American sex-paranoid Conservatism going way too far now

1235»

Comments

  • JordyWordy
    JordyWordy Posts: 2,261
    scb wrote:
    scb wrote:
    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
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    scb wrote:
    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 ...
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    scb wrote:
    scb wrote:
    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:

    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.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    scb wrote:
    scb wrote:
    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 ...
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    polaris_x wrote:
    scb wrote:
    scb wrote:
    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.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    soulsinging wrote:
    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 ...
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    polaris_x wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    soulsinging wrote:
    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 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 ...
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    polaris_x wrote:
    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?
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    soulsinging wrote:
    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 ...
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    polaris_x wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    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 ...

    So you wouldn't be ok with being on a calendar in the same form that you would willingly put your kids on one?
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    soulsinging wrote:
    So you wouldn't be ok with being on a calendar in the same form that you would willingly put your kids on one?

    i have no kids ... if i did - would not put my kids on a calendar as it's tacky to me ... if someone wants to put their kids in a calendar - it's fine by me ... it's also fine by me if they want to put themselves in a calendar ... naked or otherwise ...
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    polaris_x wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    So you wouldn't be ok with being on a calendar in the same form that you would willingly put your kids on one?

    i have no kids ... if i did - would not put my kids on a calendar as it's tacky to me ... if someone wants to put their kids in a calendar - it's fine by me ... it's also fine by me if they want to put themselves in a calendar ... naked or otherwise ...

    Fair enough.

Categories