Father, photographer, Child Pornographer.

[Bearlove]

Hi Everyone, spotted a story today

"In April 2014 photographer Wyatt Neumann went on a two week road trip with his two year old daughter Stella. Over the course of the trip Neumann photographed his daughter in various locations, sometimes with clothes on, sometimes without."

These images were seen by his followers / randoms (he uploaded them to his picture sharing accounts) and he was branded a 'sick fuck / kiddy fiddler' etc.

This has really fucked me off. links have all ready been disabled :/

Would love to hear your thoughts

Bear

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html

I think his response was particularly brilliant.

 

[Sammy G]

Fucking hell.

I mean, unless the photos were in any way sexual (which we'll assume is the case, as it's natural to do), how is it anybody's business? My own family and that of practically everybody on this board would be considered 'pornographers' by such standards.

It's the people who commented whose minds are 'sick', and it's them who end up harming children through their 'honourable' intentions.

EDIT: Saw SHM's link. Yep.

Choice quote right here:

"I doubt she’ll ever be in a real school, have any real friends, or develop any real attachments to anything because that would be counterproductive to the isolation her parents probably want to keep her and her brother in. I’ll bet the only people they’re around are their parents 'like-minded' adult friends, a healthy portion of which are probably pedophiles that they’re too blind to see are right there waiting to get their children alone for 5 minutes." -NamelyThis, April 26, 2014 12:47pm

What? You fucking nutter.

 

[Raasyvibe]

Fucking hell.

I mean, unless the photos were in any way sexual (which we'll assume is the case, as it's natural to do), how is it anybody's business?

Because he has published them publicly, for the world to see, across various mediums.

Seems a pretty stupid thing to do, imo. First off I really don't think the girl will appreciate being known for such pictures as she gets old enough to understand. How would you like to be photographed as a 2y/o with your pants down, and have it made public across the Internet?? Do you have any idea how hard school is going to be?

Though his intent may not be to provide sexual gratification, in this day and age, with the sensitivities and prevalence of peadophillia distribution the photo's seem somewhat inappropriate, to say the least.

 

[Sammy G]

various mediums.

Did he use a ouija board? Sorry, cheap.

Though his intent may not be to provide sexual gratification, in this day and age, with the sensitivities and prevalence of peadophillia distribution the photo's seem somewhat inappropriate, to say the least.

You really think that?

If paedophiles are quite as 'prevalent' in these times as you appear to believe, then they can find genuine child porn all over the internet.

It's the people who equate nudity with sexuality (and thus sexualise children as a direct result) who are the real problem. Their 'sensitivities' are perhaps more sinister than you think. That's what the photographer's getting at.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

2 year olds have always been photographed with their pants down because that's how 2 year olds spend a lot of their time, undressed. There have been such pictures in picture albums, shared to look at, since picture albums existed. The only difference now is the hysteria surrounding paedophilia and the availability of images via the Internet. For me, that's not enough to censor innocent unsexualized pictures that have been around forever.

The point is those pics are taken in a natural environment. The girl has not been forced to do anything. They are pictures of the child doing what a child does. The nudity is the child's choice. It is not sexual. Any sexual implications are coming from outside of that father and daughter. They are doing nothing wrong.

Sometimes being unclothed is a normal part of life. I once took a picture in Laos of village boys, aged about 7-11, racing boats on a river. Some (though not all) of those boys are totally naked. I put the picture on BL once because it's one of the best pictures I've ever taken in my life.

Am I a paedophile? Or certainly no better than one?

 

[Raasyvibe]

2 year olds have always been photographed with their pants down because that's how 2 year olds spend a lot of their time, undressed. There have been such pictures in picture albums, shared to look at, since picture albums existed. The only difference now is the hysteria surrounding paedophilia and the availability of images via the Internet. For me, that's not enough to censor innocent unsexualized pictures that have been around forever.

The point is those pics are taken in a natural environment. The girl has not been forced to do anything. They are pictures of the child doing what a child does. The nudity is the child's choice. It is not sexual. Any sexual implications are coming from outside of that father and daughter. They are doing nothing wrong.

Decent post and point well expressed. I'd agree with most of it, particularly distinguishing intent.

It's the people who equate nudity with sexuality (and thus sexualise children as a direct result) who are the real problem.

I don't think it's just an issue of equating nudity with sexuality, a couple of the pictures could too easily be mistaken for sexuality to be published live as he did.

For instance, this one

NSFW:

Even his intent is innocent, perhaps not too clever to post publicly considering all the sensitivities on peadophillia. Inevitably going to incite a lot of anguish if made widespread.

 

[class-a-team]

I don't think it's just an issue of equating nudity with sexuality, a couple of the pictures could too easily be mistaken for sexuality to be published live as he did.

