Beautiful or outrageous?

[floo]

Why, Floo?

That photo creeped me out!

[L.A.]

There's a certain parallel here with that already well-worn phrase about letting terrorists win if you change your normal, everyday behaviour. Certainly it's a cliché, but the point behind it is no less true or relevant: to cease doing what you would normally do because of an infinitesimally small risk from an infinitesimally small group is allowing that tiny minority to dictate your behaviour. It's living with them in mind, not acting freely and doing whatever it is that you want to do. Anybody - professional photographer or not - who wants to share a beautiful image of their children but then thinks better of it because of paedo-paranoia has already ceded some control of their actions to faceless, nameless others. This should not and need not, in fact must not happen.

We have all had to modify our behaviour considerably over recent years in response to the terrorist threat (in case you hadn't noticed all those restrictions at airports etc)

For me, the issue is very simple - do I really want all manner of weirdos viewing intimate images of my children (or these days grandchildren) ? For me the answer is no, and I have difficulty understanding the mentality of those who fail to see the problem.

[floo]

We have all had to modify our behaviour considerably over recent years in response to the terrorist threat (in case you hadn't noticed all those restrictions at airports etc)

For me, the issue is very simple - do I really want all manner of weirdos viewing intimate images of my children (or these days grandchildren) ? For me the answer is no, and I have difficulty understanding the mentality of those who fail to see the problem.

I agree!

I find it hard to understand why anyone would wish to have a photo of themselves taken in such a compromising position. Is it normal for a naked parent to hold a naked child? Not in my book, it isn't.

I remember years ago Rolf Harris describing how his wife, child and himself would all cuddle up together naked in bed. I found that disquieting then, and of course now we know why he enjoyed doing so!

[Rhiannon]

Oh for goodness' sake, Floo! I don't agree with LA but I can see where he's coming from on thinking photos like that should be kept private. But there's nothing perverse or disgusting about the image itself. Nor is it compromising.

[floo]

Oh for goodness' sake, Floo! I don't agree with LA but I can see where he's coming from on thinking photos like that should be kept private. But there's nothing perverse or disgusting about the image itself. Nor is it compromising.

Well it is a topic on which we will have to agree to differ. I don't think parents and children should be naked together.

[Rhiannon]

Well it is a topic on which we will have to agree to differ. I don't think parents and children should be naked together.

 

[Shaker]

Well it is a topic on which we will have to agree to differ. I don't think parents and children should be naked together.

Mothers should of course give birth while wearing modest ankle-length clothing at all times.

[floo]

Mothers should of course give birth while wearing modest ankle-length clothing at all times.

Quite!

[Shaker]

We have all had to modify our behaviour considerably over recent years in response to the terrorist threat

I haven't.

(in case you hadn't noticed all those restrictions at airports etc)

Don't use them.

For me, the issue is very simple - do I really want all manner of weirdos viewing intimate images of my children (or these days grandchildren) ? For me the answer is no, and I have difficulty understanding the mentality of those who fail to see the problem.

I would say that I have great difficulty understanding the mentality of you and your fellow travellers, but for the fact that there seems to be precious little mentality on display, only utterly irrational paranoia and for some a level of prudishness about the human body not merely bordering on but over the line into the frankly pathological.

[Rhiannon]

My cousin's wife wanted to know if she could keep her pyjama trousers on when in labour.

[floo]

When I was in labour I wasn't completely naked, I would have felt most uncomfortable if I had been.

[Rhiannon]

The problem with the anti-terror stuff is that it's there to make us feel better. And if we think of the recent Germanwings tragedy anti-terror measures enabled the pilot to shut himself in.

The hysteria around paedophillia is the same. We are in danger of creating more problems because children aren't growing up with healthy ideas around nakedness and touch.

[Rhiannon]

When I was in labour I wasn't completely naked, I would have felt most uncomfortable if I had been.

Which is your choice. Others choose differently. I couldn't stand the feel of clothes on my skin when I was in labour.

[floo]

The problem with the anti-terror stuff is that it's there to make us feel better. And if we think of the recent Germanwings tragedy anti-terror measures enabled the pilot to shut himself in.

The hysteria around paedophillia is the same. We are in danger of creating more problems because children aren't growing up with healthy ideas around nakedness and touch.

I think nakedness is fine with your partner, but not in front of the kids. My husband and I have never been naked in front of our kids, they probably would have died if we had stripped off, just as I would have done if my parents had.

[Shaker]

But as you are so keen to remind us at every available opportunity, your upbringing didn't exactly strongly feature rational ideas about child rearing.

