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

[snvoigt]

My brother in law is a professional photographer. I have a picture of dd when she was 3, that is almost just like the one where she is wearing the jewerly. It was her great-grandmothers pearl necklace and braclet. The difference though it it's is framed and hanging on my wall, not gracing the cover of a magazine.
I think the fathers comments make these pictures more then thay are ment to be, just a little girl having her picture taken by her mommy. I do not think they should be on the cover of a magazine, though.
This comment made me sick to my stomach, both of my kiddo's were/are binky babies, and I never looked at it like this.
Nelson also refers to the use of a pacifier in the photos of Olympia as "a necessary token of her age” … “Yet the (pacifier) itself is ambiguous … it also evokes the perversity of pleasure-sucking, i.e. a sucking for non-nutritious purposes, apparently serving a hedonistic function unrelated to nourishment."

 

[southcitymom]

post a pic of a child being raped and you will evoke strong emotion. it will depend on who is looking at it. anger, the need to vomit, pity, life long emotional scars for the person looking at the picture, or sexual desire. art may evoke emotion but so will children. if you pose a child for a nude photo are you creating art or *advertiser censored* may be a issue you feel needs debate. the fact that it evokes strong emotion is not relevant to the debate. good art and all child *advertiser censored* happen to have it in common.

You are absolutely right - I was thinking about that yesterday!

 

[southcitymom]

I don't remember much about those breastfeeding days, frankly. I do remember feeling non-sexual though. If one more person touched me at the end of the day I felt crazy! (Yes, poor hubby.)

I must not be as close to my friends as you though because I don't think any of us ever talked to each other about whether we got turned on by breastfeeding or not. I'm kind of glad we didn't, in a way.

Yes - that describes me to a tee! Touched out for the first year post-birth!

Since my path in life has shown me that I remain as sick as the secrets I keep, I am grateful to have friends I trust enough to discuss uncomfortable topics with. This may be a recovery-related phenomenon. If you don't allow youself to talk about it and you feel weird about it, you may turn back to drugs or alcohol to deal with it - and this is rarely a path that leads to peace for anyone.

But I do understand that such honesty makes some people uncomfortable.

 

[liltigress]

IMO - I think what is mostly not being said here is that we, as mothers, should be able to differentiate between breastfeeding a child for a healthy life and a sexual arousal from it.

It is physically true that while nursing, nerve signals are sent to contract the uterus for postnatal recovery and "putting things back where they belong" so to speak.

I do believe society sexualizes the most innocent things in life. Its up to an individual as to how they deal with it or relate to it. If a mother is in public nursing her newborn, non-discreetly, my first instinct is to turn my children away from looking. That's society's conditioning. I'm not proud of that but it's the truth.

Now, back to the topic at hand.... It appears to be plain and simple child exploitation for this father to expose his nude daughter in public.

 

[southcitymom]

IMO - I think what is mostly not being said here is that we, as mothers, should be able to differentiate between breastfeeding a child for a healthy life and a sexual arousal from it.

It is physically true that while nursing, nerve signals are sent to contract the uterus for postnatal recovery and "putting things back where they belong" so to speak.

I do believe society sexualizes the most innocent things in life. Its up to an individual as to how they deal with it or relate to it. If a mother is in public nursing her newborn, non-discreetly, my first instinct is to turn my children away from looking. That's society's conditioning. I'm not proud of that but it's the truth.

Now, back to the topic at hand.... It appears to be plain and simple child exploitation for this father to expose his nude daughter in public.

I don't know if I have said welcome to you yet, liltigress - if not, WELCOME! I agree with so much of this terrifc post.

As to the father in the story at hand - I just do not know. I am not an "artsy" type, but child nudity doesn't bother me and the nudity in these photos strikes me as very innocent. I wouldn't publish pics of my nude kids, but that is probably more because visual art/photography holds little interest to me than anything else.

As I have said before, I find this entire topic confusing. I personally agree with Taxi that erring on the side of safe rather than sorry is a good rule of thumb, but I don't necessarily think people who feel differently are exploiting their kids. I'm sure some of them are - I just don't know enough about this case.

 

[liltigress]

Thank you, southcitymom!

I am a PI and dab in the field of decoy chatting/internet and mobile child predators, so nothing associated with a nude child is innocent looking to me anymore. I've seen too much ugly stuff :sick: and my perception on this little girl having to pose nude for the world to see, just strikes me as wrong. It shows how vulnerable she really is and I believe she has been shown that this is normal behavior.

Think of it like this: This little girl is doing what makes daddy proud. He enjoys her taking her clothes off for the camera so he can let the world see his daughter. I can't wrap my head around that. But this has conditioned her to want to do what makes daddy proud? Children are much too eager to please the important people in their lives for praise and love. Thus, being exploited.

Heck, I'm a daddy's girl, and at 42 now, I STILL want to do things that make my parents proud, but I will NEVER take my clothes off for pictures, even as an adult.

