how the pervs make it difficult for us

and by us, I mean people who just like to walk around and take photos, I have no interest in showing up at a school and taking photos at a event (creepy), but these stories have a way of sticking in the public mind, and tend to raise suspicion of the photographer who is just walking down the street with his camera. BTW, don't try to visit the suspect website, apparently it's been taken down.

"Pedophile visits local events
Man posts girls’ photos on Web site"
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/52451.html

--



Kristian Farren
http://kf3.net

sadly any single man walking anywhere near a school (or coming anywhere near children in general) is by now suspect by definition.

This is most clearly shown by British Airways who have a policy disallowing ANY man to sit next to a child on their aircraft.

It doesn't even matter whether that man is the father of that child (as was shown last year when a British MP was told he could not sit next to his own daughter).

A school employee, I don't see anything "creepy" about taking pictures of school events--school plays, athletic events, concerts, etc. And these events are not just for parents; schools promote themselves as a valuable community resource even for the childless (especially around bond renewal time!). Child photography has long been seen as a legitimate photographic subject, and most general photography books I've read include a chapter on the subject. Happy children at petting zoos, parks, carnivals, and yes, even walking home from school, "wake in the hearts of elders reminiscences of carefree days" (Samuel Grierson, Outdoor Photography).

Maybe its not the taking of pictures, but the easy posting of pictures in a public manner that has people upset. The police lieutenant mentioned parental concern over having their children's pictures end up on a website. I can understand this from both safety and privacy concerns. Maybe we need to re-visit as a society the acceptable use of images taken, perhaps extending model release standards to not only commercial use of images, but also to public display of images. I would much rather alleviate legitimate concern by limiting the public use of images than end up in a situation where the only people allowed to take pictures at public events are those with press credentials (as one of the lieutenants suggestions seemed to imply).

The reality, the concept, that someone satisfies their lust by seeing a child is nothing new. They have always been with us and always will. Sad, socielly retarded individuals who cannot relate to adults, sometimes turn to children.

I don't care. I really don't.

What matters here is the CRIMINAL abuse of children and the manufacturing of perverts.

We live in a society which sexualises and objectifies children. We can open a magazine, go to a beauty pagent, and we see this objectification.

And instead of dealing with the problem, we choose to legitimise it by banning the celebration of children AS children.

We are our own worst enemies here.

Those who commit acts of abuse against children, and those who have taken advantage of this pedophila by creating an entire industry, of course belong in jail.

Others who do NOT act on their pathetic lusts can mind their own buisness and I don't care.

It's time to cease buying products which sexualise children; it's time to celebrate children and cease to fear what is done with a picture - It is crime that we should worry about, and why we legitimise these unnatural lusts with our own acceptance of "legitimate" child porn.

Dave

jrtrent said:

A school employee, I don't see anything "creepy" about taking
pictures of school events--school plays, athletic events, concerts,
etc. And these events are not just for parents; schools promote
themselves as a valuable community resource even for the childless
(especially around bond renewal time!). Child photography has long
been seen as a legitimate photographic subject, and most general
photography books I've read include a chapter on the subject.
Happy children at petting zoos, parks, carnivals, and yes, even
walking home from school, "wake in the hearts of elders
reminiscences of carefree days" (Samuel Grierson, Outdoor
Photography).

Maybe its not the taking of pictures, but the easy posting of
pictures in a public manner that has people upset. The police
lieutenant mentioned parental concern over having their children's
pictures end up on a website. I can understand this from both
safety and privacy concerns. Maybe we need to re-visit as a
society the acceptable use of images taken, perhaps extending model
release standards to not only commercial use of images, but also to
public display of images. I would much rather alleviate legitimate
concern by limiting the public use of images than end up in a
situation where the only people allowed to take pictures at public
events are those with press credentials (as one of the lieutenants
suggestions seemed to imply).

Click to expand...

jwenting said:

It doesn't even matter whether that man is the father of that child
(as was shown last year when a British MP was told he could not sit
next to his own daughter).

