Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rhiannon on May 20, 2016, 07:22:31 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36322279
Personally I think it's very human and deeply touching. Not beautiful exactly, simply because the little boy in the picture is very poorly. I've done something similar with my kids when we've been covered together in their vomit.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36322279
Personally I think it's very human and deeply touching. Not beautiful exactly, simply because the little boy in the picture is very poorly. I've done something similar with my kids when we've been covered together in their vomit.
Of course it is touching, human, loving and beautiful.
Unfortunately the obsessions of the gutter press have resulted in many people being conditioned into believing that nudity is sexual and that men are paedophile. The combination of nakedness and a man with a child will result in only one conclusion for some people. Humanity is poorer for this.
-
Yes, I should have used the word 'loving'. There's a huge amount of love in that picture.
It's actually very important for children to learn about safe touching and not safe touching. I learned baby massage so my children knew about safe touch from the off. It's one reason why I like to see teachers hugging children. (Contrary to popular belief many still do).
I think this picture demonstrates safe touching perfectly.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36322279
Personally I think it's very human and deeply touching. Not beautiful exactly, simply because the little boy in the picture is very poorly. I've done something similar with my kids when we've been covered together in their vomit.
I don't have any problem with the image itself, but I do wonder what the mentality is of a person who wants to put it in the public domain.
-
Does that also include the one of the woman and child in the same link?
-
Does that also include the one of the woman and child in the same link?
As a heterosexual, of course I find the image of a naked lady erotic - but whatever your sexuality, I think it is inadvisable to put images of naked children on the internet.
-
Er, ok.
Well I'm heterosexual but I don't find anything erotic about the naked man in the photo - the context is all wrong. But perhaps you didn't mean that. ???
Paedophiles have plenty of material online if they want it, tragically. Including films of births, baptisms and nativity plays. This photo makes an important statement that nudity within families is acceptable and that our bodies aren't ugly or inherently dangerous. Especially male bodies.
-
Er, ok.
Well I'm heterosexual but I don't find anything erotic about the naked man in the photo - the context is all wrong. But perhaps you didn't mean that. ???
Paedophiles have plenty of material online if they want it, tragically. Including films of births, baptisms and nativity plays. This photo makes an important statement that nudity within families is acceptable and that our bodies aren't ugly or inherently dangerous. Especially male bodies.
I suppose I agree in a way; both images do portray parental care for a distressed child - but I've spent nights up (yes,even semi naked) with sick kids (and often a bucket) - and I'm not sure I'd want those images on the internet (even if they existed, the bottle of dettol might be a distraction).
. . . and their are people out there who do get sexual gratification from these kinds of image - so why do it?
-
No, I wouldn't want the nights I've spent naked nursing a sick child photographed either - or clothed come to that. But the reason for doing it is as I've already said - normalising it. Otherwise we're creating a world where little children can't paddle naked in the sea and their dads are viewed with suspicion for having a bath with them. Yes, some paedophiles will get off on that photo but as I've said some will on pictures of newborns, of nativity plays, of kids blowing out candles on a birthday cake. If we don't want that then we don't allow any photos of children in the public domain at all.
-
There are vastly more loving parents than there are paedophiles.
Must the army of the former really have to self-censor just for fear of the minuscule latter?
This is the sort of thing that that now nearly legendary episode of Brass Eye took the piss out of so successfully.
-
No, I wouldn't want the nights I've spent naked nursing a sick child photographed either - or clothed come to that. But the reason for doing it is as I've already said - normalising it. Otherwise we're creating a world where little children can't paddle naked in the sea and their dads are viewed with suspicion for having a bath with them. Yes, some paedophiles will get off on that photo but as I've said some will on pictures of newborns, of nativity plays, of kids blowing out candles on a birthday cake. If we don't want that then we don't allow any photos of children in the public domain at all.
I do agree with those sentiments, but I think it is unwise to put some of those images in the public domain.
-
There are vastly more loving parents than there are paedophiles.
Must the army of the former really have to self-censor just for fear of the minuscule latter?
This is the sort of thing that that now nearly legendary episode of Brass Eye took the piss out of so successfully.
Yes, but why would loving parents want to display their naked children to the world?
-
Yes, but why would loving parents want to display their naked children to the world?
Because the majority of people will see it for what it is.
This argument's getting circular but the counter is still - why only naked? Why not in a nappy, in a swimming costume, in a bridesmaid's dress, in pyjamas?
-
Because the majority of people will see it for what it is.
This argument's getting circular but the counter is still - why only naked? Why not in a nappy, in a swimming costume, in a bridesmaid's dress, in pyjamas?
No, I'm sorry that just won't do!
