CHILD ABUSE, not prudishness.
we should figure out what has gotten us to the point where there are so many perverts?
Personally, I don't think that we now have more perverts - I think they were there all the time. I think reporting abuse has increased greatly. Which is a positive thing, people are more willing to speak out against the abuse they have received/witnessed.
From what I know, I would say that a lot of abusers are incredibly secretive and would most definetely avoid taking their photos to be devoloped in a supermarket. They are hardly going to advertise what they are doing. I do think, without seeing the pictures, that perhaps the employee was being overcautious, but we don't know what they had experienced previously and what alarm bells went off in his/her head. I think that perhaps the authorities weren't educated enough in child protection and without knowing too much about the case I would query whether abuse specialists were called in for expert opinion.
I don't know if I'm a prude or not. I don't want to run round naked, but I don't mind if others do. We've got naked pictures of our son, in the bath, in a paddling pool in the garden. I can say with complete certainty there is nothing sexual about them, think we've even got video of him having his nappy changed. If we were in the park when he was little, where there was a public paddling pool, if he wanted to strip off and go in I had no objection, everybodies kids did it.
My theory is that if you think of a pendulum, in the past the majority of abuse went unreported and so the pendulum was way up on one side, as reporting increased the pendulum started to swing the other way, reaching it's peak on the other side with awareness at it's height and perhaps a little overcautiousness and perhaps a certain amount of alarmist behaviour. Personally I think that the pendulum is starting to move back towards the middle ground, where people will continue to report and the reporting would be dealt with in a calm, measured, well reasoned way.
I'm no expert, but certain things have happened in my family that have given me some experience. I think that if I thought a child was being abused I would probably act first and think later, which is probably why it's best left to fully qualified, trained proffessionals. Perhaps it wasn't in this case.
#1 I'm sorry, but there is no logical comparison between a picture of little kids naked in a bath tub and naked adults. I mean, are you seriously making this argument??? Obviously nudity is different for adults.
You can't be so worried about pervs out there... it's not like you'd post such pictures on Facebook, but it's pretty normal for families to have pictures of their kids naked, and keep them in the family photo albums... it's just funny!! There's nothing sexual about it.
This is not to say I'm not concerned about pedophile perverts, and the seemingly increasing number of them. In fact, I think there is a connection between sexual perversion and our fear of the natural self in this country. I think by setting up social norms that say there's something sexual about a naked toddler, or that there's something sexual about breastfeeding for chrissake, and that it's horribly inappropriate for such things to ever be seen in public, when really - it's NOTHING - I think this fucks with peoples' minds. So I think instead of becoming freaked out about innocent pictures of children playing, and reporting it to the authorities, we should figure out what has gotten us to the point where there are so many perverts?
Why is it different for adults? Everyone that responds to this says I'm nuts for saying it, yet not one of you is able to offer a logical distinction. You say photos of naked kids are not sexual... that is in the eye of the beholder. The kid is not behaving sexually, and the photographing parents probably doesn't have that thought in their head... but that doesn't mean there aren't people out there that will view such things sexually. Nobody here has said there's something sexual about a naked toddler, we're just saying there are people out there that will view it that way and that we should all be on our toes to spot abuse of children by such people.
I ask all of you... it's fine for your little cousins to be photographed naked and slapped on a calendar sent to family around the world... would YOU be willing to have photos like that taken of you and sent round the world to family?
I ask all of you... it's fine for your little cousins to be photographed naked and slapped on a calendar sent to family around the world... would YOU be willing to have photos like that taken of you and sent round the world to family?
It would depend on what context the photos were taken in. Years ago my husband sketched me naked and it did the rounds. I was also at a hen party once where we all went skinny dipping in a lake, there was a lot of pictures taken then, lots of people saw them, particularly at the wedding. There wasn't anything sexual in those contexts, neither would there be in a picture of a woman breast feeding. Some people take pictures of the birth of their child, that's not sexual either. I think it is easier to define what is sexual in a picture of an adult naked, based on pose, expression, environment.
I think in the case of a child it's harder to quantify what is sexual. As you say it's in the eye of the beholder. But my family photos, and probably most peoples with kids running around in the buff, in a paddling pool, or in the bath are perfectly innocent. Yes we all should be aware of abuse, and we should all report if we feel a child is at risk. But once, we've done our bit it should be handed over to experts that presumably know more about this. In my case I would probably follow it up to make sure something is done or request evidence that that child is safe.
I have no clue who you're referring to, but it's a legit question, not baiting with senseless arguments. You keep saying it's all about people being too prudish. But obviously you draw the line somewhere too... you don't want just anyone seeing you naked. So why is that ok and normal but it's weird and prudish and overly conservative to say that maybe we shouldn't let just anyone see our kids naked too? I presume you wouldn't do it because you don't know me and you don't want some pervert using your nudity for cheap thrills because it's violative... yet it is some sign of absurd moral prudishness for someone to say we should extend that same caution to our children, knowing that there are plenty of people out there that would use your child running around naked on a beach or playground for cheap thrills?
I'm curious, since you say you wouldn't be surprised if the employee submitted nude adult pictures to police... why do you think they would do so? Even if they're offended, they know it's not illegal. You think they'd do it just to prove a point or something?
