| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/20/2006 10:38:46 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I dont find nudity at any age to be patently offensive or problematic however we live in a world right now that is hung up on the human body |
I think the reality is that you live in a country with puritanical morals and a lot of sexual hangups. Other modern world countries don't have the same hang-ups and social taboos (at least to the same extent)
Though the problems & abuse still exist there too. The hysteria doesn't so much. In part I think that's media led - the fear mongering in the US media is astounding. All of the 'think of the children' rhetoric and so on.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 10:39:55. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 12:01:35 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
I totally agree that the clerk should not be considered a "moron" simply because he is doing his job. I work in a medical/dental field and we are REQUIRED by law to report ANYTHING that appears like abuse or neglect. Do you have any idea how fine of a line that is? |
You know, I'm going to have to disagree here. Taking this approach to the law simply tries to absolve us (medical professionals) of any responsibilty or requirement of thought. Hearing about this hell inflicted upon someone makes me feel this even stronger.
The principle of the argument, taken to the extreme, would be that the death penalty stops murderers and so it would be worth it to kill a few innocent people in an attempt to catch all the murderers.
The parts of the story that truly frightened me are the echoes of our views on terrorism. There is no due process here, no seeing the evidence against you, no word as to what is happening. This psychological torture would be the worst thing to endure for months on end.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 12:02:09.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 12:48:52 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I dont find nudity at any age to be patently offensive or problematic however we live in a world right now that is hung up on the human body.
I wonder sometimes if the taboos of human nudity in modern cultures were not so severe if the psychosis that many child pornographers have would be as focused? I think it is more a power thing than a naked thing.
|
I think you make very valid points. I, personally, would like to see some data. I'd also like to see data on child pornography (not just nudes) and child molestation among the nudists.
I also agree with Gordon, that much of the problem lies with the fear-mongering media. The US media with it's 24 hour coverage, seems to thrive on making issues seem worse than they are. Quite often, they blow stories way out of proportion. Combined with information overload, it is no suprise that the American public is in a state of mass hysteria.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 01:16:14 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
... The US media with it's 24 hour coverage, seems to thrive on making issues seem worse than they are. Quite often, they blow stories way out of proportion. Combined with information overload, it is no suprise that the American public is in a state of mass hysteria. |
So, see no evil, hear no evil, and it goes away? Don't think so. If there wasn't twisted people out there doing sick things, then there wouldn't be so much to write/talk about. It's sad to know this happens in our society, but I'm glad to have it made visible rather than swept into some dark murky corner. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 01:23:08 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
So, see no evil, hear no evil, and it goes away? Don't think so. If there wasn't twisted people out there doing sick things, then there wouldn't be so much to write/talk about. It's sad to know this happens in our society, but I'm glad to have it made visible rather than swept into some dark murky corner. |
I'm by no means saying that it doesn't happen. What I'm saying is that it doesn't happen as much as the media would lead you to believe it does.
Statistically, any given child has a much higher risk of being killed in a car wreck than they do being molested by a pedophile.
My point was that the hysteria caused by the media sensation has given government agencies unchecked power to destroy the lives of innocent people.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 13:24:31.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 01:23:29 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Combined with information overload, it is no suprise that the American public is in a state of mass hysteria. |
I'm part of the American Public and I'm quite calm, thank you.
You assume that because someone reads something controversial they will take the most visceral reaction possible and you are one of few who really "gets it".
There is a squeaky wheel problem. Seems like the loudest people get the most attention.
Back on topic, I think there is a difference between pictures of nude children and child pornography. If you can't tell the difference, then don't work in a photo lab.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 01:35:27 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'm part of the American Public and I'm quite calm, thank you.
You assume that because someone reads something controversial they will take the most visceral reaction possible and you are one of few who really "gets it".
|
Nope, now I assume that you also "get it" :-) And most people know logically that they get it. However, at a subconcious level, the repeated information does affect a person and changes thier beliefs and/or values. Thus changing how they react in situations.
The situation is further aggrevated within the dynamics of mob mentality that gathers around such issues.
In college, I had several cources on mass comm psychology and media ethics. I've seen studies on media impact on social beliefs.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 01:39:47 PM · #58 |
It is mostly a sense of proportion or risk assessement that is missing.
Media sensationalism focuses on what sells their media, not on what's actually likely to happen.
terrorist deaths in the US in the last 5 years - 3000 ish
Deaths on the roads in the same period - 200,000 ish
115 people die each day in a car accident in the US. That's 4 every hour.