Yes, those images might have great value for your family and you might well wish to share them with friends - but why the hell would you want to make them available to every peadophile and nutter in the world?
-
Given the stated circumstances I'm surprised that some would be unduly concerned about this picture: I'd say that those who misrepresent what is going on, given the context, are the real problem here.
This anxiety about photographs of children seems excessive when it involves just immediate family, and it wasn't always like that - we've still got old video of our kids swimming in a public pool taken on holidays about 25 odd years ago (when video cameras were bulky so that when used they were obvious) - but try and take a picture of just your own child in a public swimming pool today place and you could be in trouble. There was a case a while back in a shopping centre near Glasgow where a father decided to take a picture of his own young child (no other kids in the shot) on one the these coin-slot kiddy rides, security told him to stop and delete the picture - he refused and the police were called.
We live in a culture where every phone is a camera and where many people do like to document the minutiae of their daily lives on social media: my adult kids and older grandchildren do this and post trivia - 'here's a pic of the cake I made earlier' (or similarly earth-shattering events). This picture seems very much an example of that use of social media, and some people clearly use it to record more than just trivia and where it involves family life and isn't exploitative then I can't see the problem.
Why some people like to produce a running commentary of their lives (with pics, 'warts and all') on social media beats me - but perhaps that is just a generational thing on my part.
-
Because the majority of people will see it for what it is.
This argument's getting circular but the counter is still - why only naked? Why not in a nappy, in a swimming costume, in a bridesmaid's dress, in pyjamas?
Kharma applaud, Rhi.
There is nothing wrong - or sexual - about nudity per se.
I think that LA seems to have thrown the towel in the the ring and accepted defeat at the hands of the sub-editors from the gutter press.
I believe that in some places in the USA little girls are expected to be clothed in a two piece swimsuit on a beach. The idea that - because she is female - her chest must be covered is eroticising childhood. It is also giving a powerful message about her body to the child concerned: that it is a source of shame.
-
We live in a culture where every phone is a camera and where many people do like to document the minutiae of their daily lives on social media: my adult kids and older grandchildren do this and post trivia - 'here's a pic of the cake I made earlier' (or similarly earth-shattering events). This picture seems very much an example of that use of social media, and some people clearly use it to record more than just trivia and where it involves family life and isn't exploitative then I can't see the problem.
Why some people like to produce a running commentary of their lives (with pics, 'warts and all') on social media beats me - but perhaps that is just a generational thing on my part.
I must be in the wrong generation then - I'm in my mid forties but I don't get why someone would post such intimate pictures for general public consumption (unless there was no way of identifying the family). It is a touching photo but if the parents posted it onto social media in a way whereby they can be identified IMO it just seems attention-seeking or narcissistic and becomes as vacuous as the thousands of pouting selfies and all the other dross posted on public social media that people want attention for.
Taking care of a sick child is nothing exceptional and my daughters as babies were held in their father's arms while he showered as a quick way to wash them at the same time - it was very sweet for us as parents - but if someone wants to share an intimate, family moment with the public in a way where the family can be identified, the sweetness for me is tainted by the person saying "look at us, look at us". There are probably loads of parents doing this without posting pictures of it in public so it's posting the picture that seems warped to me.
I can understand posting shocking pictures of teenagers in hospital in intensive care after taking drugs - there is a serious message to get across as a warning to other teenagers who might be thinking of trying something at a party without knowing what exactly is in it.
I avoided the whole Facebook thing with my 16 year old - she wasn't allowed it and by the time I vaguely thought about relenting about a year ago, she'd lost interest. Her fairly basic smart phone (present from a grandparent) recently stopped working so she is now part of a small minority of people navigating life without a mobile phone. Perfect timing since she is currently doing her iGCSE exams.
-
The mother's a photographer. I suspect for many who work in that field capturing and sharing the beauty of intimate moments is second nature.
-
A pervert's delight I would have thought, certainly NOT something to put on the NET!
-
Why, Floo?
-
I must be in the wrong generation then
No, that's just an excuse. It's not the age group you belong to but the weird ideas you hold.
-
My response to the photo was ... as a photo. And to the story being told.
I think to impose on it some external value and context debases it as a document.
-
I can't see anything wrong with such photos just as images.
The problem is really that ready availability of such pictures on networked media could encourage growth of a market in material for paedophiles, and thus lead to criminal abuse of children to satisfy this market.
Similar to the way the availability of existing ivory stocks is now being seen as encouraging the market in ivory and lead to increased elephant poaching?
Maybe there is a better way to deal with this kind of problem?
-
No, I'm sorry that just won't do!