I don't doubt there are places where people are so opposed to and offended by nudity that anything is wrong in their eyes (I've been to Islamic countries that make the states seem like romans of old), but it seems to me you have nothing but total speculation that that was the cause of this incident. Yet you don't present it that way, you present it as absolute fact that you know for certain prudish conservative cultural norms led this person to turn these photos over. When the much more likely and logical conclusion is that child pornography is illegal, the employee saw naked children, and made a judgment call. Maybe it was a bad one, but there's nothing in the story to remotely suggest the judgment call had anything to do with moral opposition to nudity in general or religious values. Nothing at all.
I say all this as a guy that actually does think this country is way too finicky about nudity and sexuality (see the Janet Jackson book flap at the super bowl for a good example, and the histrionics that followed). I don't doubt we're a conservative country with outdated sexual norms. I just don't think this particular story has anything to do with that.
naked pictures of adults and children are viewed differently - it should be pretty obvious ... i didn't make up this social construct but it exists ... hence your question makes absolutely no sense to me ...
i have not presented anything as fact - how is that possible based on a news article? ... in fact - in the post you quoted of mine i say that all your explanations are plausible as well as mine ... that is all ... again - we can only speculate as to what the wal-mart employee's reasoning is ...
First of all, we haven't seen the pictures and the article was only from the parents' perspective, right?
Secondly, most people DO have common sense and don't call 911 for a cold, so my precautionary principle doesn't falter here at all.
You didn't answer my question, though, about which would be worse - non-abuse being reported or abuse not being reported. Think of that girl they just finally found after 18 years. What if the women who thought the little girls were suspicious hadn't reported it?
sure ... i'm not sure what perspective the story is from ... the journalist i suppose ... there really isn't much detail ...
some people do call 911 for a cold ... frig someone called 911 because they weren't happy about service at burger king or something like that ...
you can hypothesize all the various scenarios as you would like but it boils down to this ... if naked pictures of kids during bathtime amongst a bunch of vacation photos warrants an investigation by the authorities - well, they would have to investigate a heckuva lot of families and that would surely overwhelm an agency to the point that maybe a real case of abuse is missed ... we DO need to stop child abuse but sending in parents for these kinds of photos is ridiculous in my mind ... at least have some bruises in the pictures or something but not them laughing and playing ...
Dear Amy: I often take my 5-year-old son to the public swimming pool.
When we get there, I have him change into his bathing suit in the men's bathroom. I have noticed, however, that a lot of parents let their kids change into their swimwear right in front of everyone.
I never let my son walk around naked at home, and I certainly don't want him to be naked in public.
I was taught that there are certain body parts that must remain covered at all times, and I have raised my son the same way.
He has asked me why girls don't have the same parts as he does, and I hesitate to tell him because I fear that by explaining the facts of life to him at such a young age he may get inappropriate ideas in his head.
I feel that it is a sign of irresponsible parenting to allow one's children to take off their clothes in public, as it makes them easy targets for pedophiles.
You really can't know for sure what kind of creepy people lurk around these seemingly kid-friendly areas.
Am I out of line?
Should I go ahead and tell my son about the facts of life?
First of all, we haven't seen the pictures and the article was only from the parents' perspective, right?
Secondly, most people DO have common sense and don't call 911 for a cold, so my precautionary principle doesn't falter here at all.
You didn't answer my question, though, about which would be worse - non-abuse being reported or abuse not being reported. Think of that girl they just finally found after 18 years. What if the women who thought the little girls were suspicious hadn't reported it?
sure ... i'm not sure what perspective the story is from ... the journalist i suppose ... there really isn't much detail ...
some people do call 911 for a cold ... frig someone called 911 because they weren't happy about service at burger king or something like that ...
you can hypothesize all the various scenarios as you would like but it boils down to this ... if naked pictures of kids during bathtime amongst a bunch of vacation photos warrants an investigation by the authorities - well, they would have to investigate a heckuva lot of families and that would surely overwhelm an agency to the point that maybe a real case of abuse is missed ... we DO need to stop child abuse but sending in parents for these kinds of photos is ridiculous in my mind ... at least have some bruises in the pictures or something but not them laughing and playing ...
Right, sending in the parents is where this became ridiculous... which is there the police took over. THEY screwed up. Walmart just followed their policy and left it in what they (wrongly) believed were more capable hands.
Right, sending in the parents is where this became ridiculous... which is there the police took over. THEY screwed up. Walmart just followed their policy and left it in what they (wrongly) believed were more capable hands.
are you saying walmart has a policy that says any naked pictures of kids are automatically sent to authorities?
I have no clue who you're referring to, but it's a legit question, not baiting with senseless arguments. You keep saying it's all about people being too prudish. But obviously you draw the line somewhere too... you don't want just anyone seeing you naked. So why is that ok and normal but it's weird and prudish and overly conservative to say that maybe we shouldn't let just anyone see our kids naked too? I presume you wouldn't do it because you don't know me and you don't want some pervert using your nudity for cheap thrills because it's violative... yet it is some sign of absurd moral prudishness for someone to say we should extend that same caution to our children, knowing that there are plenty of people out there that would use your child running around naked on a beach or playground for cheap thrills?
naked pictures of adults and children are viewed differently - it should be pretty obvious ... i didn't make up this social construct but it exists ... hence your question makes absolutely no sense to me ...
I see... so THAT social construst is perfectly normal and rational and adhered to by you without a fight, but any social construst that extends the "careful with your nudity" mindset to children is inherently a symbol of a sex-paranoid out of control conservative nation that we have to take a stand against by telling Walmart not to report naked pictures of kids anymore unless there's a smoking gun to indicate abuse?
