how-to block ads
|
KAD Imaging
Just Shoot It
Premium
join:2002-09-21
Hialeah, FL
 ·AT&T Southeast
1 edit |  reply to pog
Re: How a Photo Can Ruin Your Life
"Better SAFE than sorry"
I'd much rather catch innocent parents than say "Eh, this is nothing" and find the bodies of 8 children in the backyard like that sick ~#$@% they caught here last year. 
What was the motivation? That girl wasn't skinny dipping, wasn't taking a bath, or in ANY situation where one would "expect" nakedness. What's worse is it's a posed shot. IT's one thing if your child escapes their clothes (as children do) and you laugh and snap a quick pic, it's entirely something else to pose a nude child in a manner as to "accentuate" the form as one would do with a nude adult.
I feel that anyone WITHOUT kids needs to stay silent on this one because unless you have your own flesh and blood to protect, you can't understand it the way a parent can. Much the same as someone empathizing with someone who has a terminal family member. You can't really feel the same unless you too have a terminal family member no matter how good your intentions.
That said, I have a 4 year old daughter and a son on the way (5 mos) so I definitely have some incite on the matter. I have MANY pics of my little one at bath time and in NONE of the dozens and dozens of pics are private regions visible. You barely see her rear. There's something truly wrong with a parent that exposes their child in this way as you NEVER know when such an image may fall into the wrong hands. (hacker, virus, geek squad, etc.) Same goes for video.
How many here "with" kids would be cool if you were at the park and a random guy showed up and was taking pics of your kids "playing". No problems? Or would you make a move? The attached images are searches from the FBI Sex Offender website of just 3 of the zip codes I frequent with my little girl. You will note that over 100 were found and there are at least a dozen more zip codes I'd need to search to cover everywhere I go. I challenge those here to search for your self and see how many sick bastards there are floating around.
The company that buses my little girls school to field trips had a KNOWN sex offender as a driver but luckily he was busted before my daughter started going there. Make me wonder about the others though...
I was almost arrested for assault about 1 year and a half ago when a random guy in WalMart came over to talk to my daughter. She's very friendly and people talk to her all the time but this guy made me uneasy. I moved on but when I went to grab something off the top shelf, she wandered off for a second. I ran looking for her and "uneasy guy" was holding her with his hand on her rear. I kinda lost it, grabbed my daughter, put her in the cart and proceed to punch this creep in the face. He had an ass kickin coming before MDPD jumped in. I explained everything and was released and he didn't want to press charges or even talk to the police which really tipped me off that he was a freak.
I hated to do that in front of my little girl but I explained that he was a "bad man" and Daddy had to get him so she would be safe.
If I ever catch a perv doing anything to my kids he better flee the PLANET or so help me I will dishonor my Hanshi and tear him limb from @#%@#%#^& limb....
--
Like Cars? Visit:
SportCompactMiami.com
forums.sportcompactmiami.com
blog.sportcompactmiami.com | |
MrBradTX
join:2001-05-23
Carrollton, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by KAD Imaging  :I feel that anyone WITHOUT kids needs to stay silent on this one because unless you have your own flesh and blood to protect, you can't understand it the way a parent can. Upon reflection, I do not wish to post. Take me back! | |
Mospaw
Positive outlook
Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
The Pacific
·Cox HSI
Host:
Road Warriors, Not..
All Things Macintosh
Automotive
| reply to KAD Imaging
said by KAD Imaging :I'd much rather catch innocent parents than say "Eh, this is nothing" and find the bodies of 8 children in the backyard like that sick ~#$@% they caught here last year. I might agree with you if that "catching" was a quick knock on the door, maybe a few uncomfortable moments of questioning, and nothing else. I want the creeps buried as much as anyone. But it's exactly that type of overzealousness, assumption that something is bad until proven that it isn't, and general "hang anyone who might be guilty and let God sort it out" attitude that is needlessly tearing families apart.
That attitude causes more than "Eh, this is nothing" as an outcome. Children are taken away from loving parents, siblings separated, and parents subjected to arrest. Huge sums of money are spent on lawyers due to false or unfounded accusations. Paranoia is not the answer.
We live in a dangerous world. Bad things do happen to good and innocent people, even children. It's sad, but true. Nothing but totalitarianism can change that, and I would be willing to be even that won't stop people from harming children.
I think we need to be reasonable in protecting them and not jump to conclusions, destroy families and make criminals out of people engaging in perfectly normal, innocent, and reasonable activities.
Nudity is not sexual activity. A nude child is only a sexual being if the viewer intends them to be. This crusade is dangerous because it causes people who would never think of a child in that way to re-evaluate their thinking. It crushes creativity and creates an unnecessary uneasiness. Perfectly innocent behavior is now suddenly dirty, sexual, or inappropriate and a lot of people are confused. A lot of people are also overreacting.
said by KAD Imaging :I feel that anyone WITHOUT kids needs to stay silent on this one because unless you have your own flesh and blood to protect, you can't understand it the way a parent can. Another amazingly narrow-minded approach. I'm not a woman, but I think I could talk about equality and other "feminist" issues. I'm not a parent, but I can speak intelligently about what is an appropriate measure and what is a knee-jerk crazy reaction.
Children need protection from real dangers. They don't need to have everything that might harm them turned into an ogre. They need to learn that it's OK to be free, to express themselves and have fun. They are children.
The hard part is that we don't know where to draw the line. And where no line is drawn, where definitions don't exist or are ambiguous, they sometimes get misinterpreted, ignored, or abused. I see this as an attempt to impose zero tolerance (which is an awful offshoot of political correctness) on a situation where is simply cannot be imposed.
Nude children are a fact of life. Photographs of them, in an appropriate context are perfectly appropriate. There are nude photos of my as a child peeing in a corner (outside), among other things. It's a silly, funny photo and its existence has caused me zero harm in 35+ years.
A single photo or even two of a child engaged in childish activities is fine, nude or clothed. As long as the child's nudity isn't salacious, I don't see the issue.
A web site of family photos with the occasional infant bath or skinny dipping in the backyard photo is fine. A website devoted exclusively to underage nudists, even in "innocent" poses is a problem.
A line gets crossed when the nudity is the reason for the photos as opposed to the child or if there is blatant sexualization. I wish I could provide a concrete definition, but larger minds than mine have tried on this subject and others, and haven't come to a consensus.
And that's the problem. Some people see an exposed genital as sex, especially on a child, and that's enough to put them in full lynch mode. Other understand that body parts, especially immature ones, can be exposed completely innocently and are willing to accept that.
Intent is a lot of it. And it's a huge part of the problem. Rather than worrying about the intent of the person who took the photo, as we should be, we're lowering it to the lowest common denominator of anyone who might view that photos. That's a hugely dangerous thing and it's destroying far more lives that it's protecting. We need to lighten up a bit and be reasonable.
--
fnord )+( | |
|