Yes, those images might have great value for your family and you might well wish to share them with friends - but why the hell would you want to make them available to every peadophile and nutter in the world?
Probably because the vast majority of normal people shouldn't have to self-censor and cease to share meaningful pictures of the things they hold most dear in the world because of the possibility they might be seen by a vanishingly small section of the population with a sexual interest in children.
There's a certain parallel here with that already well-worn phrase about letting terrorists win if you change your normal, everyday behaviour. Certainly it's a cliché, but the point behind it is no less true or relevant: to cease doing what you would normally do because of an infinitesimally small risk from an infinitesimally small group is allowing that tiny minority to dictate your behaviour. It's living with them in mind, not acting freely and doing whatever it is that you want to do. Anybody - professional photographer or not - who wants to share a beautiful image of their children but then thinks better of it because of paedo-paranoia has already ceded some control of their actions to faceless, nameless others. This should not and need not, in fact must not happen.
-
The mother's a photographer. I suspect for many who work in that field capturing and sharing the beauty of intimate moments is second nature.
Maybe - but to me that sounds like a doctor wanting to take their own sick child into hospital as an interesting case study for junior doctors. It's not a wrong thing to do but just seems a bit heartless IMO to not be able to separate your passion or vocation from the privacy of family life. I guess I just think social media demeans the emotion of private moments. I don't expect many others to agree with that in current times.
ETA: It's not taking the photo as a private memory that I have a problem with - it's putting out for public consumption in a way that the family can be identified that I find weird.
-
Why, Floo?
That photo creeped me out!
-
There's a certain parallel here with that already well-worn phrase about letting terrorists win if you change your normal, everyday behaviour. Certainly it's a cliché, but the point behind it is no less true or relevant: to cease doing what you would normally do because of an infinitesimally small risk from an infinitesimally small group is allowing that tiny minority to dictate your behaviour. It's living with them in mind, not acting freely and doing whatever it is that you want to do. Anybody - professional photographer or not - who wants to share a beautiful image of their children but then thinks better of it because of paedo-paranoia has already ceded some control of their actions to faceless, nameless others. This should not and need not, in fact must not happen.
We have all had to modify our behaviour considerably over recent years in response to the terrorist threat (in case you hadn't noticed all those restrictions at airports etc)
For me, the issue is very simple - do I really want all manner of weirdos viewing intimate images of my children (or these days grandchildren) ? For me the answer is no, and I have difficulty understanding the mentality of those who fail to see the problem.
-
We have all had to modify our behaviour considerably over recent years in response to the terrorist threat (in case you hadn't noticed all those restrictions at airports etc)
For me, the issue is very simple - do I really want all manner of weirdos viewing intimate images of my children (or these days grandchildren) ? For me the answer is no, and I have difficulty understanding the mentality of those who fail to see the problem.
I agree!
I find it hard to understand why anyone would wish to have a photo of themselves taken in such a compromising position. Is it normal for a naked parent to hold a naked child? Not in my book, it isn't.
I remember years ago Rolf Harris describing how his wife, child and himself would all cuddle up together naked in bed. I found that disquieting then, and of course now we know why he enjoyed doing so!
-
Oh for goodness' sake, Floo! I don't agree with LA but I can see where he's coming from on thinking photos like that should be kept private. But there's nothing perverse or disgusting about the image itself. Nor is it compromising.
-
Oh for goodness' sake, Floo! I don't agree with LA but I can see where he's coming from on thinking photos like that should be kept private. But there's nothing perverse or disgusting about the image itself. Nor is it compromising.
Well it is a topic on which we will have to agree to differ. I don't think parents and children should be naked together.
-
Well it is a topic on which we will have to agree to differ. I don't think parents and children should be naked together.
:(
-
Well it is a topic on which we will have to agree to differ. I don't think parents and children should be naked together.
Mothers should of course give birth while wearing modest ankle-length clothing at all times.
-
Mothers should of course give birth while wearing modest ankle-length clothing at all times.
Quite!
-
We have all had to modify our behaviour considerably over recent years in response to the terrorist threat
I haven't.
(in case you hadn't noticed all those restrictions at airports etc)
Don't use them.
For me, the issue is very simple - do I really want all manner of weirdos viewing intimate images of my children (or these days grandchildren) ? For me the answer is no, and I have difficulty understanding the mentality of those who fail to see the problem.
I would say that I have great difficulty understanding the mentality of you and your fellow travellers, but for the fact that there seems to be precious little mentality on display, only utterly irrational paranoia and for some a level of prudishness about the human body not merely bordering on but over the line into the frankly pathological.
-
My cousin's wife wanted to know if she could keep her pyjama trousers on when in labour.