Click to expand...

well, thats strange. Please do tell as to who is supposed to sit next

to the girl if her father was not allowed to? A flight attendend or a female passenger who is not a relative. makes no sense.

jwenting said:

This is most clearly shown by British Airways who have a policy
disallowing ANY man to sit next to a child on their aircraft.
It doesn't even matter whether that man is the father of that child
(as was shown last year when a British MP was told he could not sit
next to his own daughter).

Click to expand...

Come on. Makes a nice story but I don't believe it. Can you refer us to an URL?

They will have booked in together. If they did not it would be legitimate to ask why he wanted to sit next to her until he explained he was her father.
--
Chris Elliott

Nikon D Eighty - Other equipment listed in Profile to aid searching.

http://PlacidoD.zenfolio.com/

hmm, i think the problem is quite the opposite. i don't think "our society" (by which i assume mean the US, where i also live) sexualizes children at all. rather we have an obsession with maintaining their innocence. we shield them from anything remotely sexual and go berserk over the littlest exposure, e.g. Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. it's difficult for parents to admit this, but children are more sexual than adults like to think, even before puberty. they just don't know how to articulate it, and the more adults pretend it's not there, the more confused they become. hence the tremendous embarrassment parents experience when caught in the act, or when forced to have the "father-son" talk about sex.

of course, this isn't intended as a defense of pedophilia at all. i just don't agree with you that modern society sexualizes children. we do the exact opposite.

Chato said:

I don't care. I really don't.

What matters here is the CRIMINAL abuse of children and the
manufacturing of perverts.

We live in a society which sexualises and objectifies children. We
can open a magazine, go to a beauty pagent, and we see this
objectification.

And instead of dealing with the problem, we choose to legitimise it
by banning the celebration of children AS children.

We are our own worst enemies here.

Those who commit acts of abuse against children, and those who have
taken advantage of this pedophila by creating an entire industry,
of course belong in jail.

Others who do NOT act on their pathetic lusts can mind their own
buisness and I don't care.

It's time to cease buying products which sexualise children; it's
time to celebrate children and cease to fear what is done with a
picture - It is crime that we should worry about, and why we
legitimise these unnatural lusts with our own acceptance of
"legitimate" child porn.

Dave

jrtrent said:

A school employee, I don't see anything "creepy" about taking
pictures of school events--school plays, athletic events, concerts,
etc. And these events are not just for parents; schools promote
themselves as a valuable community resource even for the childless
(especially around bond renewal time!). Child photography has long
been seen as a legitimate photographic subject, and most general
photography books I've read include a chapter on the subject.
Happy children at petting zoos, parks, carnivals, and yes, even
walking home from school, "wake in the hearts of elders
reminiscences of carefree days" (Samuel Grierson, Outdoor
Photography).

Maybe its not the taking of pictures, but the easy posting of
pictures in a public manner that has people upset. The police
lieutenant mentioned parental concern over having their children's
pictures end up on a website. I can understand this from both
safety and privacy concerns. Maybe we need to re-visit as a
society the acceptable use of images taken, perhaps extending model
release standards to not only commercial use of images, but also to
public display of images. I would much rather alleviate legitimate
concern by limiting the public use of images than end up in a
situation where the only people allowed to take pictures at public
events are those with press credentials (as one of the lieutenants
suggestions seemed to imply).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Chris Elliott said:

jwenting said:

This is most clearly shown by British Airways who have a policy
disallowing ANY man to sit next to a child on their aircraft.
It doesn't even matter whether that man is the father of that child
(as was shown last year when a British MP was told he could not sit
next to his own daughter).

Click to expand...

Come on. Makes a nice story but I don't believe it. Can you refer
us to an URL?

Click to expand...

I don't believe it either.

--

The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.

• H.L. Mencken

mediokre said:

hmm, i think the problem is quite the opposite. i don't think "our
society" (by which i assume mean the US, where i also live)
sexualizes children at all. rather we have an obsession with
maintaining their innocence. we shield them from anything remotely
sexual and go berserk over the littlest exposure, e.g. Janet
Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. it's difficult for parents to admit
this, but children are more sexual than adults like to think, even
before puberty. they just don't know how to articulate it, and the
more adults pretend it's not there, the more confused they become.
hence the tremendous embarrassment parents experience when caught
in the act, or when forced to have the "father-son" talk about sex.

of course, this isn't intended as a defense of pedophilia at all. i
just don't agree with you that modern society sexualizes children.
we do the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

Sniff, sniff, I smell someone that hasn't been in an Abercrombie and Fitch in the last decade or so.

