Father, photographer, Child Pornographer.

[Green Taffy]

She could end up on/b/. She probably has or will be in the very near future.

I guess that's a problem.

 

[ponch]

If nudity is enough to qualify as paedophilia there are some seriously big paedofests going on on beaches across the globe. The paedo hunter brigade are a bunch of maniacs.

 

[wcote2]

No it's about context.

For example if a man had thousands of pictures of category 1 pictures and of children which are not family and he was a known paedophile then the police would take an interest.

 

[class-a-team]

And yet, the very first thing people do when they go to work in an office is put a photo of their kid on their desk, so every (new) person who walks past can see their pride and joy. And if it's not on their desk, how many times have we seen proud parents take pics from their wallets in order to pass around the office, a show of their 'normality' (I've got a family me, I'm straight and respectable).

We've been showing pics of our kids to strangers for years, way before the Internet. Because we never gave in to the paedophile philosophy as kids as sex objects. Id be fucked if I'd allow the mind of a paedophile dictate my normal behaviour. There was even a thread or post on here recently which pointed out the revoltingness of workers being expected to be interested in other peoples kids.

Yeah but how many people do you work with and how many people are you friends with on facebook? Lots of parents have over a thousand friends many of whom they obviously don't know very well. Plus it's online and once you put a photo online it is basically out of your hands and shared with whoever wants to see it badly enough (highly unrealistic but still very possible)

I'm not worried about paedophiles getting their hands on the photos, I may have derailed the thread a bit but I am concerned about a child's right to privacy above all else, a right to grow up without the constant presence of a camera and the scrutiny of vaguely interested onlookers who do not otherwise have a place in the child's life.

Going back to the original subject of this thread though, I don't believe this particular father did any more harm than any other parent who chooses to post photos of their children online, naked or otherwise.

 

[One Thousand Words]

The only Facebook friend I have with a thousand friends is a porn star and most of them are desperate dudes wanting to score

 

[Green Taffy]

If nudity is enough to qualify as paedophilia there are some seriously big paedofests going on on beaches across the globe. The paedo hunter brigade are a bunch of maniacs.

Eh, I'm feeling rather confused about all of this. I'm not sure what I think of it. All I know is there are places like /b/ (Random) on 4chan full of pedos.

The question here is, would you feel comfortable about hundreds of basement dwellers wanking over nude pics of your child? I know this is taking the discussion in another direction, but it's still something worth considering.

There are literally thousands of people out there on the interwebz that will use those pics in a sexual nature.

But I agree whole heartedly that we very quickly jump to the "he's a pedo because..." thing. Nudity isn't something to be scared of, especially if it's your own child.

 

[One Thousand Words]

Better he/her wank over a picture than actually physically touched my kids.

I'd prefer they didn't have such urges to begin with but what are you going to do? My kids are pretty good looking, I'm sure some dodgy dude has them stored somewhere in their wankbank.

 

[ColtDan]

The only thing wrong about those photos in my opinion is the fact that they may be a potential source of embarrassment for the girl when she's older. I really don't agree with putting photos of your children online generally speaking.

This

 

[ponch]

Eh, I'm feeling rather confused about all of this. I'm not sure what I think of it. All I know is there are places like /b/ (Random) on 4chan full of pedos.

The question here is, would you feel comfortable about hundreds of basement dwellers wanking over nude pics of your child? I know this is taking the discussion in another direction, but it's still something worth considering.

There are literally thousands of people out there on the interwebz that will use those pics in a sexual nature.

But I agree whole heartedly that we very quickly jump to the "he's a pedo because..." thing. Nudity isn't something to be scared of, especially if it's your own child.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...EJTvaITNgagP&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=653 Paedo paradise, or more likely just stock images of children that aren't pornographic at all. If someone wanted to have a wank over a child i'm pretty sure proper CP is just a few clicks away.

/b/ isn't full of paedos it's full of dickheads trying to be edgy by posting a CP picture every now and again.

 

[Bearlove]

The only thing wrong about those photos in my opinion is the fact that they may be a potential source of embarrassment for the girl when she's older. I really don't agree with putting photos of your children online generally speaking.