-
When I was in labour I wasn't completely naked, I would have felt most uncomfortable if I had been.
-
The problem with the anti-terror stuff is that it's there to make us feel better. And if we think of the recent Germanwings tragedy anti-terror measures enabled the pilot to shut himself in.
The hysteria around paedophillia is the same. We are in danger of creating more problems because children aren't growing up with healthy ideas around nakedness and touch.
-
When I was in labour I wasn't completely naked, I would have felt most uncomfortable if I had been.
Which is your choice. Others choose differently. I couldn't stand the feel of clothes on my skin when I was in labour.
-
The problem with the anti-terror stuff is that it's there to make us feel better. And if we think of the recent Germanwings tragedy anti-terror measures enabled the pilot to shut himself in.
The hysteria around paedophillia is the same. We are in danger of creating more problems because children aren't growing up with healthy ideas around nakedness and touch.
I think nakedness is fine with your partner, but not in front of the kids. My husband and I have never been naked in front of our kids, they probably would have died if we had stripped off, just as I would have done if my parents had.
-
But as you are so keen to remind us at every available opportunity, your upbringing didn't exactly strongly feature rational ideas about child rearing.
-
Sooner or later kids need to know what normal nakedness looks like. Yes, there's a cut off point at which covering up is necessary. But I've always bathed or showered with my kids when they were little. And as for breastfeeding, topless is the best way by far in the early days when feeding is getting established.
-
I'm inclined to agree with LA and floo but I don't think it is wrong for small children and parents to have baths together etc, I imagine most do. When they are little they still feel very much a part of you physically and getting in the bath or shower is quite natural. Not when they are are older of course, it just tails off, again naturally. However it is very odd, creepy even, to post photographs of yourself and child with nothing on for the world and his wife to see. It's private. Another thing is, did the child give consent? Of course not.
(Re: Rolf. There hasn't been any suggestion that he was ever up to shenanigans within the family, floo. Horrible though his actions were his relations with his child appear to have been normal and she was as shocked as anyone when it all came out.)
-
It's not merely painfully obvious but simply painful that this thread has attracted some of that class of individual who complain about mothers feeding their babies in public.
Creepy people like the nurse in this story: http://goo.gl/9wEa4i
-
It's so hard being a parent as it is.
-
I'm inclined to agree with LA and floo but I don't think it is wrong for small children and parents to have baths together etc, I imagine most do. When they are little they still feel very much a part of you physically and getting in the bath or shower is quite natural. Not when they are are older of course, it just tails off, again naturally. However it is very odd, creepy even, to post photographs of yourself and child with nothing on for the world and his wife to see. It's private. Another thing is, did the child give consent? Of course not.
(Re: Rolf. There hasn't been any suggestion that he was ever up to shenanigans within the family, floo. Horrible though his actions were his relations with his child appear to have been normal and she was as shocked as anyone when it all came out.)
It's not odd, or creepy, unless you view nudity as odd and creepy.
When I was in Portugal a few years ago I walked to some caves by the cliffs where there was a tidal pool. A group of Austrian tourists of all ages just stripped off and went swimming. They had no culture of nudity being shameful.
-
It's not odd, or creepy, unless you view nudity as odd and creepy.
... which by some recursive Möbius strip-like process is itself odd and creepy.
-
Certainly it's a cliché, but the point behind it is no less true or relevant: to cease doing what you would normally do because of an infinitesimally small risk from an infinitesimally small group is allowing that tiny minority to dictate your behaviour. It's living with them in mind, not acting freely and doing whatever it is that you want to do. Anybody - professional photographer or not - who wants to share a beautiful image of their children but then thinks better of it because of paedo-paranoia has already ceded some control of their actions to faceless, nameless others. This should not and need not, in fact must not happen.
Well said.
-
Your kids wouldn't have freaked out at your nakedness when they were little floo, they'd have thought nothing of it. They must have seen you when they were babies and toddlers. That's normal and natural within families and the little ones grow up knowing what an adult looks like, they don't even think about it.
What I think is wrong is putting pictures on the internet of yourself and child naked because everyone, not just close family, can see it and the child had no say in the matter. I consider it rather exhibitionist but, OK, if someone wants to expose themselves they can, but not expose their child.
(I laughed at the story of the girl wanting to keep her pyjama bottoms on whilst giving birth. I've never heard of anyone giving birth completely naked, they usually have a short, loose nightie on or hospital gown. Even in a birthing pool.)
-
It's not odd, or creepy, unless you view nudity as odd and creepy.
When I was in Portugal a few years ago I walked to some caves by the cliffs where there was a tidal pool. A group of Austrian tourists of all ages just stripped off and went swimming. They had no culture of nudity being shameful.
