Reading mode: Light Dark

how the pervs make it difficult for us

Go to last post
mediokre said:
hey, no need to get so worked up.
Click to expand...
There was nothing in your post that would cause me to flame you. And I thought I Wasn't flaming you... :)

If I gave that impression - my apologies.
mediokre said:
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.
Click to expand...
We live in a very strange atmosphere indeed. And as you mentioned more than once, Just what was all that fuss over Janet Jacksons nipple? I never claimed that our attitude toward sex was either rational or consistant. In Texas it's a crime to photograph woman if the photograph "appears" to have a lustful intent (I forget the exact wording). Yes at the same time the Dallas Cowgirls are posing provacatively in the same place that someone was arrested for taking such a shot... :)
mediokre said:
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.
Click to expand...
Haven't you heard of the Jon Bennet murder? There are beuaty pagents for five and six year olds, where they dress up as sexy adults. It's a big thing. And what's worse is that they DO look like sexy adults.
mediokre said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here's a link to a mainstream magazine. It's from the first page of my search...

http://www.amazon.com/American-Baby/dp/B000HWY0HA/ref=sr_1_7/102-7782401-0965721?ie=UTF8&s=magazines&qid=1175192645&sr=1-7

It's innoscent enough until you realise that the little kids are not doing anything that little kids do, and when was the last time you saw a three year old with lipstick? And when you look at those images, try to remember they are the 8 x 10 covers of a magazine.
mediokre said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no consistancy here. Somehow or other it is considered legitimate to portray children as sex objects. And as we accept this portrayal we go bannana's over the possibility of a pedophile using an innoscent photograph as an object of lust. Forty years ago, when I first started photography as a hobby, I photographed children at play. If I did today, what I did then, I would probably be arrested.

You are perfectly correct to point out that all of this makes no sense. I never claimed it did... :)

What I am saying is that the ultimate result to unbalanced minds is to give a legitimacy to the idea of children as sex objects. So lusts and desires that a person would keep hidden in the past - Even from themselves - are now sometimes acted on.

The secret pedophile masturbating at home, in and of itself is not something that I care about. As I said previously - It is those who actively abuse children, and the "industry" of child pornography that I care about -

AND how to cut down on both of the above. As a society we should start to celebrate children by making images of their normal activities - and enjoying children for what they actually are.

Dave
 
mediokre said:
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.
Click to expand...
reminds me of a three stooges quote:

"hey, you're not going to hit a lady with THAT, are you?" (pointing to a stick)
(short pause)
"here, use this. its bigger."

;) ;)

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~
 
linuxworks said:
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 ) ~
Click to expand...
You've demonstrated one contradiction. But while it may be that sexualising a 13 year old is wrong - I am more concerned with the sexualizing of pre-teen children, and here I am talking about the 3 to 10 group. An adolescent is experiencing sexual urges, they may not understand, is one thing. Turning a five year old into an adult sex object is another.

Dave
 
mediokre said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm relaxed. It beats retouching wedding shots. :)

When I was 12, I had to start shaving (sad but true). I was definately sexually aware. And I had most of my sex education from the usual source, my associates in the gutter.

Sexually aware and ready for sex are two different things. Unfortunately many parents take some perverse pride in pimping up their children and parading them as pervert bait in local "beauty" pageants etc. Others (possibly most others) don't fulfil their responsibility to ensure that their children learn about sex from a source that they actually trust, the parents themselves. They don't monitor their children's internet use, television use or even the children they associate with.

Yes, I blame it on the parents exclusively. Sure, it's a hard job, but they signed up for it when they had the kid.

And, yes, I have two. Thankfullly both male. One is almost 14 and the other is 21 and in Iraq where he is pretty safe from the whole "sex" thing for another 6 months or so. So, I can concentrate on the 14 year old.

I have locked him into a windowless room with no computer or tv and feed him through a slot in the door. I'll give him the key when he turns 18 or I feel ready to be a grandparent, whichever comes later. :)

DIPics
 
linuxworks said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which god?
linuxworks said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Bible argument is superficial, not super. It contradicts itself on a continuing basis internally, so it takes a really odd course of study to allow preachers to say it is infallible, but thousands do. And their flocks believe them.