I also understand what a child predator is thinking when looking at a picture like that, and believe me, the more innocent they look and act, the more appealing they are.

The bottom line is, in the world and society today, especially with so much coverage about child predators, why would any man in his right mind allow the possibility of his sweet baby girl's nude image to be lusted upon by such sick and vile creatures out there? Not to mention the risk of her own safety. If a predator sees her, gets it in mind that life can't go on without having this little girl, he'll stop at nothing to get to her.

I want to follow this story and hopefully be proved wrong in my thinking, but I believe this dad needs to be looked into.

 

[southcitymom]

Thank you, southcitymom!

I am a PI and dab in the field of decoy chatting/internet and mobile child predators, so nothing associated with a nude child is innocent looking to me anymore. I've seen too much ugly stuff :sick: and my perception on this little girl having to pose nude for the world to see, just strikes me as wrong. It shows how vulnerable she really is and I believe she has been shown that this is normal behavior.

Think of it like this: This little girl is doing what makes daddy proud. He enjoys her taking her clothes off for the camera so he can let the world see his daughter. I can't wrap my head around that. But this has conditioned her to want to do what makes daddy proud? Children are much too eager to please the important people in their lives for praise and love. Thus, being exploited.

Heck, I'm a daddy's girl, and at 42 now, I STILL want to do things that make my parents proud, but I will NEVER take my clothes off for pictures, even as an adult.

I also understand what a child predator is thinking when looking at a picture like that, and believe me, the more innocent they look and act, the more appealing they are.

The bottom line is, in the world and society today, especially with so much coverage about child predators, why would any man in his right mind allow the possibility of his sweet baby girl's nude image to be lusted upon by such sick and vile creatures out there? Not to mention the risk of her own safety. If a predator sees her, gets it in mind that life can't go on without having this little girl, he'll stop at nothing to get to her.

I want to follow this story and hopefully be proved wrong in my thinking, but I believe this dad needs to be looked into.

Thank you so much for your perspective from the underbelly. I genuinely appreciate it.

So do you think the Dads of show-biz daughters - particularly the tweenie set - are not in their right minds also? Do you think any parent of a child performer is just flat-out wrong?

 

[liltigress]

I see a big difference in children in show biz and nude children. I don't know of any rightful reason anyone would want to publicize children nude. I have no problem with children being in show business, but, Lord, keep them dressed and stop sexualizing them, making them feel and look older than they are. They grow up fast enough on their own.

It's the same principle to have adults nude in front of your children and nothing I would have allowed my children to see.

 

[southcitymom]

I see a big difference in children in show biz and nude children. I don't know of any rightful reason anyone would want to publicize children nude. I have no problem with children being in show business, but, Lord, keep them dressed and stop sexualizing them, making them feel and look older than they are. They grow up fast enough on their own.

It's the same principle to have adults nude in front of your children and nothing I would have allowed my children to see.

Anne Geddes might be able to tell you: http://www.annegeddes.com/Modules/Anne/Galleries/index.aspx

She's made a name and a lot of money for herself with nude children.

I just continue to be uncertain about where to draw the line. Many show biz children are, IMHO, way more sexually provocative than the 6-year-old on the front of this Art magazine.

 

[liltigress]

Oh I certainly understand your point and can agree. I love her work. This is just what I was getting at, the innocence being taken away.

We see it as precious babies, pedophiles see it as a sexual arousal. It's a sick and twisted thought, but it is what it is.

I'm probably biased in my opinion but I think I have mentally separated infants from the younger generation of children. Thank you for sorta pointing that out. lol...


ETA: I think what bothers me more about the pictures isn't the pictures themselves, but the father's responses to them.

 

[sherri79]

Anne Geddes might be able to tell you: http://www.annegeddes.com/Modules/Anne/Galleries/index.aspx

She's made a name and a lot of money for herself with nude children.

I just continue to be uncertain about where to draw the line. Many show biz children are, IMHO, way more sexually provocative than the 6-year-old on the front of this Art magazine.

i love her work. she creates images that express the innocence of a child. her photos evoke the same emotions as when i look at photos of my own child in their first bath. her photos do not bring to mind the word "sensual". i know you prefer the definition of sensual that does not relate to sexual but after reading the fathers words about the hedonistic function of his child sucking on a pacifier i think he may prefer a different definition.

the attempt to evoke feeling of sensuality instead of innocence is evident in the difference between the photos. all children have a natural quality of innocence and anne is a expert at capturing that. when you pose a child to in the nude to imply a sensual aspect of a more aged woman i find it crosses the line.

if you placed a adult woman with full and firm breast in any of anne's pictures instead of a child it would still be art. if you placed a full busted woman in the same photo of the child in jewelry it could pass as one of the more classy photos in playboy.

 

[southcitymom]

Oh I certainly understand your point and can agree. I love her work. This is just what I was getting at, the innocence being taken away.