I'm just saying... you say "I didn't make up this social construct" for adult nudity, yet you honor it and don't fight or question it. You just say "heck no, I'm not letting a stranger see me naked." Yet when the exact same construct is applied to child nudity ("hell not I don't want strangers seeing my kid naked"), you're ready to take up arms and make a stand against prudish sex paranoid values?
Right, sending in the parents is where this became ridiculous... which is there the police took over. THEY screwed up. Walmart just followed their policy and left it in what they (wrongly) believed were more capable hands.
are you saying walmart has a policy that says any naked pictures of kids are automatically sent to authorities?
Someone else in here posted that ALL nude photos had to be sent up the ladder at the photo place they worked at.
It would depend on what context the photos were taken in. Years ago my husband sketched me naked and it did the rounds. I was also at a hen party once where we all went skinny dipping in a lake, there was a lot of pictures taken then, lots of people saw them, particularly at the wedding. There wasn't anything sexual in those contexts, neither would there be in a picture of a woman breast feeding. Some people take pictures of the birth of their child, that's not sexual either. I think it is easier to define what is sexual in a picture of an adult naked, based on pose, expression, environment.
I think in the case of a child it's harder to quantify what is sexual. As you say it's in the eye of the beholder. But my family photos, and probably most peoples with kids running around in the buff, in a paddling pool, or in the bath are perfectly innocent. Yes we all should be aware of abuse, and we should all report if we feel a child is at risk. But once, we've done our bit it should be handed over to experts that presumably know more about this. In my case I would probably follow it up to make sure something is done or request evidence that that child is safe.
I'll start by clarifying that im anti-conservative here, and i wouldnt be prudish, or think theres anything unusual about pictures of kids in the bath.
BUT, remember, your perception of the photograph has no bearing on how someone else will see it. Whatsoever.
It varies depending on the person. Obviously, its normal for photo developers to have objective standards of what is normal and what is not, or have systems to check potentially illegal material.
Using your example, Im sure its very possible that there would be people who could find something sexual in a picture of someone skinny dipping. Like you said, the circumstance was not sexual. I go skinny dipping pretty regularly, so i know what you mean. Yet, if there was a picture of me swimming naked, and some girl/guy looks at it and happens to find it sexual (if i do say so myself, lol), In that case the circumstances of the photo are unknown to them, or dont matter. Thats fine, cos we're adults. But with kids, they@ve got to be careful.
So, lets set the scene. You are working at the photo desk. These photos are handed in. You have no proof as to whether the children are in fact, this persons family (this would be the obvious assumption). But obviously here,something didnt add up, so they referred it on. Whats confusing or conservative about that? They work in the photo desk, they omust have come across this before, so something in these photos must have been unusual for them to do this.
First of all, we haven't seen the pictures and the article was only from the parents' perspective, right?
Secondly, most people DO have common sense and don't call 911 for a cold, so my precautionary principle doesn't falter here at all.
You didn't answer my question, though, about which would be worse - non-abuse being reported or abuse not being reported. Think of that girl they just finally found after 18 years. What if the women who thought the little girls were suspicious hadn't reported it?
you can hypothesize all the various scenarios as you would like but it boils down to this ......
:? :? :?
I'm not hypothesizing about various scenarios. I'm asking general question and can't figure out why you won't answer it. And I used a specific, real example, not a hypothetical one.
I would like to know at what age we should start being suspicious about naked photos of children.
Should we not be suspicious about naked photos of 15-year-olds? 12-year-olds? 10-year-olds? 7-year-olds? 5-year-olds? 5-year-olds who appear to be 7-year-olds? If the answer is so obvious, what is it?
And I ask this as someone who is totally anti-conservatism and who personally believes that everyone should be able to run around naked in public at all times. But, as soulsinging has pointed out, that's not the issue. The issue is what "should" raise a suspicion of child abuse. Once again - it's about CHILD ABUSE, not prudishness.
I would like to know at what age we should start being suspicious about naked photos of children.
Should we not be suspicious about naked photos of 15-year-olds? 12-year-olds? 10-year-olds? 7-year-olds? 5-year-olds? 5-year-olds who appear to be 7-year-olds? If the answer is so obvious, what is it?
And I ask this as someone who is totally anti-conservatism and who personally believes that everyone should be able to run around naked in public at all times. But, as soulsinging has pointed out, that's not the issue. The issue is what "should" raise a suspicion of child abuse. Once again - it's about CHILD ABUSE, not prudishness.
Anyone? Bueller??
Personally id say the age should be whatever the age is in that State's laws re: sexual offences for children. There is normally an age threshold that means the child is not allowed to have consented to any sexual activity/acts of sexual nature (be it physical, or verbal, or pics). That would make sense? Its usually around 12-15
I'm not hypothesizing about various scenarios. I'm asking general question and can't figure out why you won't answer it. And I used a specific, real example, not a hypothetical one.
i'm sorry - i'm not trying to avoid your question ... my interpretation of the question is that it just is hypothetical what if ... and i thought my response addressed that ...
of course it is better to have all abuse cases reported if that means that some which are non-abuse get clustered in however, as i've stated several times - it's not a matter of just throwing everyone in a pool ... if that was the case - every family should have to go through monthly check-ups ... like i said previously, we need to have some standard of which to consider abuse ... and these pictures are definitely not it!
as for the example you gave - we had a convicted sexual predator / rapist with a shanty in his backyard and voices of children ... that for sure is a significant red flag ...
I would like to know at what age we should start being suspicious about naked photos of children.