As I say we will have to agree to differ. I would never wish to appear naked in front of anyone apart from my husband.
-
Your kids wouldn't have freaked out at your nakedness when they were little floo, they'd have thought nothing of it. They must have seen you when they were babies and toddlers. That's normal and natural within families and the little ones grow up knowing what an adult looks like, they don't even think about it.
What I think is wrong is putting pictures on the internet of yourself and child naked because everyone, not just close family, can see it and the child had no say in the matter. I consider it rather exhibitionist but, OK, if someone wants to expose themselves they can, but not expose their child.
(I laughed at the story of the girl wanting to keep her pyjama bottoms on whilst giving birth. I've never heard of anyone giving birth completely naked, they usually have a short, loose nightie on or hospital gown. Even in a birthing pool.)
But again we come back to this idea that nakedness is inherently sexual. It isn't. If you want all photographs that paedophiles are likely to get off on to require the permission of the child before use them you are in effect asking for all photographs of children to be removed from the public domain until a child is old enough to give consent.
-
What I think is wrong is putting pictures on the internet of yourself and child naked because everyone, not just close family, can see it and the child had no say in the matter. I consider it rather exhibitionist but, OK, if someone wants to expose themselves they can, but not expose their child.
I'm not on Facebook (was very briefly years ago; had no use for or interest in it so got rid of it) but in the case of that particular form of social media it's not true that everyone/anyone can see what you post; there are different levels of accessibility so that the user can decide who sees what.
-
But again we come back to this idea that nakedness is inherently sexual. It isn't. If you want all photographs that paedophiles are likely to get off on to require the permission of the child before use them you are in effect asking for all photographs of children to be removed from the public domain until a child is old enough to give consent.
Sex on the brain, some people. Even when kids are being washed, fed and changed.
-
But again we come back to this idea that nakedness is inherently sexual. It isn't. If you want all photographs that paedophiles are likely to get off on to require the permission of the child before use them you are in effect asking for all photographs of children to be removed from the public domain until a child is old enough to give consent.
I think it is extremely unwise to post photos of children dressed or undressed on the NET. Paedophiles have been known to superimpose the faces of children featured in this way onto those of kids being abused. As young kids are unable to give consent to having their photos on the net I think it unfair to do so.
-
So no advertising of nappies? Baby food? Paddling pools? Family holidays?
-
I remember once being mystified by one of my friend's outrage that the nice lady st the ballet class reception took children to the toilet without being CRB checked. But then I was thrown out of the toilets at the local pre-school when I took my son to wash his hands. No parents allowed in the toilets with their own kids, only staff.
-
So no advertising of nappies? Baby food? Paddling pools? Family holidays?
Good idea, no advertising FULL STOP!
-
I remember once being mystified by one of my friend's outrage that the nice lady st the ballet class reception took children to the toilet without being CRB checked. But then I was thrown out of the toilets at the local pre-school when I took my son to wash his hands. No parents allowed in the toilets with their own kids, only staff.
I think CRB checks are a good idea, of course they don't stop all criminal activity but it is a step in the right direction.
-
I think it is extremely unwise to post photos of children dressed or undressed on the NET. Paedophiles have been known to superimpose the faces of children featured in this way onto those of kids being abused. As young kids are unable to give consent to having their photos on the net I think it unfair to do so.
It's Paedogeddon, I tell you.
-
Ok. So no kids on school websites, family photographer's websites, kids' sports teams' websites, local papers...and no kids on tv either. And no adults allowed anywhere near children without being CRB checked - anyone with a trade, grandparents, parents...
Make children afraid of each and every adult just in case. That's healthy.
-
Ok. So no kids on school websites, family photographer's websites, kids' sports teams' websites, local papers...and no kids on tv either. And no adults allowed anywhere near children without being CRB checked - anyone with a trade, grandparents, parents...
Make children afraid of each and every adult just in case. That's healthy.
I think children should be taught never to trust any adult they don't know well.
-
No, we're not talking about going to look at someone's puppies. We are talking about going about daily life in fear.
When I was five or six a man tried to abduct me from my back garden (presumably) by sitting in his car and asking me if I wanted some sweets. It didn't mean I then thought every adult I ever saw was a danger.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
I looked at that photo yesterday and thought, so what, but thanks to your link and reading the story behind it, I know think, beautiful but I am still wary about what stuff you should put out on the big WWW.
Gonnagle.
-
Ok. So no kids on school websites, family photographer's websites, kids' sports teams' websites, local papers...and no kids on tv either. And no adults allowed anywhere near children without being CRB checked - anyone with a trade, grandparents, parents...
Make children afraid of each and every adult just in case. That's healthy.
