Dad Of naked 6 Yr Old Cover Girls Writes About "Sensuality Of Children"

I guess the biggest 'bug' about all this IMO is the fact that Daddy Dearest does not seem to see what has been done by putting the photos out there.I wonder how many times they will crop up on any pedos computer......:eek:
It sets the kid up as a target for all types of abuse including bullying by her peers.

How many times do naked babies photographed by Anne Geddes wind up on a pedophile's computer....or fully clothed photos of any other child in the media? For some pedophiles, clothed is more alluring that unclothed. Where do we draw the line with photos of children? What are the parameters that should be set up?
 
I think the parameters for published photographs should be no photographs where children's genitalia is visible at all, the acceptable ammount of exposed flesh should be radically decreased after a child turns two (a six month girl topless is not the same as a 6 year old girl topless), the pose should be considered (is this a natural pose or a pose more common to a lingerie or Plaboy model?) but the most important of all should be the protection of the child's identity (not releasing his/her full name).
 
I think the parameters for published photographs should be no photographs where children's genitalia is visible at all, the acceptable ammount of exposed flesh should be radically decreased after a child turns two (a six month girl topless is not the same as a 6 year old girl topless), the pose should be considered (is this a natural pose or a pose more common to a lingerie or Plaboy model?) but the most important of all should be the protection of the child's identity (not releasing his/her full name).

IMO, with rare exception, the chest of a 6-month-old girl is "sexually" identical to the chest of a 6-year-old girl. In fact, the younger girl's chest is even more likely to be fleshier or "breastier." In the picture at issue in this case, that girl has less chestiness than my 5 and 7 year old sons.

But I hear that two is your cut-off age.

As far as the child's identity - is it better for pedophiles to become aroused over a child we cannot readily identify? What about the case that has been mentioned here previously of Junny - the boy who was photographed fully clothed and identified in a newspaper. This led to a pedophile finding, raping and murdering him. Should we protect the identities of all under-18s based on his case? How will this effect child performers who want to be identified?
 
How many times do naked babies photographed by Anne Geddes wind up on a pedophile's computer....or fully clothed photos of any other child in the media? For some pedophiles, clothed is more alluring that unclothed. Where do we draw the line with photos of children? What are the parameters that should be set up?
defend him all you want South...the man is knowingly putting his near naked daughter up there in print and in the media and thriving on the publicity that it is bringing him....he is pimping is daughter and I know that is only my opinion:behindbar....did you watch the link I provided..the kid has no idea whats shes talking about.
 
defend him all you want South...the man is knowingly putting his near naked daughter up there in print and in the media and thriving on the publicity that it is bringing him....he is pimping is daughter and I know that is only my opinion:behindbar

I'm not defending him, dingo. I haven't once said what he did was a good thing that should be lauded and accepted. I have repeatedly said that this subject always confuses me. I am asking questions in an attempt to determine where we all land on the issue - there are a fair number of confusions for me.

He may well be pimping out his daughter just as Jodie Foster's parents may have been pimping out their daughter. Or he may genuinely perceive this as art (an argument I "get) just as Jodie's parents may genuinely perceive their prepubescent daughter portraying a young prostitute as art. I mean - Taxi Driver was nominated for buckets of Academy Awards, but this man is being excoriated. Where do we draw the line?

I am still trying to determine where I sit with all this. By the way, I thought Foster's potrayal as a baby *advertiser censored* was much more sexually provocative than the photo I saw of this young girl.
 
OMG ... way worse is the photography of Bill Henson. The images and the article about Olympia were in response to furor over Bill Henson's work. Where the photos of Olympia may be view as questionable art and poor parenting, Bill Henson's work IMO is straight up child *advertiser censored*.
 
IMO, with rare exception, the chest of a 6-month-old girl is "sexually" identical to the chest of a 6-year-old girl. In fact, the younger girl's chest is even more likely to be fleshier or "breastier." In the picture at issue in this case, that girl has less chestiness than my 5 and 7 year old sons.

But I hear that two is your cut-off age.

As far as the child's identity - is it better for pedophiles to become aroused over a child we cannot readily identify? What about the case that has been mentioned here previously of Junny - the boy who was photographed fully clothed and identified in a newspaper. This led to a pedophile finding, raping and murdering him. Should we protect the identities of all under-18s based on his case? How will this effect child performers who want to be identified?