Should we not be suspicious about naked photos of 15-year-olds? 12-year-olds? 10-year-olds? 7-year-olds? 5-year-olds? 5-year-olds who appear to be 7-year-olds? If the answer is so obvious, what is it?
And I ask this as someone who is totally anti-conservatism and who personally believes that everyone should be able to run around naked in public at all times. But, as soulsinging has pointed out, that's not the issue. The issue is what "should" raise a suspicion of child abuse. Once again - it's about CHILD ABUSE, not prudishness.
Anyone? Bueller??
Don't hold your breath. I've still been waiting to hear why I'm insane for thinking it doesn't make sense for people to say "i won't let you see me nude, but my kids... look all you want!"
Anyway, someone sent me a pm directing me to this, taken from a blog:
I would like to know at what age we should start being suspicious about naked photos of children.
Should we not be suspicious about naked photos of 15-year-olds? 12-year-olds? 10-year-olds? 7-year-olds? 5-year-olds? 5-year-olds who appear to be 7-year-olds? If the answer is so obvious, what is it?
And I ask this as someone who is totally anti-conservatism and who personally believes that everyone should be able to run around naked in public at all times. But, as soulsinging has pointed out, that's not the issue. The issue is what "should" raise a suspicion of child abuse. Once again - it's about CHILD ABUSE, not prudishness.
Anyone? Bueller??
have you seen what kids are sending to their friends over cell phones these days? ... anyhoo - to try and answer your question - it's only abuse if the pictures were taken without the consent of the child and that these pictures were taken for explotive reasons ... some social construct (variable by geography) dictates that we need to be conservative with our body image ... for example - take a 10 year old boy and girl ... their chests are gonna look similar but for some reason - it's ok for the 10 year old boy to be in a pool without a top but the girl can't ... so, ultimately, it's some societal thing of which not a whole lot of it makes sense to me ...
as how it relates to this thread - i do believe that things that happen in the privacy of a person's home does not extend out to what "society" dictates ... people developing pictures should be considered private - obviously there are exceptions ... this is again is not one of them ...
I would like to know at what age we should start being suspicious about naked photos of children.
Should we not be suspicious about naked photos of 15-year-olds? 12-year-olds? 10-year-olds? 7-year-olds? 5-year-olds? 5-year-olds who appear to be 7-year-olds? If the answer is so obvious, what is it?
And I ask this as someone who is totally anti-conservatism and who personally believes that everyone should be able to run around naked in public at all times. But, as soulsinging has pointed out, that's not the issue. The issue is what "should" raise a suspicion of child abuse. Once again - it's about CHILD ABUSE, not prudishness.
Anyone? Bueller??
have you seen what kids are sending to their friends over cell phones these days? ... anyhoo - to try and answer your question - it's only abuse if the pictures were taken without the consent of the child and that these pictures were taken for explotive reasons ... some social construct (variable by geography) dictates that we need to be conservative with our body image ... for example - take a 10 year old boy and girl ... their chests are gonna look similar but for some reason - it's ok for the 10 year old boy to be in a pool without a top but the girl can't ... so, ultimately, it's some societal thing of which not a whole lot of it makes sense to me ...
as how it relates to this thread - i do believe that things that happen in the privacy of a person's home does not extend out to what "society" dictates ... people developing pictures should be considered private - obviously there are exceptions ... this is again is not one of them ...
Yet rather than fighting that double standard yourself by walking around topless, you set your children up as guinea pigs to run naked round public parks... so that they bear the risk of exploitation by perverts rather than you.
You have no privacy rights when you give your pictures to Walmart. You want privacy, develop the photos yourself.
Yet rather than fighting that double standard yourself by walking around topless, you set your children up as guinea pigs to run naked round public parks... so that they bear the risk of exploitation by perverts rather than you.
You have no privacy rights when you give your pictures to Walmart. You want privacy, develop the photos yourself.
what the heck are you talking about? ... i walk around topless all the time in public ... what are you getting at? ... that no one should be topless at any point because of potential perverts out there?
i read that statement - again - evidence of abuse or child pornography ... if these pictures qualify - then just say "All pictures of naked children will be reported to authorities." and be done with it ...
Yet rather than fighting that double standard yourself by walking around topless, you set your children up as guinea pigs to run naked round public parks... so that they bear the risk of exploitation by perverts rather than you.
You have no privacy rights when you give your pictures to Walmart. You want privacy, develop the photos yourself.
what the heck are you talking about? ... i walk around topless all the time in public ... what are you getting at? ... that no one should be topless at any point because of potential perverts out there?
i read that statement - again - evidence of abuse or child pornography ... if these pictures qualify - then just say "All pictures of naked children will be reported to authorities." and be done with it ...
It says evidence of abuse, OR ANYTHING that might subject them to liability. aka... we're going to cover our ass and anything that makes you pause is going to be impounded probably. The police were idiots for proceeding as they did based on it, but I'm not surprised or faulting Walmart for this. If I were a Walmart lawyer, Id' be telling them to hand this to the cops as well. Just to be safe.
I stand corrected. I'm not saying nobody should be topless, I was saying that I think it's ridiculous to rail against social norms that you think should change, but still abide by them and instead send your kids out to bear the risk of violating them. But since you go about in public in the same manner as your kids, it doesn't apply I guess. I'll give you consistency there Though I still am curious about your level of comfort being photographed naked at random and slapped on a calendar to be sent mailed around the world to family. Since you and others seem to think it's perfectly ok to do that to your kids.
