We're all exposed to breastfeeding, so we should all be taken away from our mothers the first time we are breastfed, usually right after birth? and even then, we would be give to someone else, just to be breastfed again!
Child porn?
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
We're all exposed to breastfeeding, so we should all be taken away from our mothers the first time we are breastfed, usually right after birth? and even then, we would be give to someone else, just to be breastfed again!
I know, but it's for the good of the children. We don't infants being sexualized by touching their mother's breasts, now do we?
To Bells(I think): The couple was still right, weren't they? And how are they asshats..?
Bells
Staff member
How were they right?
You think saying in front of a 3 year old that if he is naked, he could be taken away or stolen is somehow right? You think it is right to see a naked child and automatically think a paedophile might take their photo or them? Kids shouldn't have to worry about stuff like that, especially at such a young age. They shouldn't have to think that if they are naked, someone will steal them. Let them be kids. And kids, being who and what they are, love to run around naked. It is fun. I find it appalling that my 3 year old is now scared of being naked.. be it inside or outside. And when I say scared, I mean terrified.. Attitudes like that couple's is highly damaging to impressionable young minds. As I said before.. let the kids be kids instead of scaring them half to death when they want to be and act their age.
Let the adults worry about it when the situation warrants. If I see a person in a tree with a camera pointed at my front yard while my kids are playing there, naked or otherwise, then I would deal with it. But I am not going to stop my children being children 'just in case'..
And that's the thing. My kids could have been running around with their swimsuits on or shorts and t-shirts on and it wouldn't make a single bit of difference. Unless of course, we now keep our children hidden from the public eye, locked away.. just in case some pervert gets aroused at the site of them.
Hmm, I didn't understand the situation I guess. The couple should not have let the children hear, but, although I don't necessarily agree with the couple, that one must respect the things that may happen from this.
Betrayer, i knew a girl who was almost snatched from her own back yard by a nabor. She was fully clothed i might add and its only because her dad was with in yelling distance in the house that she wasnt.
as bells said the risks are low but they are there and it doesnt matter what you do to mitigate them they will still exist. In fact most children are molested by someone known and trusted by the family
you cant spend your life worrying about what might happen, a truck might drive through your window and kill you in bed but its unlikly to happen. You just have to do the best you can and actually live
as bells said the risks are low but they are there and it doesnt matter what you do to mitigate them they will still exist. In fact most children are molested by someone known and trusted by the family
you cant spend your life worrying about what might happen, a truck might drive through your window and kill you in bed but its unlikly to happen. You just have to do the best you can and actually live
I'm still glad she got the fence, the thought of people getting turned on from 3 year olds and I can stop it and I don't is appalling.
Bells
Staff member
I am not saying it can't happen. Our son's do not play in the front yard without at least one of us there at all times. I just found it astounding that a couple of strangers could approach us and tell us that we shouldn't let our kids be kids because someone might bypass us in our front yard and snatch them because they were naked. That someone might look in our front yard and be sexually aroused by two toddlers. If I was to live in a state of abject fear of something like that, I would never allow my children to leave the house.
We have become so obsessed with the notion of child pornography that we see the potential of it everywhere. And it is wrong. We can't stifle children because someone might be sexually aroused by them. I'm not talking about selling g-strings to 5 year old girls. I'm not talking about sexualising children or portraying them as sex objects by their parents. I think that is disgusting in its own right. But children will be children and children find great joy in streaking naked. My kids were having a ball in the front yard and so were we watching them... We didn't need to be reminded and told that there are perverts in the world. We know there are perverts. But we would prefer to allow our children to be free from that kind of fear for as long as humanly possible. It ruined our afternoon, to be honest. And it has ruined an innocence in my 3 year old. He shouldn't be afraid to be naked. The kind of paranoia displayed by the couple is dangerous.
If we keep going the way we are, the perverts will have won... And our children will suffer for it.
Betrayer, its the same as the whole terriousium thing. Yes there is a risk but that risk is so small that basically your more likly to get hit by that imaginary truck. You can either live your life or hide under the bed. personally i would rather do the former.
The same goes for your kids, you cant wrape them up in bubble wrap and keep them in a fort with armed guards and detole. You would be doing them more harm than good
As i said before i just wish sociaty let us all be as free as it lets kids be
The same goes for your kids, you cant wrape them up in bubble wrap and keep them in a fort with armed guards and detole. You would be doing them more harm than good
As i said before i just wish sociaty let us all be as free as it lets kids be
Betrayer, its the same as the whole terriousium thing. Yes there is a risk but that risk is so small that basically your more likly to get hit by that imaginary truck. You can either live your life or hide under the bed. personally i would rather do the former.
