| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/19/2006 03:19:23 PM · #26 |
This is unfortunately just part of the ever-growing hysteria (that, I think, is largely media-led, ironically) about peadophiles that means that more and more photographers are being seen as nasty leacherous evil monsters than people out enjoying a hobby.
Just this week I was hearing on the news that a referee had almost called off a junior football match because parents were taking photos. The referee had told the parents that they were not allowed to take photos of the match "because of children protection law". Obviously, there is no such law, but the parents seemed not to know that because they listened to the ref and obidiently stopped taking photos.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:21:40 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
and barry I am not sure that i aree with you on alot of things but 8 is too old to be photo'd nude IMO also. |
I think what is being missed with this sort of statement is that it isn't a "a child being photographed nude".. but "photographs of children being children while they just happen to be nude."
There are a lot of different ideas on what is acceptable in families and with nudity, and if there's a situation where children have grown up being comfortable with nudity, then age isn't a factor in these types of situations in any way, shape, or form. There are *obvious* lines one shouldn't cross, and I think the majority of people, and authorities, are able to understand where these lines are.
Although with the advent of puritan interests, I think the line itself sometimes goes off-kilter in fantastically disturbing ways (ie. parents getting arrested for photos of their baby in the bath) |
again i am not saying that they should be in trouble for it just saying that TO ME there si no reason to see an 8 year old nude. i know wome people differ and they MAY not be harming the child but for me it is too old. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:27:11 PM · #28 |
| I'm getting confused by this whole 8 years old thing. it's not like at 8 children have developed in any way or may be deemed sexually attractive to non sickos. so why is 8 any different than 2? 8's really still just a baby. I'm just confused as to what makes the difference. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:31:37 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Personally, I'm worried enough that I'd end up getting thrown out of the US for taking a picture like this of critical infrastructure and having a funny accent:
|
Man, we're gonna throw you out of the country because you post such a beautiful image. If we get you out soon enough you won't post it in a challenge.
LOL I've got an easy spot for water portrayed that way. NICE IMAGE
Hey! I didn't see any nekked people in that image. We're off topic, aren't we?
Edit: Duh. Just noticed that you DID enter this image. heheheheheh
Congats on the top 10.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 15:32:47.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:34:20 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
again i am not saying that they should be in trouble for it just saying that TO ME there si no reason to see an 8 year old nude. i know wome people differ and they MAY not be harming the child but for me it is too old. |
It's somewhat interesting to note that you are from Georgia too... |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:39:07 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
again i am not saying that they should be in trouble for it just saying that TO ME there si no reason to see an 8 year old nude. i know wome people differ and they MAY not be harming the child but for me it is too old. |
It's somewhat interesting to note that you are from Georgia too... |
I'm from georgia as well and elvis_l is my husband however our views on this differ quite drastically. what does Ga. have to do with it exactly? |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:46:00 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by David.C:
But he didn't do that. Instead he turned it over to some other agency to make the call. This agency is set up, outside of the law, and assumes anyone referred to them is guilty of something -- all they have to do is find it.
All this families unneccesary troubles would have been avioded if that officer had the courage to make a decision.
|
And the officer could very well lose his job and end up as a defendant in court for violating some higher regulation or law. Don't blame the messenger; write your legislators and inidcate your displeasure that the hysteria about has gone too far. There seems to be quite a few things that fit for hysteria choices. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:47:23 PM · #33 |
This is what happens when you vote Rebuplican
JOKE JOKE JOKE JOKE JOKE
>>>runs and hides<<<<<<
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:57:12 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by jaded_youth:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
again i am not saying that they should be in trouble for it just saying that TO ME there si no reason to see an 8 year old nude. i know wome people differ and they MAY not be harming the child but for me it is too old. |
It's somewhat interesting to note that you are from Georgia too... |
I'm from georgia as well and elvis_l is my husband however our views on this differ quite drastically. what does Ga. have to do with it exactly? |
I am assuming that it is reference to the original article that mentioned the savannah police.