It says evidence of abuse, OR ANYTHING that might subject them to liability. aka... we're going to cover our ass and anything that makes you pause is going to be impounded probably. The police were idiots for proceeding as they did based on it, but I'm not surprised or faulting Walmart for this. If I were a Walmart lawyer, Id' be telling them to hand this to the cops as well. Just to be safe.
I stand corrected. I'm not saying nobody should be topless, I was saying that I think it's ridiculous to rail against social norms that you think should change, but still abide by them and instead send your kids out to bear the risk of violating them. But since you go about in public in the same manner as your kids, it doesn't apply I guess. I'll give you consistency there Though I still am curious about your level of comfort being photographed naked at random and slapped on a calendar to be sent mailed around the world to family. Since you and others seem to think it's perfectly ok to do that to your kids.
i never faulted walmart in general - as i'm gonna go out on a limb and say that many people all over have developed similar pictures with other walmarts and not gone through this ...
this is what people think about being naked ... 5 year old kids and adults being naked are completely different - as i discussed a bit in response to scb ... again - i didn't create this social construct ... do i necessarily believe in it - not really but is it something i'm gonna fight? ... i already get enuf grief for going barefoot in my office ... there's just too much else to spend my energy on ...
this is what people think about being naked ... 5 year old kids and adults being naked are completely different - as i discussed a bit in response to scb ... again - i didn't create this social construct ... do i necessarily believe in it - not really but is it something i'm gonna fight? ... i already get enuf grief for going barefoot in my office ... there's just too much else to spend my energy on ...
And I'm still not sure why 5 year olds and adult being naked is different. This is the question I keep asking that nobody seems to have an answer to. They say kids aren't sexual... I don't think there's anything inherently sexual about an adult being naked either. So what's the difference? And why is it fine to snap a photo of your kid (without their consent) totally nude, put it on a calendar and mail it around the world to family? If your kid snapped a photo of you in the shower and slapped it on the calendar without your input (maybe they thought it'd be a fun surprise for mom), how would you react when all your family started getting a big color spread to hang on their wall of you totally nude? Would you feel comfortable with it? So why is it ok to do that to your child? Because they don't know any better?
And I'm still not sure why 5 year olds and adult being naked is different. This is the question I keep asking that nobody seems to have an answer to. They say kids aren't sexual... I don't think there's anything inherently sexual about an adult being naked either. So what's the difference? And why is it fine to snap a photo of your kid (without their consent) totally nude, put it on a calendar and mail it around the world to family? If your kid snapped a photo of you in the shower and slapped it on the calendar without your input (maybe they thought it'd be a fun surprise for mom), how would you react when all your family started getting a big color spread to hang on their wall of you totally nude? Would you feel comfortable with it? So why is it ok to do that to your child? Because they don't know any better?
social construct also dictates that we say "excuse me" after we burp ... a totally natural process ... it also says we shouldn't piss on a tree although it's ok for a dog to ... what you're asking involves this whole thing of societals do's and don'ts ...
if i had to guess at an answer - i would say maybe that kids aren't concerned in general with their body image - only when they start getting fed the social norms at a later age do they get self-conscious at which point - they would probably not run around the beach naked ... or maybe they will ...
Comments
well ... no one is saying everything is tied to some conservatism ... the issue here is whether or not bathtime photos warrants suspicion on the parents ... in many parts of the world - that would be a no ...
if you think naked pictures of your gf while you're having sex is the same as bathtime pictures - i can see why we don't see eye to eye ... this applies to your last point too ...
Ok, naked pictures of her in the bath then. Or you. Why are you not comfortable with that? It's just nudity.
And no, I don't think naked photos at bathtime necessarily warrants suspicion of the parents. But neither you nor I knows what the clerk knew at the time. Did s/he know it was the parents that took them? How much do they see of the photos? What else was in the set? Maybe the guy jumped the gun, but let's face it, the whole anti-nudity reason for this happening doesn't make sense.
Even the most prudish people I know are not going to turn you over to the police for violating their conservative snesibilities. This employee was not trying to play judge and jury on the morality of nudity. They clearly thought something was alarming, or else they'd not have sent it to the cops. A general aversion to nudity would not have had the same result... to flip my hypo on its head, do you really think this would have happened if it had been a 30 year old woman shown naked in the pictures? Of course not, because this wasn't some prudish crusade about nudity. It was an underpaid and probably not particularly educated kid that developed some photos, saw naked kids and said "I don't know what to make of this, I'm going to hand it off just to be safe." They thought they might be seeing something illegal, and gave it to someone that knew better (or should have, since, apparently, the police did not).
Maybe it was a poor judgment call, or a bit alarmist, but I see nothing in this story to indicate it all started because a hyper-religious walmart film developer decided somebody was taking sinful photos and should be punished.
will all due respect - your persistence with the naked pictures of myself remind me of another person on this board who likes to bait people with senseless arguments ...
i don't know if it was a picture of a 30 yr old woman if this employee would have reported it ... again - i don't agree with the initial submission so without truly knowing what motivated this employee - i wouldn't be surprised if he/she would submit them to police ...
what it boils down to is why would bathtime pictures of kids be enough of a reason to raise an alarm? ... you have some plausible reasons but at the same time so does some conservatism ... as much as toronto is not all of america - americans are diverse state to state, county to county, town to town ... you may think someone couldn't be that conservative - but it's out there ...