Kids do get turned into sex objects: there are two photos of my of my wife's nieces on our refrigerator: both times, the kid was in one of these little Miss America, or some such, pageants. Both times, she came up looking about 25. One time, she was 10, the other 12. To me, that's stupid, but that's a personal opinion.

Our society is not structured for people who are too young to join the work force, and the age is getting pushed higher all the time. That is one deciding ofrce on sexuality, but youthful Biblical marriage, like the marriages of princes and princesses in the Middle Ages, appears to usually have been more of a legal fiction based on political, or religious, need than anything else.

But things do change, often a lot, and these days, the change seems to be more frequent and faster. That may or may not be true. It may be just an impression.

Whatever line may or may not be crossed with youthful sexuality, one thing seems certain, at least to me: any group that would replace Janet with The Sexy(less) One deserves all the time Justin Timberlake is on the airwaves.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com
 
linuxworks said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course the Bible encouraged marriage at 13. Can you think of a better way to make sure they never have sex?

DIPics
 
I agree that the Bible iis never wrong, since it has been written by God himself.
--
Windmills, just do it.
 
dh steffi said:
I agree that the Bible iis never wrong, since it has been written
by God himself.
--
Windmills, just do it.
Click to expand...
The Bible says that if your kid argues with you, kill them. And apparently this is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon...

9: For every one who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his blood is upon him.

Leviticus 20:9

BTW Stephi, have you finally taken your first photograph?

Dave
 
Although it may not be quite accurate, in the strict sense, to describe it as 'sexualising', per se.

What I mean is that we effectively and quite contradictorily expect that children are adults and have adult emotions, understanding and desires, whether consciously or subconsciously. We allow them to dress and behave as adults, supposedly exercising choice and carrying responsibility then wonder why events overtake them. They are abused or misbehave and we stand by almost powerless to help because the damage is already done.

Adults are sexual and so it is no wonder that the act of allowing children to behave as adults imbues them with sexuality, whether wanted or not.

Certainly, the design of children’s clothes is a highly visible example of this, were one can see in shops racks of crop-tops and hipster trousers for girls not even ten years old. Such garments are specifically designed to highlight the pinched waste and naked midriff of a woman which is inherently sexually stimulating.

It may be that the pressure for this comes from ourselves; that we wish to see how advanced and grown-up are our offspring, or we simply abrogate the responsibility of raising our children through to true adulthood, because it is so much easier.

Whatever the reason, I agree with you, it is dreadful and should be challenged whenever the opportunity arises.

Children are children and should be treated and behave as children. This is nothing of which to be ashamed; it is normal and desirable. Until this trend for believing that children are maturing sooner is finally shown to be ridiculous, we will continue to see the spectre of suspicion when it comes to such activities as photography.

In fact, because photography is forever bound to other industries of erotica and sexuality, it will inevitably attract most attention.
 
Chato said:
dh steffi said:
I agree that the Bible iis never wrong, since it has been written
by God himself.
--
Windmills, just do it.
Click to expand...
The Bible says that if your kid argues with you, kill them. And
apparently this is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon...

9: For every one who curses his father or his mother shall be put
to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his blood is upon
him.

Leviticus 20:9

BTW Stephi, have you finally taken your first photograph?

Dave
Click to expand...
When the Bible telss you to kill it is ok, God cannot be wrong.
Thanks for asking, shot some pictures at our church outing.
--
Windmills, just do it.
 
snow4ever said:
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)...
Click to expand...
Granted we live in an odd time where every negative item is beamed to us ad nauseum. But are you really serious?

In the US there has never been a time of less crime. Check any category except maybe car theft as there were few cars before the 20th century and you will see that crime on a per person basis has dropped to historic lows.

This thread is a good example. 20 years ago how many people outside of Bellingham would know someone was taking legal photos in public places? This thread has people from Texas, New York, Australia, Netherlands etc. all reading about a person, maybe lecherous, taking pictures at public events.

Now you have added to body of misinformation that crime is rampant and our children are at risk.

The other hot topic about young people dressing provocatively. That is certainly a new problem...not. What turnip truck did you fall off?

40 years ago my sisters were rolling up their skirts so the boys would notice their legs. Take a few moments to read about other decades and you will find volumes about the precocious dress of young people. The big difference is that now you can see them 24/7 and back in the day you had to wait for Saturday to see the news at the movie house.