... every bit as healthy (i.e. zero healthy) as the reverse, i.e. making adults too afraid to come to the assistance of a child (especially a lost and/or distressed child) because they'll have their collar felt and be dragged straight down to the nearest cop shop, questioned, charged, tried, convicted and clapped into the nonce wing before you can say Stuart Hall.
-
Children have died because adults haven't intervened.
-
I think the time has come to ban people having children. Put all those "STOP children" signs to good use.
That way none of them can come to harm or be stared at. Isn't conceiving and giving birth a form of child abuse? I'm sure Keith would back this. :)
-
I haven't.
Don't use them.
I would say that I have great difficulty understanding the mentality of you and your fellow travellers, but for the fact that there seems to be precious little mentality on display, only utterly irrational paranoia and for some a level of prudishness about the human body not merely bordering on but over the line into the frankly pathological.
I don't know what kind of life you lead Shaker, but I would be amazed if you have somehow managed to avoid all the routine security stuff that most of us take for granted. Presumably you frequently find that your suitcase has been blown-up in a controlled explosion?
I have not problem with nudity whatsoever, but I would never do anything that might put children at risk - and putting intimate images on the internet is asking for trouble.
-
I don't know what kind of life you lead Shaker, but I would be amazed if you have somehow managed to avoid all the routine security stuff that most of us take for granted.
Apparently I have.
Presumably you frequently find that your suitcase has been blown-up in a controlled explosion?
No, never - I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed something like that.
I have not problem with nudity whatsoever, but I would never do anything that might put children at risk - and putting intimate images on the internet is asking for trouble.
No it isn't. It's not asking for any trouble whatever. That's sheer borderline-hysterical paedo-paranoia.
You know, like this: https://goo.gl/m9rNWa
-
No it isn't. It's not asking for any trouble whatever. That's sheer borderline-hysterical paedo-paranoia.
You know, like this: https://goo.gl/m9rNWa
You must have have lived a very sheltered life if you haven't read the real stories of young people and children being targeted.
http://www.internetmatters.org/issues/online-grooming/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwjoC6BRDXuvnw4Ym2y8MBEiQACA-jWSx7ul0J4_glL44SeaoWLUr3xY5bIYLI512tI9PJoy0aAmEv8P8HAQ
there are a lot sickos out there and if you have anything to do with children, you'd better be aware of them.
-
Online grooming doesn't result from the kind of photo we are looking at here.
-
When I was a young teenager I was touched up by the pastor of our Pentecostal church, who was supposed to be a good god fearing bloke. Therefore it isn't surprising I am wary and don't think a child should trust any adult unless they have reason to do so.
-
Nobody denies that such things happen.
What the the leveller of head amongst us are patiently trying to explain is that the fear of such things is ludicrously disproportionate to the actual risk, and that leads to people giving in to what we can only call paedo-paranoia by censoring themselves and refraining from sharing what's special and important to them, which for many people (and by rights all parents, by definition) is their children.
I don't do social media either - I have no interest in it, being resolutely unsocial. But as much as it's a mystery to me, it means something to a hell of a lot of people and their activities shouldn't be and needn't be curtailed by grotesquely overinflated and irrational fears of random hordes of paedophiles wanking themselves into a subarachnoid haemorrhage because they've shared a harmless photo with their online friends of little Philip or Karen in the paddling pool. There is a climate of this sort of feeble-wittedness across society in general these days with all manner of things and people need to stand up to it.
-
Online grooming doesn't result from the kind of photo we are looking at here.
Nobody can actually know that, there might well be clues that could allow someone to find the location where the child lives.
-
Nobody can actually know that, there might well be clues that could allow someone to find the location where the child lives.
If there is even the slightest risk a pervert might find a child attractive, and discover their whereabouts, having seen them on the NET, it is better not to take that risk.
-
So kids should never be allowed out in public. After all if there is even the slightest chance that they might be seen and it would be so easy to find out where they lived, it is better not to take that risk.
-
So kids should never be allowed out in public. After all if there is even the slightest chance that they might be seen and it would be so easy to find out where they lived, it is better not to take that risk.
Far easier to find out where a child lives by following it home than by trying to piece together clues from a snapshot on Facebook, I'd have thought.
An immediate and complete curfew is the only answer to keep our young ones safe. Nobody under 18 allowed on the streets between 8:00am and 8:00am [sic].
-
What the the leveller of head amongst us are patiently trying to explain is that the fear of such things is ludicrously disproportionate to the actual risk, and that leads to people giving in to what we can only call paedo-paranoia by censoring themselves and refraining from sharing what's special and important to them, which for many people (and by rights all parents, by definition) is their children.