If not yea what does GA have to do with anything?! |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:59:15 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
I am assuming that it is reference to the original article that mentioned the savannah police.
If not yea what does GA have to do with anything?! |
Is that banjo music I hear down by the Cahulawassee River? |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:00:20 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
I am assuming that it is reference to the original article that mentioned the savannah police.
If not yea what does GA have to do with anything?! |
Is that banjo music I hear down by the Cahulawassee River? |
Watch it banana boy! lol :P
edit to add: inside joke. don't mind me...
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 16:01:16. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:01:05 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
I am assuming that it is reference to the original article that mentioned the savannah police.
If not yea what does GA have to do with anything?! |
Is that banjo music I hear down by the Cahulawassee River? |
there are some country folks around here for sure. lets just say the shock of moving from Tampa to here was pretty big. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:02:41 PM · #38 |
Wow, just read the secoond article to my wife, as she is holding our 8 month old. I'm so disgusted and angry. I hope they all go to prison. They don't like child molesters in prison.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:04:06 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by jaded_youth:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Is that banjo music I hear down by the Cahulawassee River? |
Watch it banana boy! lol :P
edit to add: inside joke. don't mind me... |
Dueling Banana Boys
 |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:05:27 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by cryan:
Wow, just read the secoond article to my wife, as she is holding our 8 month old. I'm so disgusted and angry. I hope they all go to prison. They don't like child molesters in prison. |
prison is not enough. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:50:43 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
I am assuming that it is reference to the original article that mentioned the savannah police. |
Yup.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 17:03:31. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:48:48 PM · #42 |
Get out of town man!!! Naked kids peeing on a fire surrounded by adults...kids running naked...one drying underwear naked...possible shots of kids drinking alcohol...(or pretending to)...
....the clerk did the right thing....
Originally posted by manx_20:
There is a big thick line that separates certain things, but some idiots are too dense to see it still and the rest of us have to pay the price. They should sue Eckerd and that moron developing pictures. |
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 20:46:03.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 10:16:18 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
....the clerk did the right thing.... |
the issue really isn't the clerk. the issue is the how these situations are handled by the authorities, especially once they have collected enough background info to determine that other that being stupid enough to take photos, the parents are not bad people.
it is totally horrifying that innocent people can be put in positions where they lose everything, just because somebody points a finger at them and the system doesn't care. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 11:15:44 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
Originally posted by kenskid:
....the clerk did the right thing.... |
the issue really isn't the clerk. the issue is the how these situations are handled by the authorities, especially once they have collected enough background info to determine that other that being stupid enough to take photos, the parents are not bad people.
it is totally horrifying that innocent people can be put in positions where they lose everything, just because somebody points a finger at them and the system doesn't care. |
yup, indiscretion by the authorities can do far more damage to a family than a slightly bawdy camping trip.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 09:24:44 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by manx_20:
... They should sue Eckerd and that moron developing pictures. |
Why? The "moron" was doing his/her job and ran across photos of children without clothes on, and some showing genitals it sounds like. Like it or not, the "moron" had an obligation to report it or his/her butt could potentially be in trouble, as well as Eckerd the company, for not following laws I imagine are in place for this.
Unfortunately, there are enough creeps out there (do a search on child pornography arrests) that make this reaction a necessary one IMO. Yes, I know it was the kids parent that took the photo's, but again, the "moron" had no way of knowing that, nor was it his/her job to play detective. Let the proper authorities sort it out.
Kind of sucks the way the legal system raked the parents over the coals however once they found out what took place.
Last thing. I think an 8 yr-old is a little too old to be running around without clothes on. Ok. JMO. Have fun - tear it up. |
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? I had a child in my dental office with cut gums and lips cause he was being a kid and trying to mimic the person he saw at the circus hanging from a rope by their mouth...neglect on the parents part for not explaining to the kid that they are professionals and know how to do it? Maybe abuse because the kid mouthed back and they made up the circus story to cover themselves. What about the patient who is anemic and an innocent touch causes bruising? Do you instantly call the cops cause she is being abused?