The same goes for your kids, you cant wrape them up in bubble wrap and keep them in a fort with armed guards and detole. You would be doing them more harm than good
As i said before i just wish sociaty let us all be as free as it lets kids be
i wish you could asgaurd, but your right, the more you try and keep kids in the more they will rebel against you,
you are right in saying that it will do them more harm than good, you ahve to let kids ahve a bit of freedom, i am learning that with my 14yr old daughter
I agree and I don't understand why federal authorities are getting involved. The pics of her are probably tamer than what I have seen in Natl Geographic. Is it because those are third world poor black people and she is a rich white girl?
Panty-free since ... um ... who the hell cares?
So, do you see no difference between National Geographic and, say, the National Enquirer?
Let's step away from Jamie Lynn Spears for a moment.
Is there a difference between a photograph of a bare-breasted indigenous girl from some remote tribe in an anthropological or sociological consideration and a paparazzi snatch shot of Britney Spears getting out of a car intended to scandalize celebrity?
One of the questions in regulating pornography is that of social redemption: If a work can be shown to be utterly without redemption, it is much easier to censor outright.
Now, I won't go so far as to say that celeb tabloids are utterly without social redemption. It is, after all, a matter of degrees. To the other, though, it is easier to justify any article and photo spread in National Geographic than the latest judgmental paparazzi gossip.
At least, so says me. How 'bout you?
Orleander said:
So, do you see no difference between National Geographic and, say, the National Enquirer?
Let's step away from Jamie Lynn Spears for a moment.
Is there a difference between a photograph of a bare-breasted indigenous girl from some remote tribe in an anthropological or sociological consideration and a paparazzi snatch shot of Britney Spears getting out of a car intended to scandalize celebrity?
One of the questions in regulating pornography is that of social redemption: If a work can be shown to be utterly without redemption, it is much easier to censor outright.
Now, I won't go so far as to say that celeb tabloids are utterly without social redemption. It is, after all, a matter of degrees. To the other, though, it is easier to justify any article and photo spread in National Geographic than the latest judgmental paparazzi gossip.
At least, so says me. How 'bout you?
The intent of pictures from National Geographic and those of celebrity magazines is different, but I still don't think the intent of the picture taken of Jamie Lynn Spears feeding her baby was sexual. So if there is no sexual intent it can't be pornographic can it?
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Liberal obscenity definition, used by Congress or something or other. Must meet all 3 requirements usually to be considered obscene:
Seems that bikinis might be obscene then in some communities or places, but not in others. Medical illustrations generally would not be obscene. Naked babies in diaper commercials, just to sell diapers, probably are okay. Most porn magazines would be obscene, possibly banned from some places. Actually, I suspect that Sports Illustrated swimsuit issues, being soft porn, are probably obscene, as they are intentionally suggestive in a sexual way.
Breastfeeding, is not porn, is not obscene. I read somewhere that people from developing countries, where breastfeeding in public is just the normal thing, as they are still more pronatalist than we, criticize Americans for thinking that the breasts are sexual. Whether they are or not, breastfeeding a baby is a reasonable exception anybody sensible should naturally make. People eat in public, why not babies too? Is a noisy, fussy, crying baby, preferable? We can't be polite and kindly look away or seem not to notice? I've seen a few women breastfeeding in public, even a few pregnant bellies showing skin poofed out of their shirts. Obscene? Not at all, as I am pro-life, and all for whatever would help properly married couples enjoy having more children.
And I'm pretty sure that small naked children, must be acceptable, at least in certain innocent occasions, for I saw somebody changing their baby's diaper out on their picnic dinner blanket, as there were people all around, camped out by their cars to watch the July 4th fireworks.
Gasp! And all this in the U.S. What are we coming to?
- Intended to incite certain prurient (sexual) interests.
- Violating community standards.
- Has no serious literary merit.
Seems that bikinis might be obscene then in some communities or places, but not in others. Medical illustrations generally would not be obscene. Naked babies in diaper commercials, just to sell diapers, probably are okay. Most porn magazines would be obscene, possibly banned from some places. Actually, I suspect that Sports Illustrated swimsuit issues, being soft porn, are probably obscene, as they are intentionally suggestive in a sexual way.