I have no clue who you're referring to, but it's a legit question, not baiting with senseless arguments. You keep saying it's all about people being too prudish. But obviously you draw the line somewhere too... you don't want just anyone seeing you naked. So why is that ok and normal but it's weird and prudish and overly conservative to say that maybe we shouldn't let just anyone see our kids naked too? I presume you wouldn't do it because you don't know me and you don't want some pervert using your nudity for cheap thrills because it's violative... yet it is some sign of absurd moral prudishness for someone to say we should extend that same caution to our children, knowing that there are plenty of people out there that would use your child running around naked on a beach or playground for cheap thrills?
I'm curious, since you say you wouldn't be surprised if the employee submitted nude adult pictures to police... why do you think they would do so? Even if they're offended, they know it's not illegal. You think they'd do it just to prove a point or something?
I don't doubt there are places where people are so opposed to and offended by nudity that anything is wrong in their eyes (I've been to Islamic countries that make the states seem like romans of old), but it seems to me you have nothing but total speculation that that was the cause of this incident. Yet you don't present it that way, you present it as absolute fact that you know for certain prudish conservative cultural norms led this person to turn these photos over. When the much more likely and logical conclusion is that child pornography is illegal, the employee saw naked children, and made a judgment call. Maybe it was a bad one, but there's nothing in the story to remotely suggest the judgment call had anything to do with moral opposition to nudity in general or religious values. Nothing at all.
I say all this as a guy that actually does think this country is way too finicky about nudity and sexuality (see the Janet Jackson book flap at the super bowl for a good example, and the histrionics that followed). I don't doubt we're a conservative country with outdated sexual norms. I just don't think this particular story has anything to do with that.
#1 I'm sorry, but there is no logical comparison between a picture of little kids naked in a bath tub and naked adults. I mean, are you seriously making this argument??? Obviously nudity is different for adults.
You can't be so worried about pervs out there... it's not like you'd post such pictures on Facebook, but it's pretty normal for families to have pictures of their kids naked, and keep them in the family photo albums... it's just funny!! There's nothing sexual about it.
This is not to say I'm not concerned about pedophile perverts, and the seemingly increasing number of them. In fact, I think there is a connection between sexual perversion and our fear of the natural self in this country. I think by setting up social norms that say there's something sexual about a naked toddler, or that there's something sexual about breastfeeding for chrissake, and that it's horribly inappropriate for such things to ever be seen in public, when really - it's NOTHING - I think this fucks with peoples' minds. So I think instead of becoming freaked out about innocent pictures of children playing, and reporting it to the authorities, we should figure out what has gotten us to the point where there are so many perverts?
Getting back to my family in Norway... where, again, they have zero issue with naked children. They sent us a calendar with pictures of my cousins running around naked because they thought it was funny, and it was! But in America, this would be thought of as insane. Meanwhile, my relatives in Norway could not be happier or saner! I'm friends with a lot my cousins on Facebook (yes, the same cousins who many years ago were naked in our family calendar), and they NEVER bitch about anything. Whereas many of my American friends find things to bitch about quite often in their FB statuses, haha.
This is what you will see in the middle of Norway's capital, Oslo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigeland_Sculpture_Park
A sculpture of naked men, women, and children twisted together to form a monolith. And there's nothing remotely sexual about it, unless you've been mindfucked.
Perverts are far more common here in the U.S. than in Norway, trust me on that.
Led Zeppelin's album Houses of the Holy was banned for several years in southern U.S. states due to the naked children on the cover. Are Led Zep pervs?
One more little story... When I was 10 years old, I spent about 6 weeks of the summer in Norway. The first day we went to the beach, I was shocked to see a woman sunbathing topless. My aunt noticed my surprise and said "Oh, that's normal here... you'll get used it to." Or something like that. She's right. It is normal, and it's something we all should be used to.
First of all, we haven't seen the pictures and the article was only from the parents' perspective, right?
Secondly, most people DO have common sense and don't call 911 for a cold, so my precautionary principle doesn't falter here at all.
You didn't answer my question, though, about which would be worse - non-abuse being reported or abuse not being reported. Think of that girl they just finally found after 18 years. What if the women who thought the little girls were suspicious hadn't reported it?
Should we not be suspicious about naked photos of 15-year-olds? 12-year-olds? 10-year-olds? 7-year-olds? 5-year-olds? 5-year-olds who appear to be 7-year-olds? If the answer is so obvious, what is it?
And I ask this as someone who is totally anti-conservatism and who personally believes that everyone should be able to run around naked in public at all times. But, as soulsinging has pointed out, that's not the issue. The issue is what "should" raise a suspicion of child abuse. Once again - it's about CHILD ABUSE, not prudishness.
Personally, I don't think that we now have more perverts - I think they were there all the time. I think reporting abuse has increased greatly. Which is a positive thing, people are more willing to speak out against the abuse they have received/witnessed.
From what I know, I would say that a lot of abusers are incredibly secretive and would most definetely avoid taking their photos to be devoloped in a supermarket. They are hardly going to advertise what they are doing. I do think, without seeing the pictures, that perhaps the employee was being overcautious, but we don't know what they had experienced previously and what alarm bells went off in his/her head. I think that perhaps the authorities weren't educated enough in child protection and without knowing too much about the case I would query whether abuse specialists were called in for expert opinion.
I don't know if I'm a prude or not. I don't want to run round naked, but I don't mind if others do. We've got naked pictures of our son, in the bath, in a paddling pool in the garden. I can say with complete certainty there is nothing sexual about them, think we've even got video of him having his nappy changed. If we were in the park when he was little, where there was a public paddling pool, if he wanted to strip off and go in I had no objection, everybodies kids did it.