Last year they were selling panties meant for pre-teens with "Eye Candy" written across the butt.

What was your point again?

DIPics

you're right. i haven't been in A&F ever because i just hate their stuff. the panties you describe sound distasteful and indeed rather senseless, but you have to look at the balance of evidence. what about the paranoia over janet's 2-second flash? or just more general fear of children catching sight of naked bodies, pornographically posed or not?

but i suppose we're talking about two different, though inseparabe, things. treating children as sexual objects is one thing. exposing children to sex is another. perhaps you are right that the former is happening (i still don't see much evidence for it in mainstream society besides the a&f panties). the latter is still a huge taboo.

dipics said:

mediokre said:

hmm, i think the problem is quite the opposite. i don't think "our
society" (by which i assume mean the US, where i also live)
sexualizes children at all. rather we have an obsession with
maintaining their innocence. we shield them from anything remotely
sexual and go berserk over the littlest exposure, e.g. Janet
Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. it's difficult for parents to admit
this, but children are more sexual than adults like to think, even
before puberty. they just don't know how to articulate it, and the
more adults pretend it's not there, the more confused they become.
hence the tremendous embarrassment parents experience when caught
in the act, or when forced to have the "father-son" talk about sex.

of course, this isn't intended as a defense of pedophilia at all. i
just don't agree with you that modern society sexualizes children.
we do the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

Sniff, sniff, I smell someone that hasn't been in an Abercrombie
and Fitch in the last decade or so.

Last year they were selling panties meant for pre-teens with "Eye
Candy" written across the butt.

What was your point again?

DIPics

Click to expand...

mediokre said:

you're right. i haven't been in A&F ever because i just hate their
stuff. the panties you describe sound distasteful and indeed rather
senseless, but you have to look at the balance of evidence. what
about the paranoia over janet's 2-second flash? or just more
general fear of children catching sight of naked bodies,
pornographically posed or not?

Click to expand...

The dichotomy is prevalent. And so?

Go to the newstand and pick up a childrens magazine, attend a child "beauty" pagent

mediokre said:

but i suppose we're talking about two different, though inseparabe,
things. treating children as sexual objects is one thing. exposing
children to sex is another. perhaps you are right that the former
is happening (i still don't see much evidence for it in mainstream
society besides the a&f panties). the latter is still a huge taboo.

Click to expand...

I never said that any of this is "rational." Nonetheless it is true. There is a defacto treatment of children as sexual objects. We objectify them, dress them as adults and pose them as provocatively as we can.

Should I refrain from saying "we?" Perhaps I should. Even so, when I was a kid (a long, long time ago) such was not the case.

And of course there are many lines of gray that have to be understood.

However once again, I believe my point is accurate and relevant. If mainstream publications objectify and treat children as sexual objects - This in fact legitimises (to those who are approaching the edge) abusing them.

On the other hand, celebrating children by photographing them in their normal activities legitimises treating them AS children.

As we, because of fear, cease to celebrate children, then we are our own worst enemies.

Dave

mediokre said:

dipics said:

mediokre said:

hmm, i think the problem is quite the opposite. i don't think "our
society" (by which i assume mean the US, where i also live)
sexualizes children at all. rather we have an obsession with
maintaining their innocence. we shield them from anything remotely
sexual and go berserk over the littlest exposure, e.g. Janet
Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. it's difficult for parents to admit
this, but children are more sexual than adults like to think, even
before puberty. they just don't know how to articulate it, and the
more adults pretend it's not there, the more confused they become.
hence the tremendous embarrassment parents experience when caught
in the act, or when forced to have the "father-son" talk about sex.

of course, this isn't intended as a defense of pedophilia at all. i
just don't agree with you that modern society sexualizes children.
we do the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

Sniff, sniff, I smell someone that hasn't been in an Abercrombie
and Fitch in the last decade or so.

Last year they were selling panties meant for pre-teens with "Eye
Candy" written across the butt.