Breastfeeding, is not porn, is not obscene. I read somewhere that people from developing countries, where breastfeeding in public is just the normal thing, as they are still more pronatalist than we, criticize Americans for thinking that the breasts are sexual. Whether they are or not, breastfeeding a baby is a reasonable exception anybody sensible should naturally make. People eat in public, why not babies too? Is a noisy, fussy, crying baby, preferable? We can't be polite and kindly look away or seem not to notice? I've seen a few women breastfeeding in public, even a few pregnant bellies showing skin poofed out of their shirts. Obscene? Not at all, as I am pro-life, and all for whatever would help properly married couples enjoy having more children.
And I'm pretty sure that small naked children, must be acceptable, at least in certain innocent occasions, for I saw somebody changing their baby's diaper out on their picnic dinner blanket, as there were people all around, camped out by their cars to watch the July 4th fireworks.
Gasp! And all this in the U.S. What are we coming to?
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Well I have heard of National Geographic being referred to as National Pornographic. And yet most such pictures in the magazine, probably aren't porn?
What I don't like about the magazine, is their liberal pro-environment, contrary to people, views. I think they should take more of an intelligent design, Creation view of the world, and not anything-goes, evolution-based.
I don't see why a magazine picture of a mother breastfeeding, need be considered porn, if it is properly respectful of motherhood, babies, family, and such. Nor do I consider Britney Spear's sculpture thing, with a baby coming out of it, as porn either, as bringing forth human life is a beautiful thing. Sometimes it is just really art, cultural observation, or something else.
I have 4 kids aging from 12y to 16m. We have tonnes of pictures of them. among those pictures there are those when we give them baths and when playing in the swimmingpool. So does this mean that i'm a pervert with childporn on his pc.
wtf people should better use there eneergie in stopping the real childporn. like the network they just busted in Spain.
child pornografie is a pest on the internet. Bring those motherf**** down.
btw if someone would get turned on by looking at my kids. he/she better hope that i don't find out because he/she won't make it to court.
to comment on the spears thing : no it's no porn it's just sick people would invade her privacy en even sicker that people buy the magazines just because than can get a glimps of Spears breast. this is just lunacy.
@bells i can agree with u. what gave that couple the right of calling u naive of bad parents.
wtf people should better use there eneergie in stopping the real childporn. like the network they just busted in Spain.
child pornografie is a pest on the internet. Bring those motherf**** down.
btw if someone would get turned on by looking at my kids. he/she better hope that i don't find out because he/she won't make it to court.
to comment on the spears thing : no it's no porn it's just sick people would invade her privacy en even sicker that people buy the magazines just because than can get a glimps of Spears breast. this is just lunacy.
@bells i can agree with u. what gave that couple the right of calling u naive of bad parents.
(Insert title here)
Yes, it can. It has to do with the fact of a minor's age. Regardless of why the picture was taken, though, it has also apparently been stolen. This probably wasn't for sexual purposes, either, but I guarantee you that if it's made the rounds on the internet, someone somewhere has already worked themselves to frothing orgasm over it.
On a barely-related note, though, this Aldridge twit ought to learn to use a freakin' computer, or take better care of his camera, or whatever the hell went wrong. I mean, an employee may have downloaded extra copies? Am I supposed to believe Jamie Lynn Spears' boyfriend is stupid enough to put that picture into a network? Why the hell would he do that?
CutsieMarie89 said:
Yes, it can. It has to do with the fact of a minor's age. Regardless of why the picture was taken, though, it has also apparently been stolen. This probably wasn't for sexual purposes, either, but I guarantee you that if it's made the rounds on the internet, someone somewhere has already worked themselves to frothing orgasm over it.
On a barely-related note, though, this Aldridge twit ought to learn to use a freakin' computer, or take better care of his camera, or whatever the hell went wrong. I mean, an employee may have downloaded extra copies? Am I supposed to believe Jamie Lynn Spears' boyfriend is stupid enough to put that picture into a network? Why the hell would he do that?
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
I suspect there are place still, out in the countryside, where boys strip off all their clothes, as was common not so long ago, and go swimming in the creek, river, or whatever. Some of that skinny-dipping may perhaps be innocent and harmless.
But maybe it would be a good idea not to take any photos, lest "porn" might be said to have happened?
But maybe it would be a good idea not to take any photos, lest "porn" might be said to have happened?