1 person every 15 minutes.
Where's the outrage about that ? Where's the media hysteria and political focus on that huge problem ? Nowhere, because people aren't afraid of it and it doesn't sell papers or get eyeballs to watch ads.
5 people died of Anthrax posioning.
9 people died of West Nile virus.
That's about the same as 3 hours worth of driving.
Callous I know, but hopefully it at least makes my point.
Deaths each year due to obesity/ bad health/ lifestyle choices:
45,000, to 400,000 per year. (huge debate over these number)
Even at the low end, 15 times the risk that terrorism statistically is to you, right now. Doesn't seem to get 15 times the coverage though.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 13:42:14. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 01:48:44 PM · #59 |
| We (in the USA) live in a world obsessed with sex and sexual imagery, with hysterical attitudes predominating on both sides of the libertine/puritanical divide ... and then you start getting cases like this, where lies and/or mistaken information leads to the death of a perfectly innocent person. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 01:53:11 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It is mostly a sense of proportion or risk assessement that is missing.
Media sensationalism focuses on what sells their media, not on what's actually likely to happen.
terrorist deaths in the US in the last 5 years - 3000 ish
Deaths on the roads in the same period - 200,000 ish
115 people die each day in a car accident in the US. That's 4 every hour.
1 person every 15 minutes.
Where's the outrage about that ? Where's the media hysteria and political focus on that huge problem ? Nowhere, because people aren't afraid of it and it doesn't sell papers or get eyeballs to watch ads. |
Don't forget that about half of those are directly attributable to the consumption of alcohol, a legal mind-altering drug, and not to mechanical failure, medical emergency, or other misfortune.
There was some outrage about that a few years ago, but last year the number of alcohol-related fatalities again started increasing. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 01:58:15 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Deaths on the roads in the same period - 200,000 ish
115 people die each day in a car accident in the US. That's 4 every hour.
1 person every 15 minutes.
Where's the outrage about that ? Where's the media hysteria and political focus on that huge problem ? Nowhere, because people aren't afraid of it and it doesn't sell papers or get eyeballs to watch ads.
|
And the American public has a love affair with the automobile. All attempts to change that have ultimately failed. Even with soaring gas prices, the affair has not changed. We as a society refuse to debate the hazzards and harm cars cause.
However, we have an unpresedented need for a feeling of secirity. Any statistics the media feeds us revolving around terrorism, crime and especially crimes against our children easily affect us, because of this need.
One could easily compare cases such as the OP to the Salem witch trials. All said, our great-grand children will likely think we were just as silly.
Edit: for typos
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 13:59:40.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 02:06:36 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It is mostly a sense of proportion or risk assessement that is missing.
Media sensationalism focuses on what sells their media, not on what's actually likely to happen.
terrorist deaths in the US in the last 5 years - 3000 ish
Deaths on the roads in the same period - 200,000 ish
115 people die each day in a car accident in the US. That's 4 every hour.
1 person every 15 minutes.
Where's the outrage about that ? Where's the media hysteria and political focus on that huge problem ? Nowhere, because people aren't afraid of it and it doesn't sell papers or get eyeballs to watch ads.
5 people died of Anthrax posioning.
9 people died of West Nile virus.
That's about the same as 3 hours worth of driving.
Callous I know, but hopefully it at least makes my point.
Deaths each year due to obesity/ bad health/ lifestyle choices:
45,000, to 400,000 per year. (huge debate over these number)
Even at the low end, 15 times the risk that terrorism statistically is to you, right now. Doesn't seem to get 15 times the coverage though. |
I agree somewhat but why should the media cover on a daily basis the deaths of car accidents when there is nothing new to report about them? There are always "news specials" that cover problems like that but until someone in power actually says they are going to fix the problem like with terrorism, drugs, indecency, etc., the media is never going to focus on it and they shouldn't.
If you want the media to report on car accidents then the best way to do that is to participate as an American citizen and call your local and state politicians and tell them the roads aren't safe. We don't need the media to tell us something we see every day as we drive to work. Hell, we slow down just to take a better look. We KNOW the roads aren't safe yet you don't hear any politicians making that their platform. If "we the people" gave even the slightest hint we would vote for the candidate that fixed that problem guess what? That issue will begin to get lip service from politicans running for office AND THEN you'll see the media cover it. That's how things work.