What was your point again?

DIPics

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There is oversexualisation through TV, magazines etc etc etc.

BUT there is also the parent who tries t shield children from eveerything, really, who gives a rats ar$e about Janet's nipple?

Parents are sadly turning into the bniggest freaks and fear mongers in society.

--
***********************************************
Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti

Pentax Lens examples at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti/images_by_lens

Updated March 2007

I admit that I get a kick out of how the NFL handled Janet's "wardrobe malfunction". The next year they invite good ol' safe Sir Paul McCartney. Just to make sure that this NEVER happened again.

Then, they realized it was great publicity after all. So, who did they invite this year? Prince. The guy that made an entire career our of sexual inuendo. And, he didn't dissapoint with his cute sihlouette with his conveniently designed guitar.

I honestly have no real problem with adult sexual situations (even nudity etc.) on television as long as it is preceeded by a parental guidance notice. It is the parents responsibility to monitor the TV use of the children.

But, about turning children into sexual objects, apparently you haven't been reading about the controversy surrounding the "Teen Model" websites that are all over now? The ones with early teens (and sometimes younger) posing in bra and panties etc. to show off their "modeling" skills?

Or haven't watched a kiddie beauty pageant?

How about the soon to be released movie Hounddog? With the **** scene involving 12 year old Dakota Fanning?

Go where Junior High aged girls hang out sometime. Take a close look at the clothing. That alone will illustrate the issue to you as well as needs to be done.

Who's fault is it? Well, the parents IMHO. It is THEIR responsibility, not that of government or TV etc. If there is a market because of weak willed, innattentive or just stupid parents, someone will fill it.

DIPics

mediokre said:

but i suppose we're talking about two different, though inseparabe,
things. treating children as sexual objects is one thing. exposing
children to sex is another. perhaps you are right that the former
is happening (i still don't see much evidence for it in mainstream
society besides the a&f panties). the latter is still a huge taboo.

dipics said:

mediokre said:

hmm, i think the problem is quite the opposite. i don't think "our
society" (by which i assume mean the US, where i also live)
sexualizes children at all. rather we have an obsession with
maintaining their innocence. we shield them from anything remotely
sexual and go berserk over the littlest exposure, e.g. Janet
Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. it's difficult for parents to admit
this, but children are more sexual than adults like to think, even
before puberty. they just don't know how to articulate it, and the
more adults pretend it's not there, the more confused they become.
hence the tremendous embarrassment parents experience when caught
in the act, or when forced to have the "father-son" talk about sex.

of course, this isn't intended as a defense of pedophilia at all. i
just don't agree with you that modern society sexualizes children.
we do the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

Sniff, sniff, I smell someone that hasn't been in an Abercrombie
and Fitch in the last decade or so.

Last year they were selling panties meant for pre-teens with "Eye
Candy" written across the butt.

What was your point again?

DIPics

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

hey, no need to get so worked up. just discussing. i'm very interested in your opinions. and as you say, there's no necessary contradiction between increasing objectifying of kids and a persistent paranoia about their exposure to sex. in fact you seem to be suggested that the former takes place subversively... i.e. we dress kids sexually provocatively in the guise of "cuteness" or humor or something.

i don't doubt there's sexual objectifying of children going on. i must admit i wasn't aware of the childrens' magazines and pageantry that you mentioned--though i did see a parody of the latter in Little Miss Sunshine. or was it not a parody? i'm less sensitive to those things because i don't have kids. if i've come across them in mainstream publications, they probably didn't register.

i'm really curious to know more precisely what provocative posing and dressing of children you and the other person are referring to, though. if you can find some examples, i'd know to look out for them in the future.

dipics said:

But, about turning children into sexual objects, apparently you
haven't been reading about the controversy surrounding the "Teen
Model" websites that are all over now? The ones with early teens
(and sometimes younger) posing in bra and panties etc. to show off
their "modeling" skills?

Or haven't watched a kiddie beauty pageant?

How about the soon to be released movie Hounddog? With the ****
scene involving 12 year old Dakota Fanning?

Click to expand...