This

Even if she was fully clothed, the photos could be a potential source of embarrassment when she is older. Just take a quick look at your own photos that you have shared in the last year, I'm sure we have all taken and shared photos we wish we hadn't.

Before social media came about, showing photos of your kids naked was deemed a 'laugh' when they got older. It's not sexual though and really after the initial laugh it wasn't given a second thought - we now document our lives online, we share so many details that child nudity (to the most of us) is nothing.

Have we not removed the innocence of a kid naked at the beach / park etc?

Are we not too quick to say pervert, kiddy fiddler etc?

 

[ponch]

Also what about child actors, if it's wrong to share pictures of kids (clothed or not) surely using kids in TV programmes/adverts/films is also wrong?

 

[kingme]

Also what about child actors, if it's wrong to share pictures of kids (clothed or not) surely using kids in TV programmes/adverts/films is also wrong?

no man, those kids get paid! totally different scenario! you see, when you pay em, they have to do what you tell them to

(joking)

 

[ScotchMist]

Bit late to the thread and ive nothing to add, what was strange about this whole thing though was that I agree with OTW all the way..

 

[Shambles]

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.

This.

Certainly not the first time this has happened - it's a growing trend. Makes no difference who you are cos certain sick-minded fucks appear to trawl through photos (not just family snaps but the work of well-respected professional photographers that hang in museums too) searching for the slightest hint of nekkid childflesh so they can leap on it, repost links to it all over the interwebz, and wank themselves (and their ilk) into a self-righteous Paedogeddon frenzy. Even just a couple weeks ago when I was taking pix for the first time in forever I innocently snapped a few shots which included a (fully clothed) child walking a dog (for composition reasons - threes, triangles and so on - they just happened to be present to make up the composition is all) and was taken aside and given "a word to the wise" about how it would look to anybody who didn't know me. Was genuinely shocked cos it (obviously) never crossed my mind that it was anything beyond what it was - shapes and patterns captured digitally to form a pleasingly simple classical composition. When I take pix I think in terms of abstracts of shape and tone not of kiddy-fiddling. It's in the mind of the beholder.

She could end up on/b/. She probably has or will be in the very near future.

I guess that's a problem.

It's only a problem cos sites like /b/ exist. The sexualisation is purely in the eyes of the beholder so if folk post these kinda pix to that or any other site in a sexualised sense they say enough about themselves for those places to be viewed with deep suspicion.

There's a gazillion nekkid pix of me as a child. I was such a gorgeous baby a woman from Pampers stopped my mother in the street and wanted me to be a nappy model. Was she a paedo? Are Pampers ads paedo wank material? Get a fukkin grip society 8)

And on the wider point I (and others) have made above, there doesn't appear to be any hint of paedophilia invovled in this particular instance. If folk that like to wank over pix of kids choose to wank over these pix that is their interpretation. The alternative is - as Bear pointed out - to go the kiddy burkha route. Again, says more about those kicking up a fuss than those who see nothing remotely sexual in pictures of children that have no obvious sexual connotations. There is a massive difference here. True paedophilic pix - actual pix of actual child abuse - harm has been caused by the very creation of those pix and that harm is exacerbated by being traded on that very fact. None of that exists in these cases. No true harm can be caused cos there never was any to begin with. It's essentially the same as somebody wanking over the kid's clothes (which - last I looked - contained underwear) section of catalogues or whatever. In their head, shouldn't be in yours if you have nothing within your own mind to hide from.

 

[Raasyvibe]

I don't see why they are a potential source of embarrassment when she's older. Her behaviour is not unusual, there is no Jeremy Beadle material here. She is two years old doing what most two year olds do some of the time, going around naked.

While I grasp your perception that nudity in babies is natural and part of every day life for family's, and that the photographer was only capturing this with no ill-intent...

Don't you think these images should still remain personal amongst the family, and not to a broader audience? You wouldn't have your children walking around naked in the supermarket or town centre, you'd have the decency to clothe them.

Me taking a long shite on the toilet is a perfectly natural thing to do, nothing unusual. Do you think I want it photographed and made public on the Internet without my consent???

The photo's this guy has taken, show her butt naked on the potty with her pants pulled down. You think, when she's a bit older, she'll be cool with that viewable to all her school friends?