Yes, some people go too far - but your attitude sounds complacent in the extreme.
I don't do social media either - I have no interest in it, being resolutely unsocial. But as much as it's a mystery to me, it means something to a hell of a lot of people and their activities shouldn't be and needn't be curtailed by grotesquely overinflated and irrational fears of random hordes of paedophiles wanking themselves into a subarachnoid haemorrhage because they've shared a harmless photo with their online friends of little Philip or Karen in the paddling pool. There is a climate of this sort of feeble-wittedness across society in general these days with all manner of things and people need to stand up to it.
Social media is the whole problem (imo)
My fear would be that paedophile would see a 'provocative' photo of a child and work out where they lived. Probably not too difficult with social media.
-
Yes, some people go too far - but your attitude sounds complacent in the extreme.
No, I don't think so. I'm aware of risk but also have it in proportion - which you, with your heavy-breathing, sweaty-palmed scenarios of random paedophiles trying to trace a child's home address via clues in photos on Facebook, certainly appear not to, to me.
Social media is the whole problem (imo)
Whether it is or it isn't (and social media is only what you choose to do with it), it isn't going anywhere now.
-
No, I don't think so. I'm aware of risk but also have it in proportion - which you, with your heavy-breathing, sweaty-palmed scenarios of random paedophiles trying to trace a child's home address via clues in photos on Facebook, certainly appear not to, to me.
You said that you don't use Facebook - so I don't know if you realise how it works. People post messages - some of which will contain information about location. For example, I noticed that my daughter was discussing something that was going on in the village hall. Strangers may even ask you innocent sounding questions that could give-away your location.
-
There is an odd inversion here that I don't quite understand: it's as if the increased ease of taking pics (since most phones are cameras too) and making them available via the internet has lead to an over-reaction in terms of risks.
Surely though there is a need to be balanced in assessing risks: by all means we should pursue the abusers and be alert for misuse, but in doing so I can't that families should feel the need to be constrained in making reasonable use of everyday technology to document their lives if they wish to.
-
There is an odd inversion here that I don't quite understand: it's as if the increased ease of taking pics (since most phones are cameras too) and making them available via the internet has lead to an over-reaction in terms of risks.
Surely though there is a need to be balanced in assessing risks: by all means we should pursue the abusers and be alert for misuse, but in doing so I can't that families should feel the need to be constrained in making reasonable use of everyday technology to document their lives if they wish to.
Hi Gordon, I completely agree that families should be free to take intimate photos of their children. The problem I see is when those photos get into the public domain - which in practice, means what your facebook settings are - and facebook settings are quite difficult to work out, so people often reveal more than they intended.
-
Hi Gordon, I completely agree that families should be free to take intimate photos of their children. The problem I see is when those photos get into the public domain - which in practice, means what your facebook settings are - and facebook settings are quite difficult to work out, so people often reveal more than they intended.
I don't do Facebook etc (I'm far too old and grumpy) but my kids and grandkids do, so I'm not overly familiar with this aspect of social media - but what are the known risks of family accounts being hacked?
I'd have thought those using the Internet for pornography would need to be more focused in their activities than trawling for pics given the numbers of family-use accounts.
-
You said that you don't use Facebook - so I don't know if you realise how it works.
I don't use it now, but I have done, so yes, I think I know how it works.
People post messages - some of which will contain information about location. For example, I noticed that my daughter was discussing something that was going on in the village hall. Strangers may even ask you innocent sounding questions that could give-away your location.
And the idea that these could unwittingly provide clues for predatory paedophiles to track down children to their homes would be contemptible were it not so pitiable.
In actuality it's both.
-
I don't use it now, but I have done, so yes, I think I know how it works. And the idea that these could unwittingly provide clues for predatory paedophiles to track down children to their homes would be contemptible were it not so pitiable.
In actuality it's both.
You just don't get it do you?
Just as an experiment, I looked at my daughters facebook page and saw some dialogue about the village hall. I put the name of the village hall into Google and I got the village where we live. I put her name (which is visible on her account) and the village into directory enquiries (I could just have used the phone book) and got her exact address.
The only reason that a complete stranger could not do this is because her settings limited access to friends - but not everyone has their account set up that way, and a complete stranger might request to be a friend.
-
LA, this isn't a child's FB page. It's an adult's.
-
You just don't get it do you?
Just as an experiment, I looked at my daughters facebook page and saw some dialogue about the village hall. I put the name of the village hall into Google and I got the village where we live. I put her name (which is visible on her account) and the village into directory enquiries (I could just have used the phone book) and got her exact address.
Isn't it much easier to follow (discretely of course) a child home from school. Then you could get their exact address without all of that shenanigans?