Wow, I really must have been living in a cave. It's probably because I don't have kids. These are very concrete examples, but I wasn't aware of them (or they didn't make enough of an impression to register in my mind as a part of a more general phenomenon). Thanks.

dipics said:

Go where Junior High aged girls hang out sometime. Take a close
look at the clothing. That alone will illustrate the issue to you
as well as needs to be done.

Click to expand...

Well, but this is a gray area, right? Junior high girls are post-puberty and biologically ready for sex. Modern Western, Christian-informed morals tell us that 12-year-olds shouldn't be sexual (part of what I was trying to get at when I was talking about adults' obsession with children's innocence), but there're other places in the world when you get married at 12. I happen to think 12 is too young myself, but I definitely find it more difficult to criticize the sexualization of a 12-year-old than that of a prepubescent child.

Beyond sexualizing... ****? Shocking.

mediokre said:

mediokre said:

But, about turning children into sexual objects, apparently you
haven't been reading about the controversy surrounding the "Teen
Model" websites that are all over now? The ones with early teens
(and sometimes younger) posing in bra and panties etc. to show off
their "modeling" skills?

Or haven't watched a kiddie beauty pageant?

How about the soon to be released movie Hounddog? With the ****
scene involving 12 year old Dakota Fanning?

Click to expand...

Wow, I really must have been living in a cave. It's probably
because I don't have kids. These are very concrete examples, but I
wasn't aware of them (or they didn't make enough of an impression
to register in my mind as a part of a more general phenomenon).
Thanks.

mediokre said:

Go where Junior High aged girls hang out sometime. Take a close
look at the clothing. That alone will illustrate the issue to you
as well as needs to be done.

Click to expand...

Well, but this is a gray area, right? Junior high girls are
post-puberty and biologically ready for sex. Modern Western,
Christian-informed morals tell us that 12-year-olds shouldn't be
sexual (part of what I was trying to get at when I was talking
about adults' obsession with children's innocence), but there're
other places in the world when you get married at 12. I happen to
think 12 is too young myself, but I definitely find it more
difficult to criticize the sexualization of a 12-year-old than that
of a prepubescent child.

Click to expand...

How young is too young. I have seen fourth graders with breasts. I have seen 15 year olds without. Heck, I've seen 29 year old models without. Yes, there is a grey area. Since this question is really decided by the eye of the beholder, there will always be a grey area.

And, it is true that some cultures (including until recently, some states in the U.S.) that allowed or allow even marriage of children as young as 12.

But, well I consider that paedophilia. It isn't grey to ME. Not 12. Not 11. Not a kid who is made up like a cheap hooker and put in a "pageant" at age 8.

I won't shoot portfolios of models under 15 and then only with both my wife and a parent (and a running video camera) there. I WILL NOT shoot "pageant" photos or photos for pageants at all, mostly because the damned parents of these girls should mostly be not allowed to be parents IMHO.

Consider it grey. I think that giving them a few more years where they don't intentionally attract perverts is a good thing.

DIPics

I share your opinions completely. I am just interested in refining them and basing them on more than "just my personal feelings." I don't think you should shoot 12-year-olds, definitely not.

What I'd say is this. When I was 12, I was definitely sexually aware, but I was really confused because my parents wouldn't explain things to me, and my sources of knowledge were equally ill-informed friends. In my case, only embarrassment ensued, but in others worse things happen.

What I think adults should do is neither to pose their kids provocatively, NOR to be paranoid and overprotective and to create an ultimately self-serving illusion of sexual innocence.

That said, when I have a kid, I'm not sure that I'll be comfortable talking to him/her about sex either.

dipics said:

And, it is true that some cultures (including until recently, some
states in the U.S.) that allowed or allow even marriage of children
as young as 12.

Click to expand...

one only has to go as far as the 'good book' to learn that god supposedly OK'd people marrying at the age of 13.

so riddle me this - if the 'good book' says its ok to marry and have sex at 13, yet the US laws (we are supposed to be 'under god', though, right?) says the age of consent is 18.

survey the world cultures and you'll find there is no one sigle age that humans say is 'ok' to marry, etc.

but I think the bible argument is super on so many levels. it shows how arbitrary we are and how there is no absolute right or wrong here.

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~