Good for dad. *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, September 11th, 2014 10:32am PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

As a father of a young child and also a professional photographer, this is really close to my heart.

I really hate that people associate nudity with sexuality. Of course nudity can be sexual, but that's not the same as saying all nudity is sexual. Running around with nothing on is just something kids do. They aren't body aware and at that age they shouldn't be.

If we're going to make something illegal or think of it as wrong because some weirdo finds it sexual, well where the hell does that end? A lot of people have a foot fetish, so are we all to keep our socks on at all times? Really?

The photo of the little girl jumping on the bed is a great shot. It shows the carefree abandon of a little kid trying to amuse herself. To me it speaks to my inner child and makes me realise how much we've lost as adults. The nudity is important in this shot, but not for any sexual reason. When was the last time you just didn't care? When was the last time you thought it could be OK to jump on the bed naked? More to the point when was the last time that you didn't even have to think that and just did it, just because?

It makes the shot interesting that her naked body is not sexual. It's the opposite. It's innocent, there's nothing more to it. She's not at an age where all of these rules and restrictions should apply to her because they are meaningless to a toddler.

The problem comes when people take innocent shots like this and try to make out that they are sexual. That's when the damage happens. That's when the little girl is sexualised. Not by the photographer, but by the people who claim to be trying to protect the kids.

Bravo Wyatt Neumann!

I say if a person sees a naked image of a pre-pubescent and thinks it's sexual, that person has a problem they need to do serious private work on and thinking about. Attaching their sexual issues to non-sexual objects/images is simply deflection of responsibility for their own sickness. There's no problem with the innocent image at all. Non-sexual child nudity in art is not a new, troubling, or odd thing. Sexualizing it is.

Didn't view the video. Thumbnail looks normal to me. Just wanted to read the summary.

I saw a post recently that really had me thinking. We have special laws for the showing of naked children and child porn. Message boards all over the world famous for allowing almost anything, allow anything except pictures of naked children.

And yet we don't bat an eye at pictures of murdered children. Why is that? Children get beaten and killed both first world and third world countries, and we have no problem plastering it all over the media sites. Some people may be offended, but most admins will leave it if it is a site that promotes juvenile posting. After all there are no laws against posting pictures of dead children.

So remember, dead children are OK. But god forbid they are naked!

To be blunt, dead children can't suffer.

That kind of makes sense, but why does the same hold true in movies, art, and other fictional depictions where no child suffers. Even simulated child nakedness (young looking 18 year olds) is unacceptable (or at best considered pornographic), but simulated child torture mutilation and death, no problem, put it on TV.
I think it has a lot to do with our misplaced values that tell many of us that sex is at best something to be kept private, more often it's dirty and bad and something to be embarrassed about or ashamed of (not sure why), but violence is perfectly acceptable public behavior (boxing, etc.) and we're desensitized to it.

That IS part of the argument for bans on child porn, but it is the flimsiest part of the argument too. You really can't argue that a child suffers every time child porn of her is viewed in a literal sense. Instead we argue that allowing it would encourage (more of) it to happen. Yet you could argue the same thing about pictures of dead children.

Newtboy also brings in another aspect of society and Hollywood that is lopsided. Sex and violence in movies. Children getting shot or maimed and dieing in movies? no problem! But you imply the natural act of procreation between adults? R rating for you!

I think we can do better.

Lost in all this is an aspect that's becoming more and more relevant to today's kids, and their future adult life: when this girl is grown up, pictures of her naked kiddie self will be floating around online for anyone to see.

Would you like it if naked kiddie pictures of you were there for any random person to look at? Would you be comfortable with any person you happen to introduce yourself to finding these pictures? What about strangers on the street able to use facial recognition software to find, among other things, these pictures of you? People looking you up on dating sites? (It may not be possible today, but it will in all likelihood be common in the future, and if your photos are already online, there's no way back.) Don't kids have the right to privacy? Why do parents get to post a shit-ton of less than respectful (often humiliating) pictures of their kids online, with no regard for the kids' future well-being and social life? (Not saying that's the case here, as I haven't seen all his pictures, nor do I care to.)

As someone once said, there should be a law against that.

Before posting pictures of your kid online, ask yourself this: When my kids are grown up, will they thank me for posting those pictures online? No? The opposite? Maybe you shouldn't post them, then.

You don't think a child suffers knowing some freakish pile of shit somewhere is watching them be violated? You wouldn't care if you knew someone, somewhere, was watching a video of you being raped?

One and the other is not the same. What you said here is the truth, knowing said pictures are "in the wild" can have devastating psychological impact when the child becomes old enough to realize what has been done.

However this feeling is not on a "post by post" biases.

My point is if child porn is banned because it fuels more CP, it fuels more thoughts in sick people, why not outlaw pictures of dead children for the same? Especially since one follows the other in so many cases?

This too. Especially with how efficient we are getting at archiving, sorting, and searching through information today. It is hard to become a celebrity or politician if your haters can drum up stuff like this. Art is one thing, casual photography for the sake of pronouncing your innocence against society is another.

I get the feeling we're arguing different points. I get what you're saying.

His mistake, and all parents' mistake is posting these pics to the INTERNET. idiot.