-
I don't see any problem with the photo referred to in the OP, it's a small child being cuddled a rather pleasant image.
ippy
-
LA, this isn't a child's FB page. It's an adult's.
Who presumably lives at the same address?
-
Isn't it much easier to follow (discretely of course) a child home from school. Then you could get their exact address without all of that shenanigans?
I thought I had just demonstrated how easy it was to do that kind of thing online - if you pay 192.com £15 you can get a whole pile more of data on the person, the people they share a house with, credit history - you name it, you can buy it online.
-
I thought I had just demonstrated how easy it was to do that kind of thing online - if you pay 192.com £15 you can get a whole pile more of data on the person, the people they share a house with, credit history - you name it, you can buy it online.
So is it social media that's to blame (#75) or the World Wide Web generally?
-
So is it social media that's to blame (#75) or the World Wide Web generally?
The World Wide Web allows almost limitless possibilities. Social Media encourages people to put all manner of personal information into the public domain - generally not a good idea.
-
What the the leveller of head amongst us are patiently trying to explain is that the fear of such things is ludicrously disproportionate to the actual risk
If you want to save children's lives, a concerted road safety campaign is probably the best way to go.
I don't do social media either - I have no interest in it, being resolutely unsocial. But as much as it's a mystery to me, it means something to a hell of a lot of people and their activities shouldn't be and needn't be curtailed by grotesquely overinflated and irrational fears of random hordes of paedophiles wanking themselves into a subarachnoid haemorrhage because they've shared a harmless photo with their online friends of little Philip or Karen in the paddling pool.
If pedophiles do wank off over these photos on Facebook, it's pretty distasteful to think about it, but has anybody actually been harmed?
There is a climate of this sort of feeble-wittedness across society in general these days with all manner of things and people need to stand up to it.
Quite. The media like to instil fear and panic because it sells. The government likes it because they can put in pretend measures to keep us quiet.
-
Quite. The media like to install fear and panic because it sells. The government likes it because they can put in pretend measures to keep us quiet.
A chief example being the regular ratcheting up and lowering then raising of what we're told the alleged terror threat is, from moderate to severe to Jesus-Christ-we-don't-even-have-a-colour-for-how-fucking-serious-this-is-waaaaaaagh.
-
I don't use it now, but I have done, so yes, I think I know how it works. And the idea that these could unwittingly provide clues for predatory paedophiles to track down children to their homes would be contemptible were it not so pitiable.
In actuality it's both.
My initial point was not about paedophiles but about over--sharing with the general public, as opposed to family, and identifying yourself and your child in the process, in an intimate and vulnerable moment in their life.
I also agree with Brownie about invading a child's privacy - there is a difference between seeing kids running around or doing stuff they would openly do in a public setting and taking a private moment and putting it out for public consumption with your name attached for no discernible reason other than you like to draw attention to yourself using whatever props available.
In relation to paedophiles - there is a lot of on-line grooming that starts of with innocent questions about innocuous things based on clues picked up from posts and pictures and once trust has been gained over a long period of time and many on-line chats the child is subtly manipulated to reveal more and more about themselves in order to gain influence and control - "I see from your photo you like football, what team do you support?....oh same here....why don't we put our team shirts on and chat, I bet you look like <insert football hero here>in that shirt....Why don't you put the webcam on and show me....you look like you're really strong - you have wide shoulders for a kid your age...bet you can do lots of press ups...do you have a six pack...etc etc
Why would a paedophile waste their energy following a random kid home when contact on-line is easier, more subtle and a lot easier to gain the child's trust? The paedophile can pick and choose their target on-line from photos and there is a huge nationwide selection of kids compared to the handful of kids that show up to their local park - especially true since kids seem to spend less time playing outside these days. The paedophile would organise a meet-up only once they had groomed the child sufficiently and it would be at a time and place convenient for the paedophile.
Since there are so many photos shared on-line with millions of people every day there are so many opportunities for someone to catch a paedophile's attention and so much time plus zoom in technology to pore over photos and pick up information to use to groom someone, if you are clever, manipulative and that way inclined.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36322279
Personally I think it's very human and deeply touching. Not beautiful exactly, simply because the little boy in the picture is very poorly. I've done something similar with my kids when we've been covered together in their vomit.
I saw this too. I don't have a problem with it but it did occur to me that the reason people react badly to it is that you can't see the fathers face. I think that kind of renders the adult in the picture 'unknown', making it easier for a viewer to project their own assumptions and prejudices onto the photograph. If the mother is a professional photographer I wouldn't be surprised if she did that on purpose. Its has certainly provoked discussion.