[Rhiannon]

Sooner or later kids need to know what normal nakedness looks like. Yes, there's a cut off point at which covering up is necessary. But I've always bathed or showered with my kids when they were little. And as for breastfeeding, topless is the best way by far in the early days when feeding is getting established.

[Brownie]

I'm inclined to agree with LA and floo but I don't think it is wrong for small children and parents to have baths together etc, I imagine most do. When they are little they still feel very much a part of you physically and getting in the bath or shower is quite natural. Not when they are are older of course, it just tails off, again naturally.  However it is very odd, creepy even, to post photographs of yourself and child with nothing on for the world and his wife to see.  It's private.  Another thing is, did the child give consent?  Of course not.

(Re:  Rolf.  There hasn't been any suggestion that he was ever up to shenanigans within the family, floo.  Horrible though his actions were his relations with his child appear to have been normal and she was as shocked as anyone when it all came out.)

[Shaker]

It's not merely painfully obvious but simply painful that this thread has attracted some of that class of individual who complain about mothers feeding their babies in public.

Creepy people like the nurse in this story: http://goo.gl/9wEa4i

[Rhiannon]

It's so hard being a parent as it is.

[Rhiannon]

I'm inclined to agree with LA and floo but I don't think it is wrong for small children and parents to have baths together etc, I imagine most do. When they are little they still feel very much a part of you physically and getting in the bath or shower is quite natural. Not when they are are older of course, it just tails off, again naturally.  However it is very odd, creepy even, to post photographs of yourself and child with nothing on for the world and his wife to see.  It's private.  Another thing is, did the child give consent?  Of course not.

(Re:  Rolf.  There hasn't been any suggestion that he was ever up to shenanigans within the family, floo.  Horrible though his actions were his relations with his child appear to have been normal and she was as shocked as anyone when it all came out.)

It's not odd, or creepy, unless you view nudity as odd and creepy.

When I was in Portugal a few years ago I walked to some caves by the cliffs where there was a tidal pool. A group of Austrian tourists of all ages just stripped off and went swimming. They had no culture of nudity being shameful.

[Shaker]

It's not odd, or creepy, unless you view nudity as odd and creepy.

... which by some recursive Möbius strip-like process is itself odd and creepy.

[Stranger]

Certainly it's a cliché, but the point behind it is no less true or relevant: to cease doing what you would normally do because of an infinitesimally small risk from an infinitesimally small group is allowing that tiny minority to dictate your behaviour. It's living with them in mind, not acting freely and doing whatever it is that you want to do. Anybody - professional photographer or not - who wants to share a beautiful image of their children but then thinks better of it because of paedo-paranoia has already ceded some control of their actions to faceless, nameless others. This should not and need not, in fact must not happen.

Well said.

[Brownie]

Your kids wouldn't have freaked out at your nakedness when they were little floo, they'd have thought nothing of it.  They must have seen you when they were babies and toddlers.  That's normal and natural within families and the little ones grow up knowing what an adult looks like, they don't even think about it.

What I think is wrong is putting pictures on the internet of yourself and child naked because everyone, not just close family, can see it and the child had no say in the matter.  I consider it rather exhibitionist but, OK, if someone wants to expose themselves they can, but not expose their child.

(I laughed at the story of the girl wanting to keep her pyjama bottoms on whilst giving birth.  I've never heard of anyone giving birth completely naked, they usually have a short, loose nightie on or hospital gown.  Even in a birthing pool.)

[floo]

It's not odd, or creepy, unless you view nudity as odd and creepy.

When I was in Portugal a few years ago I walked to some caves by the cliffs where there was a tidal pool. A group of Austrian tourists of all ages just stripped off and went swimming. They had no culture of nudity being shameful.

As I say we will have to agree to differ. I would never wish to appear naked in front of anyone apart from my husband.

[Rhiannon]

Your kids wouldn't have freaked out at your nakedness when they were little floo, they'd have thought nothing of it.  They must have seen you when they were babies and toddlers.  That's normal and natural within families and the little ones grow up knowing what an adult looks like, they don't even think about it.

What I think is wrong is putting pictures on the internet of yourself and child naked because everyone, not just close family, can see it and the child had no say in the matter.  I consider it rather exhibitionist but, OK, if someone wants to expose themselves they can, but not expose their child.

(I laughed at the story of the girl wanting to keep her pyjama bottoms on whilst giving birth.  I've never heard of anyone giving birth completely naked, they usually have a short, loose nightie on or hospital gown.  Even in a birthing pool.)

But again we come back to this idea that nakedness is inherently sexual. It isn't. If you want all photographs that paedophiles are likely to get off on to require the permission of the child before use them you are in effect asking for all photographs of children to be removed from the public domain until a child is old enough to give consent.