Simply put, the state of the media is a direct reflection on us. Just my two cents.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 14:10:05. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 02:28:20 PM · #63 |
1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.
Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults occur to children ages 17 and under.
From: //www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp
If these numbers are anywhere close to being accurate, how can the media be over reporting the problem or making it a bigger deal then it is?
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 02:35:28 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.
Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults occur to children ages 17 and under.
From: //www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp
If these numbers are anywhere close to being accurate, how can the media be over reporting the problem or making it a bigger deal then it is? |
All fair, but you (such as the case with the media) forgot to give some more important numbers.
Even within the walls of their own homes, children are at risk for sexual abuse
* 30-40% of victims are abused by a family member.
* Another 50% are abused by someone outside of the family whom they know and trust.
* Approximately 40% are abused by older or larger children whom they know.
* Therefore, only 10% are abused by strangers.
That 40% by other larger children is quite a bit. But, none of the media providers are harping on that.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 14:37:04.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 02:43:35 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.
Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults occur to children ages 17 and under.
From: //www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp
If these numbers are anywhere close to being accurate, how can the media be over reporting the problem or making it a bigger deal then it is? |
All fair, but you (such as the case with the media) forgot to give some more important numbers.
Even within the walls of their own homes, children are at risk for sexual abuse
* 30-40% of victims are abused by a family member.
* Another 50% are abused by someone outside of the family whom they know and trust.
* Approximately 40% are abused by older or larger children whom they know.
* Therefore, only 10% are abused by strangers.
That 40% by other larger children is quite a bit. But, none of the media providers are harping on that. |
I didn't intentionally exclude those numbers as I don't see how they are relevant to the argument here??? It doesn't matter who does it?
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 02:45:54 PM · #66 |
One of the vital questions, how do they define sexual abuse?
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 14:54:28.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 02:47:32 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I didn't intentionally exclude those numbers as I don't see how they are relevant to the argument here??? It doesn't matter who does it? |
Well, for the sake of the discussion about media hype it does matter who does it. Because, the media would have you believe that 100% of the crime is done by adults.
Anyway, I think I'm gonna back out of this thread before I get put on some FBI watch list for talking about anti-propoganda.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 02:55:20 PM · #68 |
I worked in 2 photo labs developing photos for a few years, and when I started... we were given strict rules to watch out for child pornography. BUT, we were told how to see the difference between porn and innocent photos.
We were taught that any photo of kids or a kid that was nude was acceptable as long as there were no close ups or no focus on genitals, or if it looked "wrong". Pictures if a naked baby with a butt hanging out, or running around and playing or in a pool...etc was ok.
I mean, I have some pictures of my kids bottoms (not close-ups thank you!)while running around. I have a picture of my friends son raking leaves with nothing but socks on (just the backside view....and I have had it printed by a lab). But I know the difference between good and bad.
Now adays, they have some pretty uneducated people in photolabs. People can't even calibrate a printer right... do you think they know the difference? I do think that if you are going to work in lab, you should have training on what is and what is not ok. If not the workers, then a trained lab manager... or something like that.
Today, too many people want to point a finger and accuse you of doing wrong... and I understand that is because there are so many sickos in the world. BUT I do think that everyone deserves a fair explanation before getting their asses handed to them by the gov for no reason.
I also agree with the commenter back further who said there is nothing worng with a photographer going to an african village where everyone is nude and taking pictures of nude children. But over here it's a crime. You never know... some one could be using those for pornographic purposes?!?
*Sigh*
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 02:56:14 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I didn't intentionally exclude those numbers as I don't see how they are relevant to the argument here??? It doesn't matter who does it? |
Well, for the sake of the discussion about media hype it does matter who does it. Because, the media would have you believe that 100% of the crime is done by adults. |
Can't say I agree with that as I've seen several news stories of kids raping kids, and most news stories I see regarding the topic is usually a parent or a relative commiting the crime other then the recent hot female teacher instances.
And I still don't see why who is doing the raping is relevent to the discussion?
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 03:14:50 PM · #70 |
While all of this discussion of what is and what is not "pornography", and the putative moronity of the clerk is fine and well, in my eyes it misses the real point, the real horror, of this story:
It is a FACT that Child Protective Services are by LAW above the law in one significant way; when an investigation of any form of child abuse is under way, the presumptive abuser/s are considered guilty unless it is proved otherwise. There can be perfectly innocent explanations for events, but if the investigators don't believe you they can take your kids away on the spot and put them in a facility or foster home while they investigate.