We see it as precious babies, pedophiles see it as a sexual arousal. It's a sick and twisted thought, but it is what it is.

I'm probably biased in my opinion but I think I have mentally separated infants from the younger generation of children. Thank you for sorta pointing that out. lol...


ETA: I think what bothers me more about the pictures isn't the pictures themselves, but the father's responses to them.

Thanks so for taking my post in the spirit it was intended. I love Geddes's stuff too! I am truly not trying to bust anyone's chops - just very curious as to where we really draw this line and what it looks like to us and why we put it there.

I'm all about genuine solutions to the sexual exploitation of our children, but I am just being honest when I say I am uncertain as to exactly where those solutions lie. If we say: NO nudity until 18 - that's illegal, Geddes is going to jail.

Are there some comments from this Dad I am missing? I guess I should go reread. I've weighed in on the "sensuous" ones. Much of what he said is true, IMHO. I am going to go reread and see if I am missing a piece. I may well be!

 

[southcitymom]

Okay - I read the article at the beginning of this thread which references pieces of something Robert Nelson (father of the girl on the mag's cover) wrote. I did not read Nelson's whole article but would be interesting in doing so.

 

[liltigress]

Nelson says some photographs taken of Olympia by his wife in 2000 when she was just two years old were taken "at the instigation" of their daughter: "'Mummy, come and photo me,’ she would exhort."

Blame shifting at it's finest. He isn't taking responsibility for his own actions. ? ? .

Here, he's giving the child credibility to make it look like this was her decision. She is just a child and can't be accountable for her actions, these are only the values or such that her parents have instilled in her. (One of those heebie jeebie feelings he gives me).

The only line I would draw is ... absolutely no child nudity. That is for their own protection. Look at the publicity this Art magazine has given this child, and now the world knows her name and age, and her parents' names.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Anne Geddes might be able to tell you: http://www.annegeddes.com/Modules/Anne/Galleries/index.aspx

She's made a name and a lot of money for herself with nude children.

I just continue to be uncertain about where to draw the line. Many show biz children are, IMHO, way more sexually provocative than the 6-year-old on the front of this Art magazine.

Frankly, I have had a problem with some of her work. I don't like the images which show a nude man holding a nude child AT ALL. The part of her work I enjoy is when the babies are covered. Still, they are babies. They are not school aged children posing nude! Makes a huge difference, imo.

In show biz, if they are inappropriately using children in sexually charged ways...I do strongly disagree with it and blame the parents for allowing it.

 

[southcitymom]

Blame shifting at it's finest. He isn't taking responsibility for his own actions. ? ? .

Here, he's giving the child credibility to make it look like this was her decision. She is just a child and can't be accountable for her actions, these are only the values or such that her parents have instilled in her. (One of those heebie jeebie feelings he gives me).

The only line I would draw is ... absolutely no child nudity. That is for their own protection. Look at the publicity this Art magazine has given this child, and now the world knows her name and age, and her parents' names.

So you agree - no Anne Geddess.

 

[southcitymom]

Blame shifting at it's finest. He isn't taking responsibility for his own actions. ? ? .

Here, he's giving the child credibility to make it look like this was her decision. She is just a child and can't be accountable for her actions, these are only the values or such that her parents have instilled in her. (One of those heebie jeebie feelings he gives me).

The only line I would draw is ... absolutely no child nudity. That is for their own protection. Look at the publicity this Art magazine has given this child, and now the world knows her name and age, and her parents' names.

Is it blame-shifting - or truth? Most 2 year olds are completely unabashed about their nakedness and love to run around and/or be seen (photographed) in the buff.

 

[liltigress]

Frankly, I have had a problem with some of her work. I don't like the images which show a nude man holding a nude child AT ALL. The part of her work I enjoy is when the babies are covered. Still, they are babies. They are not school aged children posing nude! Makes a huge difference, imo.

In show biz, if they are inappropriately using children in sexually charged ways...I do strongly disagree with it and blame the parents for allowing it.

I haven't seen the ones of the nude man holding a nude child. Ack! I certainly don't like that either. I like the ones of the babies in the flowers and cabbage leafs and all. Those are the cute ones.

 

[liltigress]

Is it blame-shifting - or truth? Most 2 year olds are completely unabashed about their nakedness and love to run around and/or be seen (photographed) in the buff.

If the children are complimented on how cute they are nude as a camera flashes in their face, of course they are gonna think that's cute. It's all the matter of how parents react to it.

My goal is and was to teach my children modesty and to keep their private parts of their body, private.

So, yes, I still say blame shifting. Is he saying it was her fault because she wanted it?

 

[OneLostGrl]

SCM-

Once again I am sitting here in awe of your honesty and insight into your own feelings.

As a person who has delved (sp?) deep to better understand herself and has found things that makes others uncomfortable I want to thank you for staying true regardless- it helps me do the same, it honestly does.

You, Sister, are one of my heros

(Today I needed to be reminded of that quote you quoted)