My theory is that if you think of a pendulum, in the past the majority of abuse went unreported and so the pendulum was way up on one side, as reporting increased the pendulum started to swing the other way, reaching it's peak on the other side with awareness at it's height and perhaps a little overcautiousness and perhaps a certain amount of alarmist behaviour. Personally I think that the pendulum is starting to move back towards the middle ground, where people will continue to report and the reporting would be dealt with in a calm, measured, well reasoned way.
I'm no expert, but certain things have happened in my family that have given me some experience. I think that if I thought a child was being abused I would probably act first and think later, which is probably why it's best left to fully qualified, trained proffessionals. Perhaps it wasn't in this case.
Why is it different for adults? Everyone that responds to this says I'm nuts for saying it, yet not one of you is able to offer a logical distinction. You say photos of naked kids are not sexual... that is in the eye of the beholder. The kid is not behaving sexually, and the photographing parents probably doesn't have that thought in their head... but that doesn't mean there aren't people out there that will view such things sexually. Nobody here has said there's something sexual about a naked toddler, we're just saying there are people out there that will view it that way and that we should all be on our toes to spot abuse of children by such people.
I ask all of you... it's fine for your little cousins to be photographed naked and slapped on a calendar sent to family around the world... would YOU be willing to have photos like that taken of you and sent round the world to family?
It would depend on what context the photos were taken in. Years ago my husband sketched me naked and it did the rounds. I was also at a hen party once where we all went skinny dipping in a lake, there was a lot of pictures taken then, lots of people saw them, particularly at the wedding. There wasn't anything sexual in those contexts, neither would there be in a picture of a woman breast feeding. Some people take pictures of the birth of their child, that's not sexual either. I think it is easier to define what is sexual in a picture of an adult naked, based on pose, expression, environment.
I think in the case of a child it's harder to quantify what is sexual. As you say it's in the eye of the beholder. But my family photos, and probably most peoples with kids running around in the buff, in a paddling pool, or in the bath are perfectly innocent. Yes we all should be aware of abuse, and we should all report if we feel a child is at risk. But once, we've done our bit it should be handed over to experts that presumably know more about this. In my case I would probably follow it up to make sure something is done or request evidence that that child is safe.
naked pictures of adults and children are viewed differently - it should be pretty obvious ... i didn't make up this social construct but it exists ... hence your question makes absolutely no sense to me ...
i have not presented anything as fact - how is that possible based on a news article? ... in fact - in the post you quoted of mine i say that all your explanations are plausible as well as mine ... that is all ... again - we can only speculate as to what the wal-mart employee's reasoning is ...
sure ... i'm not sure what perspective the story is from ... the journalist i suppose ... there really isn't much detail ...
some people do call 911 for a cold ... frig someone called 911 because they weren't happy about service at burger king or something like that ...
you can hypothesize all the various scenarios as you would like but it boils down to this ... if naked pictures of kids during bathtime amongst a bunch of vacation photos warrants an investigation by the authorities - well, they would have to investigate a heckuva lot of families and that would surely overwhelm an agency to the point that maybe a real case of abuse is missed ... we DO need to stop child abuse but sending in parents for these kinds of photos is ridiculous in my mind ... at least have some bruises in the pictures or something but not them laughing and playing ...
Dear Amy: I often take my 5-year-old son to the public swimming pool.
When we get there, I have him change into his bathing suit in the men's bathroom. I have noticed, however, that a lot of parents let their kids change into their swimwear right in front of everyone.
I never let my son walk around naked at home, and I certainly don't want him to be naked in public.
I was taught that there are certain body parts that must remain covered at all times, and I have raised my son the same way.
He has asked me why girls don't have the same parts as he does, and I hesitate to tell him because I fear that by explaining the facts of life to him at such a young age he may get inappropriate ideas in his head.
I feel that it is a sign of irresponsible parenting to allow one's children to take off their clothes in public, as it makes them easy targets for pedophiles.
You really can't know for sure what kind of creepy people lurk around these seemingly kid-friendly areas.
Am I out of line?
Should I go ahead and tell my son about the facts of life?
-- Concerned Parent
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/ ... 784.column
:roll:
Right, sending in the parents is where this became ridiculous... which is there the police took over. THEY screwed up. Walmart just followed their policy and left it in what they (wrongly) believed were more capable hands.
are you saying walmart has a policy that says any naked pictures of kids are automatically sent to authorities?
I see... so THAT social construst is perfectly normal and rational and adhered to by you without a fight, but any social construst that extends the "careful with your nudity" mindset to children is inherently a symbol of a sex-paranoid out of control conservative nation that we have to take a stand against by telling Walmart not to report naked pictures of kids anymore unless there's a smoking gun to indicate abuse?
I'm just saying... you say "I didn't make up this social construct" for adult nudity, yet you honor it and don't fight or question it. You just say "heck no, I'm not letting a stranger see me naked." Yet when the exact same construct is applied to child nudity ("hell not I don't want strangers seeing my kid naked"), you're ready to take up arms and make a stand against prudish sex paranoid values?
Someone else in here posted that ALL nude photos had to be sent up the ladder at the photo place they worked at.
I'll start by clarifying that im anti-conservative here, and i wouldnt be prudish, or think theres anything unusual about pictures of kids in the bath.
BUT, remember, your perception of the photograph has no bearing on how someone else will see it. Whatsoever.
It varies depending on the person. Obviously, its normal for photo developers to have objective standards of what is normal and what is not, or have systems to check potentially illegal material.
