A little, Paul. It's an interesting point you raise.
My wife hates having her photo taken, so I take more shots of my boys than anything else - if I didn't post them now and again I would have next to nothing to show on dpreview, lol.
Actually most of my child portraits on the net are password-protected, mainly at the suggestion of my wife - the only ones who are less than fully-clothed are my own children, btw. Given the kind of muck which is apparently out there I'm of the view that my shots are not likely to arouse any strong perverse feelings, but I guess you never know. I also feel that if I was surfing for erotic child imagery, I wouldn't make dpreview (or my fotopic or pbase accounts) my first, second or 1000th port of call. I guess I take it on trust that the people who come here are photographers.
My brother-in-law's first reaction to seeing the shots I have on display at home from the same shoot was that they were 'disgusting' because my boys were naked. Actually they were both wearing jeans, but I think his assumption and reaction are his problem, not mine.
Then again, two of my favourite pictures are of my niece, fully clothed and head and shoulders only, and my brother has expressly forbidden me to publish them on the net. I would love to show them, because they are easily better than the photo I posted. Am I more relaxed because I have two boys? Probably.
In the UK this subject has been rumbling on for weeks, after an amateur street-photographer was arrested and apparently subjected to all kinds of humiliation after taking candids in Trafalgar Square which happened to include some children. Queue righteous indignation on the part of all street photographers, and various 'only doing my job and protecting the public' comments from the fuzz.
God only knows what the answer is.
--
mcabe
(#):O)
online gallery at -
http://pbase.com/abelguerrero 