For instance, this one

NSFW:

Even his intent is innocent, perhaps not too clever to post publicly considering all the sensitivities on peadophillia. Inevitably going to incite a lot of anguish if made widespread.

Nope, don't see anything sexual about that photo. Would love to know people's thoughts had the child question been a boy.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

There is nothing sexual about that picture and anyone who mistakes it for such needs to have a serious word with themselves.

Tbh I think if it was a boy it wouldn't change anyone's opinion would it? Or why do you think it would?

 

[One Thousand Words]

Being naked does not equate to having sex.

Puritan hang ups about the naked human is ridiculous when you consider it is fine to allow kids to watch violent cartoons every day after school

The girl is not being abuse. There might be some sicko who'll have a toss alone in a room looking at them, but there are some people who are sexually arroused by tutu's who'd beat off to her fully clothed too. Is anyone suggesting we ban all photos of kids under 16? Unless she is directly abused the girl is perfectly safe. She will attend school and be one of the coolest Kids in her class because he dad is a famous photographer. Only the weird religious freaks would even try and tease her

If you want to persecute dodgy parenting, perhaps direct your anger to the ones who don't lock their bedroom doors and get caught fucking. Talk about being scarred for life

 

[class-a-team]

Yeah I think it would because parents of young girls are generally far more concerned that their daughters don't dress too "racy."

 

[One Thousand Words]

I'm more outraged that companies like Facebook and Instagram pander to the sensitive mob when it comes to nudity. Post a video of an idiot jumping off a roof or doing burn outs in their car and you are fine. Show a stray nipple and all hell breaks loose.

As you may realise I have a relaxed attitude to being naked. I try not to embarrass my kids but I see no harm in wandering naked in the house because there is nothing sexual about being naked. I see far greater abuse in a kid dressed up in football gear of a shit team like Liverpool or Man U than some toddlers bare arse crack

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

OTW can you stop making sense, it's a bit disconcerting.

 

[class-a-team]

Show a stray nipple and all hell breaks loose.

*woman's nipple

 

[Bearlove]

I'm more outraged that companies like Facebook and Instagram pander to the sensitive mob when it comes to nudity.

I'm more outraged that people seem to make children an object of sexual desire - I spend a lot of time in the Middle East, I see very young children dresses in 'Aba'ya'. This has no place in Islam - to dress a child in full black (again nothing to do with Islam) is simple saying - you could perceive this 'child' as a sexual being.

 

[kingme]

interesting story and great response from the photographer. also, some of his pics are quite good! especially the cornfield one, nice colours.

anyways, it just goes to show what reactions society permits nowadays, and im not talking about people having an opinion of the photos. there are always people who have something to say about everything. the problem was that companies bowed and closed his facebook and instagram accounts (if i read right) which seems excessive, and even potentially damaging (for a photographer).

in med school you see a lot of naked people, and the sexuality quickly vanishes when switching from the view of person to that of patient.
similarly, i expect the people most unfamiliar with sex and nudity to be the ones jumping on the pornography wagon.

personally ive been photographed to death naked as a child, and noone ever considered it pornography. in fact you d be hard pressed to find a clothed pic of me under 4yo.

also the idea that a 2yo will suffer in later age due to having pics on the internet is ridiculous. i can hardly recognize myself from when i was 14, and most children look more or less the same until puberty....

 

[Bearlove]

SO ... where do we draw the line on this ?

When does taking a photo of a child playing, capturing the innocence of the minute become - child porn? The solicitor in that clip stated - 'If its child porn, we will know'. Based on the comments of this fathers personal posts, people actually dont?

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

When there is some actual porn involved.

An innocent image may be abused by a paedophile but that doesn't make the original photographer a pornographer.

The OTT reaction to the hysteria is responsible for loads of crap. Like cameras being banned from school plays. Like teachers no longer being able to touch a child in any tactile way to give support.

 

[kingme]

An innocent image may be abused by a paedophile but that doesn't make the original photographer a pornographer.

this.

it should also be a crime then to make movies that give the impression the actors are underage and involved in anything sexual.
or write about it...

just saying that some people will always manage to abuse things in spite of common sense or laws. this shouldnt cause us to fence up against forms of expression ...

its a sad society that has come so far that we need rules for every little thing...

it reminds me a bit of robots. we say it is so difficult to create intelligence because of the vast amounts of data and miriad of possibilities that navigation through the real require, but at the same time we stumble and ask for laws to be created to guide every decision, and sadly, even morality.

 

[Sammy G]

Dads being wary of taking their kids for a piss.

I saw one guy who felt he had to reassure the attendant that he wasn't taking the (very) young lad in to be buggered. Fathers and daughters? Forget it.