It is true that the chest of an infant girl is almost identical or even fleshier than a little girl's but it is socially acceptable to take your infant daughter out shopping wearing just a diaper (hopefully in summer) while taking your 6 year old daughter out topless in public is not acceptable.

Junny Rios-Martinez was a horrible case. However I do not believe all children's identities, if they appear in a published photo, should be hidden. Some, like Junny and child stars and would-be stars, want publicity. What happened to Junny Rios-Martinez is, thank God, very rare. And that picture of him that appeared in the newspaper was entirely innocent and could in no way be called provocative by any normal human being. However if a child is photographed in anything less than full clothing (such as children and young teens in underwear ads) or is in a pose, like Olympia in the ragged dress, that would make anyone think :waitasec: (which they shouldn't be in the first place!) there is no way their full names should be revealed. While the effect of Junny's picture could not have been anticipated it is known that paedophiles particularly love photos of the type mentioned above. I have read of fights among prisoners over newspaper underwear ads featuring children. It is so easy these days for the internet savvy to look up a child's address and school if they have their full names so children in photos who may especially attract attention must be protected.

Southcitymom, although we don't always agree on this issue I admire you for asking these questions. :clap: These are important social topics that are, unfortunately, under discussed.
 
IMO, with rare exception, the chest of a 6-month-old girl is "sexually" identical to the chest of a 6-year-old girl. In fact, the younger girl's chest is even more likely to be fleshier or "breastier." In the picture at issue in this case, that girl has less chestiness than my 5 and 7 year old sons.

But I hear that two is your cut-off age.

As far as the child's identity - is it better for pedophiles to become aroused over a child we cannot readily identify? What about the case that has been mentioned here previously of Junny - the boy who was photographed fully clothed and identified in a newspaper. This led to a pedophile finding, raping and murdering him. Should we protect the identities of all under-18s based on his case? How will this effect child performers who want to be identified?

Actually I believe there is a law in the US (or maybe at State level) where the cutoff age for naked pics of your children is 2 yrs. I wish I knew how to find that information, but there was a case of a mom/photographer that took pictures of her older child (older than 2) who was in the shower which made headlines. I think one of the issues was that the shower hose or head was in what some perceived as a provocative position.

Perhaps someone here remembers that case.
 
Well I can't even speak to the issue because I wasn't able to nurse any of my three. They're all bottle babies.

UNLIKE men, women are able to separate their feelings, so that while they may be using the same parts for different reasons, women don't get sexually aroused by nursing their babies.

I would believe that except we have testimony to the contrary from lots and lots of women, which, as another poster noted above, the La Leche Society has documented and discussed.

And that doesn't even count women who can't bring themselves to admit their feelings because we as a society are so paranoid on the subject.

Nobody is saying it is common for mothers to have or even to want to have actual sex with their children. As far as I know, that is extremely rare and probably occurs only in isolated cases of severe mental illness.
 
Well I can't even speak to the issue because I wasn't able to nurse any of my three. They're all bottle babies.

UNLIKE men, women are able to separate their feelings, so that while they may be using the same parts for different reasons, women don't get sexually aroused by nursing their babies.

These are very good points on the issue of breastfeeding. It is extremely difficult and painful for some women to breastfeed and for some, it is just outside the cultural norm. While breastmilk is the best, natural source of nutrition for infants because of natural antibodies, etc., bottlefed babies can be just as healthy. And you can still impart a sense of love, well-being, and comfort to a child by holding them when they feed.

I don't agree with La Leches stance that all children have to be breastfed. Just not true, and there are many of us running around now that were not breastfed and/or didn't breastfeed our children. However, I do believe La Leche does have some very good information, much of it on their website now, for explaining how breastfeeding works and answering questions for young, pregnant women that may want to try breastfeeding.

Having said all that, the way I understand the breastfeeding/"sexual" connection is that the nipple stimulation stimulates the uterus, causing it to contract. These contractions help the uterus return to it's pre-pregnancy shape. Its all biology and one of the ways our body continues to help itself "heal" after the birth of a baby. Somewhat like the normal contractions a female feels when she hits the big O, which is where the "sexual" part comes in. It is not like when you are "lusting" after someone. It's not that kind of "sexual." It probably wouldn't even be thought of as sexual, except that the contractions are similar to, well you know...... I was also under the impression that the feeling went away after the uterus returned to normal size.