The line is thin and sometimes you just don't know, so just because the store clerk felt the photos were of questionable nature and he acted upon them doesn't make him/her a "moron"...just think how many kids would probably be saved if others did the same.
and
Originally posted by jaded_youth:
I'm getting confused by this whole 8 years old thing. it's not like at 8 children have developed in any way or may be deemed sexually attractive to non sickos. so why is 8 any different than 2? 8's really still just a baby. I'm just confused as to what makes the difference. |
Where have you been? Kids are developing much faster now a days and although a normal person wouldn't see an 8 year old as a sexually attractive item, their are kids that do not look their actual age. I know my step-daughter at age 8 was much taller and much more developed than her peers (and even some of the teens) and more than once her mom had to watch how men and older boys acted around her and even put them in their place. We have had to watch her like a hawk knowing what perverts lie out there just waiting for the right opportunity to arise. Kids these days ARE developing much younger and that should be taken into consideration as I'm sure the parents did other wise they wouldn't have taken the pictures.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 09:34:56 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
Originally posted by jaded_youth:
I'm getting confused by this whole 8 years old thing. it's not like at 8 children have developed in any way or may be deemed sexually attractive to non sickos. so why is 8 any different than 2? 8's really still just a baby. I'm just confused as to what makes the difference. |
Where have you been? Kids are developing much faster now a days and although a normal person wouldn't see an 8 year old as a sexually attractive item, their are kids that do not look their actual age. I know my step-daughter at age 8 was much taller and much more developed than her peers (and even some of the teens) and more than once her mom had to watch how men and older boys acted around her and even put them in their place. We have had to watch her like a hawk knowing what perverts lie out there just waiting for the right opportunity to arise. Kids these days ARE developing much younger and that should be taken into consideration as I'm sure the parents did other wise they wouldn't have taken the pictures. |
I didn't mean its OK to take pics of an 8 year old. I dont think its EVER ok to take fully naked(waist down) shots of children. At 2 like i said or 8. i just didnt understand why people think its ok at any ager younger than 8. I'm not saying its should be ok over 8 or under 8. i guess I didnt make that clear. sorry. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 09:46:53 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by jaded_youth:
I didn't mean its OK to take pics of an 8 year old. I dont think its EVER ok to take fully naked(waist down) shots of children. At 2 like i said or 8. i just didnt understand why people think its ok at any ager younger than 8. I'm not saying its should be ok over 8 or under 8. i guess I didnt make that clear. sorry. |
You are correct, I did miss that. Hope my post didn't offend you as it was certainly not meant to. You have a VERY valid point, sorry I missed it at first.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 10:04:38 AM · #48 |
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.
For instance, do tribes in Africa who have nudity as part of their daily life have rampant child molestation or various child pornographers drawing pictures of naked children in the sand? :-/ I'm not being sarcastic..I really am curious about the effects of the fear and sense of incorrectness we place on innocent things and how often it adds fuel to the fires of fantasy and impropriety?
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 10:05:21. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 10:20:15 AM · #49 |
If there was to be an injustice done in this situation, I'd rather that injustice be "questioning innocent parents" than the injustice of having kids molested and abused even though there was some indication and it was reported that it was happening.
Originally posted by skiprow:
Originally posted by kenskid:
....the clerk did the right thing.... |
the issue really isn't the clerk. the issue is the how these situations are handled by the authorities, especially once they have collected enough background info to determine that other that being stupid enough to take photos, the parents are not bad people.
it is totally horrifying that innocent people can be put in positions where they lose everything, just because somebody points a finger at them and the system doesn't care. |
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 10:23:46 AM · #50 |
I think the world is a scarier place, and in general anything that can be done to protect the children is a good thing. I remember when one mother put her two sons picture up in smugmug??? one of those sites. They children were sitting in T's and underwear? Nothing the least bit sexual about it.(I saw the picture) And she was getting 1000's of hits on her site, looking for young boys. (and these were obviously children, both under 10). I don't remember who the photographer was here, but she posted about her experience. Anyway .. scary scary world.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:12:35 AM EDT.