I feel you're being quite oblivious to the potential issues publicising such images can create. That there is a personal element to the pictures in what they reveal, and publishing them to a more widespread audience is taking advantage of the childs inability to object or recognise the repercussions.

 

[Shambles]

How many works of art would you suggest get ripped from the walls and burnt, Raas? How old does a work of art have to be to not be classed as child porn just cos it inlcudes nekkid children? Why are you (and your ilk) so obsessed with children's naked flesh and genitalia whilst the rest of us are not?

 

[One Thousand Words]

I think raas was picked on at school, because he seems to have a hang up on what her school friends will tease her about.

Hate to break it to you but if you are a knob kids will find plenty more ammunition than a naked photo. We had a kid teased relentlessly just because he had a hair growing out of a mole on his face. Another one because he had big troll looking feet. One kid we called Des, short for Diseased Back, because he had acne on his back. It's a cruel world and the sooner you can laugh at yourself the sooner you will survive.

 

[Shambles]

Kids are cruel for sure. Adults considerably more so sometimes (if given the chance). I kinda agree with what you're saying in this thread (exception that proves a rule of some kind perhaps ) OTW. School yard bullshit is of condiderably less perniciousness in this context. Who wasn't bullied at school for any number of minor - mostly long since laid aside and forgotten - issues? That's very, very different from being raped and/or having pix that either show or encourage such things made public. Any trying to equate the two seriously need to gain some level of context and perspective.

 

[Raasyvibe]

How many works of art would you suggest get ripped from the walls and burnt, Raas? How old does a work of art have to be to not be classed as child porn just cos it inlcudes nekkid children? Why are you (and your ilk) so obsessed with children's naked flesh and genitalia whilst the rest of us are not?

Strange post, Shambles. What do you mean by "You and your ilk"? Is this a reference to Christians/spiritual people?

Your depiction that we are (as you term it) "obsessed" with naked children, while people like you are rational and comfortable with it... is a fabrication that creates some kind of division, that holds you in much higher regard... and comes across as some kind of deluded, prejudiced attack.

Your unrealistic depiction, which seems to be somewhat self-aggrandizing also (we're obsessive, irrational, unlike you), completely misses the more simplistic point I'm trying to make: Respect for ones privacy, is applicable to all humans. Religious, non-religious, agnostic, British, Bangladesh, Hebrew...all would probably rather not have photo's of themselves spread to a wide audience, taking a shit with their pants down. Being 2 years old doesn't change this. It's a very simplistic point, which seems to have eluded you, in your desire to demean and belittle "Me and my ilk".

I think raas was picked on at school, because he seems to have a hang up on what her school friends will tease her about.

Hate to break it to you but if you are a knob kids will find plenty more ammunition than a naked photo. We had a kid teased relentlessly just because he had a hair growing out of a mole on his face. Another one because he had big troll looking feet. One kid we called Des, short for Diseased Back, because he had acne on his back. It's a cruel world and the sooner you can laugh at yourself the sooner you will survive.

...and what thee heck? "I think raas was picked on at a school" , is this some kind of demeaning, personal attempt to belittle, just because my opinion doesn't completely match your own?? did you not get picked on at school then, coz you're too good for that I guess?? the arrogance here is astonishing.

 

[Sammy G]

Your unrealistic depiction, which seems to be somewhat self-aggrandizing also (we're obsessive, irrational, unlike you), completely misses the more simplistic point I'm trying to make: Respect for ones privacy, is applicable to all humans.

Fair and noble enough point, but the fact is that this is the guy's two-year-old daughter. She has no concept of 'privacy' whatsoever anyway, besides which the guy is entirely responsible for her personal care, thus making 'privacy' a moot point until she becomes old enough for it to be an issue.

If, in the future, she decides she objects to (likely long-forgotten) works of art depicting her acting like children do, then let her take it to the fucking courts like an adult. I highly doubt these pictures will still be in wide enough circulation in sixteen years time for it to be a problem.

Sorry to say this, but your argument is pretty fucking dumb, however you try to dress it up in high-minded, moralistic language.

EDIT: And aren't you the guy who posts people's Photobucket pics without asking for permission? Can't believe I missed that. :D