Several years ago, CPS took a woman's child away in the small town I lived in, because the woman contacted the public health department regarding these "feelings." It was her first child and she really wanted to breast feed. It was a bit of a battle for her to get the child back, which was very sad, because she was a good mom, and the baby was only a couple of months old. She did enlist the help of the La Leche League and that is how it was all explained to me. She was my friend.

Salem
 
These are very good points on the issue of breastfeeding. It is extremely difficult and painful for some women to breastfeed and for some, it is just outside the cultural norm. While breastmilk is the best, natural source of nutrition for infants because of natural antibodies, etc., bottlefed babies can be just as healthy. And you can still impart a sense of love, well-being, and comfort to a child by holding them when they feed.

I don't agree with La Leches stance that all children have to be breastfed. Just not true, and there are many of us running around now that were not breastfed and/or didn't breastfeed our children. However, I do believe La Leche does have some very good information, much of it on their website now, for explaining how breastfeeding works and answering questions for young, pregnant women that may want to try breastfeeding.

Having said all that, the way I understand the breastfeeding/"sexual" connection is that the nipple stimulation stimulates the uterus, causing it to contract. These contractions help the uterus return to it's pre-pregnancy shape. Its all biology and one of the ways our body continues to help itself "heal" after the birth of a baby. Somewhat like the normal contractions a female feels when she hits the big O, which is where the "sexual" part comes in. It is not like when you are "lusting" after someone. It's not that kind of "sexual." It probably wouldn't even be thought of as sexual, except that the contractions are similar to, well you know...... I was also under the impression that the feeling went away after the uterus returned to normal size.

Several years ago, CPS took a woman's child away in the small town I lived in, because the woman contacted the public health department regarding these "feelings." It was her first child and she really wanted to breast feed. It was a bit of a battle for her to get the child back, which was very sad, because she was a good mom, and the baby was only a couple of months old. She did enlist the help of the La Leche League and that is how it was all explained to me. She was my friend.

Salem

Wow, Salem - just, wow!! Thank you for sharing your experience with the topic.
 
Yes, thanks, Salem, for explaining that so well. That's part of what I was trying to say above, that, yes, breastfeeding is good for babies; on the other hand, no mother should be made to feel like a criminal if she is unable to do so.
 
That's the most "risque" picture I could find on the site. I wonder if that's the picture that started all the hullabaloo. I don't find that photo to be pornographic - although I think the jewelry is ugly!

You and I don't find it pornographic, but that pose and the facial expression is inappropriate for a 6 year old. What we find to be dress up or innocent, others find to be a turn on - and why give them fodder of our children?

I can remember when I was about 8 or so..my mom took me to get some glamour shots taken and they loaded me up with make up and gaudy jewelry and fancy clothes. I felt like a princess! I thought it was fun and the pictures, I thought - and my mom thought - were beautiful.

My dad about blew a gasket though. He refused to let my mom purchase the photos and was very angry about the whole situation, which I never understood until later in life. It wasn't that I was doing anything sensual, and my mom certainly didn't think so either..but my dad was thinking about how the photos could be interpreted by those who aren't normal and who are perverted.

It isn't age appropriate at all and the fact that she's topless just adds to that, IMO. I have a good friend I went to high school with who has a daughter the same age as my 3-year-old and they compete in every beauty pageant there is. That's all she does is doll up her 3 year old, put false eyelashes on her, tons of make up, grown-up like dresses, and fake hair. She does NOT look 3. I know this woman doesn't have ill intentions, but she likely doesn't realize the perverts who may have access to her Facebook photos and would disgustingly find sick pleasure in such photos. And they are of sensual nature, IMO. There are certain facial expressions a woman makes when she wants to appear sexy or turn on a man..those are expressions a child shouldn't be making, and that photo of Olympia - IMO - exhibits that kind of "sensual" expression. Sad that her parents think that is okay.
 
I would believe that except we have testimony to the contrary from lots and lots of women, which, as another poster noted above, the La Leche Society has documented and discussed.

And that doesn't even count women who can't bring themselves to admit their feelings because we as a society are so paranoid on the subject.

Nobody is saying it is common for mothers to have or even to want to have actual sex with their children. As far as I know, that is extremely rare and probably occurs only in isolated cases of severe mental illness.

Wow that's crazy. I breastfed with my first and plan to with my second, never recall feeling anything but slight discomfort though. Now I'm kind of paranoid of what I'll feel this time around, is that wrong?! Wow, this just blew my mind..
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
2,264
Total visitors
2,443

Forum statistics

Threads
589,970
Messages
17,928,534
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top