If this thread is tongue in cheek, then I was too slow to realize and I apologize. However, if it is not I suggest you take a few more pictures preferably landscapes to get your minds out of the gutter.

REd
 
dh steffi said:
dh steffi said:
The Bible says that if your kid argues with you, kill them. And
apparently this is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon...

9: For every one who curses his father or his mother shall be put
to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his blood is upon
him.

Leviticus 20:9

BTW Stephi, have you finally taken your first photograph?

Dave
Click to expand...
When the Bible telss you to kill it is ok, God cannot be wrong.
Thanks for asking, shot some pictures at our church outing.
Click to expand...
I think you should act immediately and attend some of the trials where parents kill their offspring. Many of them claim God told them to do it, and they could use your support and explanation to the jury of why they had no choice but to follow Gods word.

I take it that you have no children? Or were you forced to kill them?

Dave
 
Red13 wrote:
(snip)
Red13 said:
If this thread is tongue in cheek, then I was too slow to realize
and I apologize. However, if it is not I suggest you take a few
more pictures preferably landscapes to get your minds out of the
gutter.

REd
Click to expand...
But forty years ago six years olds did not participate in beauty contests that were designed to make them look like sexy adults, nor did childrens fashions aim at making them look sexy.

Yes, teen agers have always had to wrestle with pubescense, six year olds did not.

Dave
 
very interesting post. thank you. i was never aware of the phenomenon you're referring to, but now i am.

on that page you sent i found this cover, which is indeed very strange...

 
mediokre said:
very interesting post. thank you. i was never aware of the
phenomenon you're referring to, but now i am.

on that page you sent i found this cover, which is indeed very
strange...
Click to expand...
most (but not all) of the covers look like this. I didn't blow it up, It looks far "worse" this way.

But aside from the lipstick, the raised dresses,. notice that these little kids (and in this case I emphasise the word little) aren't doing what little kids do. They're not playing games, playing with dolls, doing what little kids normally do.

Moreover this is a Mainstream publication, not some attempt to get around the child pornography laws. So while others in this thread are emphasizing young teenagers, the real "legitimate" pornography is aimed at the 3-10 group.

And doesn't this (to a mind on the edge) make these children a legitimate target? Mind you, we are not talking about people with a full deck. But we are sending them a message - Are we not?

Dave
 
Red13 said:
If this thread is tongue in cheek, then I was too slow to realize
and I apologize. However, if it is not I suggest you take a few
more pictures preferably landscapes to get your minds out of the
gutter.

REd
Click to expand...
Thanks but my mind isn't in the gutter thanks for asking however, I didn't make this story up, it was the subject of a newspaper article and the subject of a call in radio show that I was listening to, the idea that if I had not posted the link here somehow makes the story not have had happened is ridiculous. There is this new thing called the internet that you might not of heard about. :-)

See, I actually do take photos, thanks for the suggestion. My point in posting this is that stories like the one I posted stick in peoples mind, no maybe not the entire story, but bits and pieces, so when I'm out taking photos like in my sig photo, I'd rather much have people ignore me, than to be suspicious of some guy with a camera walking around in an alley.
--



Kristian Farren
http://kf3.net
 
CharlieDIY said:
Our society is not structured for people who are too young to join
the work force, and the age is getting pushed higher all the time.
That is one deciding ofrce on sexuality, but youthful Biblical
marriage, like the marriages of princes and princesses in the
Middle Ages, appears to usually have been more of a legal fiction
based on political, or religious, need than anything else.
Click to expand...
You gotta remember that up until a few hundred years ago girls were usually married off no later than thirteen of fourteen, because the life expectancy, except for the well-heeled, was only around 40 years.

--

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
 
If you bring your SLR or your DSLR to a park or the streets for some landscape or street photography, I guess you have to be careful no children suddenly run in front of where you are shooting.

A professional photographer was almost arrested:

"Parr added: 'If you have a biggish camera you have to watch every step. I was nearly arrested because a father took exception to the fact that one of his children was in the background of a shot I had taken.' "

Source: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Martin_Parr_confronted_on_Copacabana_beach_news_109684.html
 
Fins said:
If you bring your SLR or your DSLR to a park or the streets for
some landscape or street photography, I guess you have to be
careful no children suddenly run in front of where you are shooting.
Click to expand...
Suddenly? That's OK, but you can't go around tracking little kids.

--mamallama
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top