The entire investigation, the lack of legal representation, the refusal to disclose the evidence, described in this article is standard operating procedure for child protective services, and if you don't play ball with them you are literally doomed. I have seen it happen, and more than once. I was subjected to it myself once, when my fiancee's ex-husband told their daughter that if she didn't live with mommy anymore she should just tell him that I had touched her privates and that would be the end of it. So one day she got angry at her mother, called her father up and said I'd done it, and that was the start of a demonic episode in our lives. Fortunately, daughter recanted her testimony a week later, but it still took a couple months to straighten it all out. My fiancee actually sued her ex over this, afterward, and they settled out of court.
Something is seriously wrong with how Child Protective is set up. Granted, they save a whole bunch of kids from miserable lives, but they also ruin a lot of innocent lives in the process; kind of like inshore trawlers using to fine a net, and decimating species that are not marketable as they cull the "good" catch and toss the rest.
R. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 03:16:03 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And I still don't see why who is doing the raping is relevent to the discussion? |
Part of the relevance can be seen if you look at kidnapping. While kidnapping in this country can't be considered rare, 98%+ are done by an estranged family member. The # of true kidnappings by sinister or deranged people unknown to the family is literally less than 100 in the country in a year. However, parents far and wide are hypervigilant about keeping their kids in eyesight at all times. It comes from the perception that such kidnappings are more common than they are.
This phenomenon is partially applicable here. If we assume that 25% of kids are abused, then the number of true abuse cases among all cases reported by the drug store photo guy could be assumed to be high. However, if the majority of those abuse cases are kids touching kids or something like that, then the number of true abuse cases among all cases reported by the drug store photo guy may be quite low. The damage done by accusing innocent people may outweigh the benefit done by catching others.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 15:19:30.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 03:36:37 PM · #72 |
I also had a run in with Child Protective Services a number of years ago. While it didn't involve sexual abuse, I was accused of neglect. The reason... my daughter had smelly feet! She was going through puberty and had an uncontrollable foot odor problem. She showered 3 or more times a day. Changed her socks as many times or more. Had 4 pair of sneakers to give each pair time to air out between wearings. Nothing worked. Nothing helped. Sprays, powders, nothing. Within a couple hours of bathing her feet STUNK. Well, a teacher reported it to her principle who contacted DYFS. They came to my house, asked me a bunch of weird questions, inspected her clothing, made sure all my utilites worked, made sure I had a washing machine. But at the time, they wouldn't tell me WHY they were here. It was a nightmare too. They called me months after their visit to say they were satisfied and wouldn't be back. I was a wreck.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 03:39:28 PM · #73 |
CPS is in a no win situation.
If they are not unfairly accusing loving parents they are retruning children to abusive homes.
I wouldn't want their job. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 03:40:43 PM · #74 |
Accountability of our government agencies is paramount.
Remember, these agencies are run by humans who have agendas and their own fallabilities.
And regarding terrorism and various homeland security agencies..just try to get off a list once you are on it. I have had my internet go through a government hired check server for over 4 years simply because I was hired by a Lebanese PAC (Political Action Committee) to run a series of ads in The Washington Times. This was a group of conservative Lebanese corporations trying to point out that Lebanon is not just a bunch of terrorists but they have regular day-to-day business lives like Americans. But because I was having information from Lebanon dropped into our FTP site..it was being screened. And I still believe a strip search I was subjected to at Reagan National airport a little over a year ago was connected to this bullshit, as they went through my computer and looked at my camera memory.
Trust me...when you talk to people who have had to deal with insane governmental bureacracy and draconian officals you'll get a new understandig of how the U.S. is changing. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 03:45:15 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, if the majority of those abuse cases are kids touching kids or something like that, then the number of true abuse cases among all cases reported by the drug store photo guy may be quite low. |
That's more the what is their definition of sexual abuse then who did the abusing though. Dad raping a daughter is probably worse then stranger raping a girl.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The damage done by accusing innocent people may outweigh the benefit done by catching others. |
That's a tough question to ponder. 25% of girls are sexually abused, which affects them negatively the rest of their life. What % of people get wrongly accused of the sexual abuse and how does their damages compare to the people that were abused? I guess you'd have to look at how many times people have been accused of child porn this way and compare it to how often it turns out to be valid? One out of two, I'd say keep it up. One out of ten, maybe not?
|
|