Using your example, Im sure its very possible that there would be people who could find something sexual in a picture of someone skinny dipping. Like you said, the circumstance was not sexual. I go skinny dipping pretty regularly, so i know what you mean. Yet, if there was a picture of me swimming naked, and some girl/guy looks at it and happens to find it sexual (if i do say so myself, lol), In that case the circumstances of the photo are unknown to them, or dont matter. Thats fine, cos we're adults. But with kids, they@ve got to be careful.
So, lets set the scene. You are working at the photo desk. These photos are handed in. You have no proof as to whether the children are in fact, this persons family (this would be the obvious assumption). But obviously here,something didnt add up, so they referred it on. Whats confusing or conservative about that? They work in the photo desk, they omust have come across this before, so something in these photos must have been unusual for them to do this.
:? :? :?
I'm not hypothesizing about various scenarios. I'm asking general question and can't figure out why you won't answer it. And I used a specific, real example, not a hypothetical one.
Anyone? Bueller??
Personally id say the age should be whatever the age is in that State's laws re: sexual offences for children. There is normally an age threshold that means the child is not allowed to have consented to any sexual activity/acts of sexual nature (be it physical, or verbal, or pics). That would make sense? Its usually around 12-15
i'm sorry - i'm not trying to avoid your question ... my interpretation of the question is that it just is hypothetical what if ... and i thought my response addressed that ...
of course it is better to have all abuse cases reported if that means that some which are non-abuse get clustered in however, as i've stated several times - it's not a matter of just throwing everyone in a pool ... if that was the case - every family should have to go through monthly check-ups ... like i said previously, we need to have some standard of which to consider abuse ... and these pictures are definitely not it!
as for the example you gave - we had a convicted sexual predator / rapist with a shanty in his backyard and voices of children ... that for sure is a significant red flag ...
Don't hold your breath. I've still been waiting to hear why I'm insane for thinking it doesn't make sense for people to say "i won't let you see me nude, but my kids... look all you want!"
Anyway, someone sent me a pm directing me to this, taken from a blog:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/funnybusiness/3938230991/
Looks like Walmart does have a CYA policy... anything that could subject them to civil or criminal liability can get turned over.
have you seen what kids are sending to their friends over cell phones these days? ... anyhoo - to try and answer your question - it's only abuse if the pictures were taken without the consent of the child and that these pictures were taken for explotive reasons ... some social construct (variable by geography) dictates that we need to be conservative with our body image ... for example - take a 10 year old boy and girl ... their chests are gonna look similar but for some reason - it's ok for the 10 year old boy to be in a pool without a top but the girl can't ... so, ultimately, it's some societal thing of which not a whole lot of it makes sense to me ...
as how it relates to this thread - i do believe that things that happen in the privacy of a person's home does not extend out to what "society" dictates ... people developing pictures should be considered private - obviously there are exceptions ... this is again is not one of them ...
Yet rather than fighting that double standard yourself by walking around topless, you set your children up as guinea pigs to run naked round public parks... so that they bear the risk of exploitation by perverts rather than you.
You have no privacy rights when you give your pictures to Walmart. You want privacy, develop the photos yourself.
what the heck are you talking about? ... i walk around topless all the time in public ... what are you getting at? ... that no one should be topless at any point because of potential perverts out there?
i read that statement - again - evidence of abuse or child pornography ... if these pictures qualify - then just say "All pictures of naked children will be reported to authorities." and be done with it ...
It says evidence of abuse, OR ANYTHING that might subject them to liability. aka... we're going to cover our ass and anything that makes you pause is going to be impounded probably. The police were idiots for proceeding as they did based on it, but I'm not surprised or faulting Walmart for this. If I were a Walmart lawyer, Id' be telling them to hand this to the cops as well. Just to be safe.
I stand corrected. I'm not saying nobody should be topless, I was saying that I think it's ridiculous to rail against social norms that you think should change, but still abide by them and instead send your kids out to bear the risk of violating them. But since you go about in public in the same manner as your kids, it doesn't apply I guess. I'll give you consistency there
i never faulted walmart in general - as i'm gonna go out on a limb and say that many people all over have developed similar pictures with other walmarts and not gone through this ...
this thread is locked now but ... check this out:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=112928
this is what people think about being naked ... 5 year old kids and adults being naked are completely different - as i discussed a bit in response to scb ... again - i didn't create this social construct ... do i necessarily believe in it - not really but is it something i'm gonna fight? ... i already get enuf grief for going barefoot in my office ... there's just too much else to spend my energy on ...
And I'm still not sure why 5 year olds and adult being naked is different. This is the question I keep asking that nobody seems to have an answer to. They say kids aren't sexual... I don't think there's anything inherently sexual about an adult being naked either. So what's the difference? And why is it fine to snap a photo of your kid (without their consent) totally nude, put it on a calendar and mail it around the world to family? If your kid snapped a photo of you in the shower and slapped it on the calendar without your input (maybe they thought it'd be a fun surprise for mom), how would you react when all your family started getting a big color spread to hang on their wall of you totally nude? Would you feel comfortable with it? So why is it ok to do that to your child? Because they don't know any better?
social construct also dictates that we say "excuse me" after we burp ... a totally natural process ... it also says we shouldn't piss on a tree although it's ok for a dog to ... what you're asking involves this whole thing of societals do's and don'ts ...
if i had to guess at an answer - i would say maybe that kids aren't concerned in general with their body image - only when they start getting fed the social norms at a later age do they get self-conscious at which point - they would probably not run around the beach naked ... or maybe they will ...